3 ms·

He is referring to racist racists.

by 6510 5y ago

chihuahua 5y ago
we should always be careful to distinguish between real racists and true racists.
giantg2 5y ago
As opposed to...?
- 6510 5y ago
  As opposed to people who are concerned about the project for other perhaps more palatable reasons.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I didn't see any context that would support that, given that the only mention of people it these sorts of concerns were labeled as racists. Did I miss something?
    - pvg 5y ago
      The thread talks about hypothetical, rather than specific people who oppose development in bad faith using other reasons to hide their true, often racially- or class- tinged reasons. You decided to call the author of this thread (a real person) a racist because they mention imaginary racists.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "You decided to call the author of this thread (a real person) a racist because they mention imaginary racists." Did I? You might want to read back. I said calling people racist for bringing up traffic issues could itself seem racist. "The thread talks about hypothetical, rather than specific people who oppose development in bad faith using other reasons to hide their true, often racially- or class- tinged reasons." Did I miss the part about classist people? I only saw NIMBY and race mentioned. Are these hypothetical people? It seems the author is using real life experiences in this article, so in this context I assume they are talking about real, yet unnamed, examples they have witnessed. If not, it seems odd that they would offer up detailed, named, real examples for other parts, but not for this. Seems a bit hand wavy about it happening at any significant scale as well as in it's implication that people concerned about a traffic issue are all racists since there is no mention of the legitimate concern.
        pvg 5y ago
        I'd rather not read back because then I'd have to read a really lousy comment in which you decide to focus on a single detail of this thread you find provocative, deploy a horrid flamy 'who are the real racists' trope and then complain about downvotes, all of which the guidelines ask you not to do. Beside just being kind of awful. Just don't this shit.
        giantg2 5y ago
        "I'd rather not read back because then I'd have to read a really lousy comment in which you decide to focus on a single detail of this thread you find provocative, deploy a horrid flamy 'who are the real racists' trope and then complain about downvotes, all of which the guidelines ask you not to do. Beside just being kind of awful. Just don't this shit." Please do read back because you have you're facts wrong. My comment mentioned the racist labeling issue. But it primarily was focused at bringing up the issue of how housing preferences are a big part of costs. It seems nobody wanted to talk about that part and instead chose to go after this other part. I don't believe I violated any guidelines. My comment was intended to talk to the substance of the article (housing costs) and also call into question the validity of insinuating that people raising potentially valid issues in their communities is somehow racist. The author doesn't even address the traffic claims in detail. It's possible the person rasing the traffic issue isn't opposed to the project based on race but on another reason like cost to the community to re-engineering the intersection (it's quite common to make developers pay for the traffic modifications and allow the project to continue). I don't see my comment as being flame bait. I had no intention of it spawning such extensive replies. I believe all of my comments have been high quality and served a valid point/correction/etc. If you can't see that, can you explain why? You claim I'm employing a horrid troupe, yet this seems to violate the HN guideline to be charitable. I'd much rather discuss the actual content than this discussion about each other's comments. I don't believe I complained about downvoting. I merely asked why. To me this seems fair to ask as discourse can generate new knowledge and that curiosity is a big part of hacker culture. There are a lot of other users on this site who have seen downvotes abused and would like to see comments attached.
        5y ago
whymauri 5y ago
This thread is so deep in recursively calling groups racist I'm not sure who we are talking about anymore. Recursion depth met >_<

He is referring to racist racists.

by 6510 5y ago

He is referring to racist racists.

chihuahua 5y ago

we should always be careful to distinguish between real racists and true racists.

giantg2 5y ago

As opposed to...?

6510 5y ago
As opposed to people who are concerned about the project for other perhaps more palatable reasons.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I didn't see any context that would support that, given that the only mention of people it these sorts of concerns were labeled as racists. Did I miss something?
  - pvg 5y ago
    The thread talks about hypothetical, rather than specific people who oppose development in bad faith using other reasons to hide their true, often racially- or class- tinged reasons. You decided to call the author of this thread (a real person) a racist because they mention imaginary racists.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "You decided to call the author of this thread (a real person) a racist because they mention imaginary racists." Did I? You might want to read back. I said calling people racist for bringing up traffic issues could itself seem racist. "The thread talks about hypothetical, rather than specific people who oppose development in bad faith using other reasons to hide their true, often racially- or class- tinged reasons." Did I miss the part about classist people? I only saw NIMBY and race mentioned. Are these hypothetical people? It seems the author is using real life experiences in this article, so in this context I assume they are talking about real, yet unnamed, examples they have witnessed. If not, it seems odd that they would offer up detailed, named, real examples for other parts, but not for this. Seems a bit hand wavy about it happening at any significant scale as well as in it's implication that people concerned about a traffic issue are all racists since there is no mention of the legitimate concern.
      - pvg 5y ago
        I'd rather not read back because then I'd have to read a really lousy comment in which you decide to focus on a single detail of this thread you find provocative, deploy a horrid flamy 'who are the real racists' trope and then complain about downvotes, all of which the guidelines ask you not to do. Beside just being kind of awful. Just don't this shit.
        giantg2 5y ago
        "I'd rather not read back because then I'd have to read a really lousy comment in which you decide to focus on a single detail of this thread you find provocative, deploy a horrid flamy 'who are the real racists' trope and then complain about downvotes, all of which the guidelines ask you not to do. Beside just being kind of awful. Just don't this shit." Please do read back because you have you're facts wrong. My comment mentioned the racist labeling issue. But it primarily was focused at bringing up the issue of how housing preferences are a big part of costs. It seems nobody wanted to talk about that part and instead chose to go after this other part. I don't believe I violated any guidelines. My comment was intended to talk to the substance of the article (housing costs) and also call into question the validity of insinuating that people raising potentially valid issues in their communities is somehow racist. The author doesn't even address the traffic claims in detail. It's possible the person rasing the traffic issue isn't opposed to the project based on race but on another reason like cost to the community to re-engineering the intersection (it's quite common to make developers pay for the traffic modifications and allow the project to continue). I don't see my comment as being flame bait. I had no intention of it spawning such extensive replies. I believe all of my comments have been high quality and served a valid point/correction/etc. If you can't see that, can you explain why? You claim I'm employing a horrid troupe, yet this seems to violate the HN guideline to be charitable. I'd much rather discuss the actual content than this discussion about each other's comments. I don't believe I complained about downvoting. I merely asked why. To me this seems fair to ask as discourse can generate new knowledge and that curiosity is a big part of hacker culture. There are a lot of other users on this site who have seen downvotes abused and would like to see comments attached.
        5y ago

whymauri 5y ago

This thread is so deep in recursively calling groups racist I'm not sure who we are talking about anymore. Recursion depth met >_<