4 ms·

I was trying to read this charitably, but here’s a quote from Adams’ Twitter: > 1. Treat everyone as an individual (no discrimination). > 2. Avoid any group t

I was trying to read this charitably, but here’s a quote from Adams’ Twitter: > 1. Treat everyone as an individual (no discrimination). > 2. Avoid any group that doesn't respect you. The irony is that the second point is literally discrimination. Wholesale avoiding a specific race, regardless of your reasoning, is racist by definition. This is no different than Kanye talking about “the Jews”. Don’t take group generalizations (especially distorted ones) and prejudiciously apply them to individuals.

ihatepython 4y ago
group != race You inferred race
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Adams himself inferred race when he defined Black people to be a group that fits into category (2) on his podcast yesterday.
Y_Y 4y ago
I have no skin in this game, but a quick reading gave me the impression that he is claiming that Black Americans on average don't like White Americans, and therefore the latter should avoid the former. I don't know if he says that in good faith, or if there's a subtext I'm missing, but it seems like there's a reasonable way to interpret this that doesn't involve Adams harbouring an unfair negative prejudice. I don't expect anyone is going to come along and steelman his argument for us, but I do have difficulty seeing how the NYP's article and the general reaction follows from what I naively impute from Adams' quotes. To be clear, I'm not trying to say who's right or anything, I'm saying that I think as someone disconnected from US racial politics I seem to lack some necessary context.
- stranded22 4y ago
  Saying that Black Americans don’t generally like White Americans - it’s generalising based purely on skin colour. Pretty much text book prejudice.
  - Y_Y 4y ago
    Wasn't that a response to the survey results discussed in the article? Or do you mean that he had this prejudice and used the survey as a post-hoc justification?
Dalewyn 4y ago
Respect is a two-way street and you owe no respect to those who don't respect you. If a group doesn't respect you, it's fair to ignore them. Tough shit if they are offended by the response. Plus, if you apply this to /everyone equally/ it's not discrimination. Also as already mentioned by another commenter: group !== race
- hackerlight 4y ago
  This is anti-individualist and collectivist rhetoric. A "group" of heterogeneous people with different viewpoints can't disrespect you. Only a subset of individuals within that group are capable of that. All the other individuals within that same group are innocent. So this talk of grouping all Black people into a homogeneous group that hate white people is factually incorrect, anti-individualist and dangerous.
  - JesusLovesEwe 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - somebehemoth 4y ago
      > The unfortunate reality for your worldview is that I can significantly improve the health, wealth, and happiness of myself… You don’t sound very happy. You sound very, very angry.
      - JesusLovesEwe 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
Yizahi 4y ago
Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :) PS: Just a joke about hypocrisy of some individuals, I personally support all kinds of different discriminated groups, both locally and globally, including Jews.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :) Generally, Jewish people (either the religious or the ethnic group, for different reasons) per se are not generally included in “people of color”, though the religious group overlaps with “people of color”. But “people of color” is not a catch-all for all marginalized groups, or even all racial/ethnic marginalized groups, Jewish people being excluded from it is no more “hypocrisy” than “Black” not generally including East Asians.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    I didn't say that "poc" was a catch-all for marginalized groups. I was using the term literally, as in - Jews are not "white", therefore they are "people of color" by the definition. And Asian people, be they from middle east or far east, are "people of color" too. But they are often excluded from that group due to the reasons unclear for me. My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word "black". So they have constructed a hypocritical landmine by their own hands, and after "other" people of color readily showed up, from all across the globe, they are in a collective denial.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Jews are not “white” In classical racial theory terms, Jewish people, as a (sub)racial group are, actually, White (the subcategory hierarchy running, from the top, Caucasian -> Mediterranean -> Semitic -> Jewish.) Now, its true that despite classic racial theory being intimately connected to various forms of White supremacy, most actual forms of White supremacy include bigotry that operates on different levels than classic races, and treats lots fo White subgroups as either non-White or inferior within the broader White race, but that’s a side issue. “People of color” has never been intended to mean “every group marginalized by the particular people adhering to White supremacy in the immediate social context”; it is fairly inclusive, but its not intended as a catchall, and exclusion of people from that label is not discrimination against them. > My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word “black”. Actually, he term was one of many used during the period of de jure discrimination to refer to people of black ancestry (in some times and places, like “mulatto”, with precise legal definitions which distinguished it from “black”.) From there it was one of many terms adopted to varying degrees within the community of black ancestry (sometimes, as equivalent to “black”, and sometimes, within some corners of the community that use “black” more narrowly, with a broader definition.) It faded as an identity label within that community, and was recycle for broader use fairly recently (“black and brown” has been used in a fairly similar sense for a longer time, and still has considerable currency; a lot of activists will use “black and brown people” as the general collective term, but something like “woman of color” when referring to an individual – actual or hypothetical – person.)

ihatepython 4y ago

group != race You inferred race

hackerlight 4y ago
Adams himself inferred race when he defined Black people to be a group that fits into category (2) on his podcast yesterday.

Y_Y 4y ago

I have no skin in this game, but a quick reading gave me the impression that he is claiming that Black Americans on average don't like White Americans, and therefore the latter should avoid the former. I don't know if he says that in good faith, or if there's a subtext I'm missing, but it seems like there's a reasonable way to interpret this that doesn't involve Adams harbouring an unfair negative prejudice. I don't expect anyone is going to come along and steelman his argument for us, but I do have difficulty seeing how the NYP's article and the general reaction follows from what I naively impute from Adams' quotes. To be clear, I'm not trying to say who's right or anything, I'm saying that I think as someone disconnected from US racial politics I seem to lack some necessary context.

stranded22 4y ago
Saying that Black Americans don’t generally like White Americans - it’s generalising based purely on skin colour. Pretty much text book prejudice.
- Y_Y 4y ago
  Wasn't that a response to the survey results discussed in the article? Or do you mean that he had this prejudice and used the survey as a post-hoc justification?

Dalewyn 4y ago

Respect is a two-way street and you owe no respect to those who don't respect you. If a group doesn't respect you, it's fair to ignore them. Tough shit if they are offended by the response. Plus, if you apply this to /everyone equally/ it's not discrimination. Also as already mentioned by another commenter: group !== race

hackerlight 4y ago
This is anti-individualist and collectivist rhetoric. A "group" of heterogeneous people with different viewpoints can't disrespect you. Only a subset of individuals within that group are capable of that. All the other individuals within that same group are innocent. So this talk of grouping all Black people into a homogeneous group that hate white people is factually incorrect, anti-individualist and dangerous.
- JesusLovesEwe 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - somebehemoth 4y ago
    > The unfortunate reality for your worldview is that I can significantly improve the health, wealth, and happiness of myself… You don’t sound very happy. You sound very, very angry.
    - JesusLovesEwe 4y ago
      [flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Yizahi 4y ago

Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :) PS: Just a joke about hypocrisy of some individuals, I personally support all kinds of different discriminated groups, both locally and globally, including Jews.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :) Generally, Jewish people (either the religious or the ethnic group, for different reasons) per se are not generally included in “people of color”, though the religious group overlaps with “people of color”. But “people of color” is not a catch-all for all marginalized groups, or even all racial/ethnic marginalized groups, Jewish people being excluded from it is no more “hypocrisy” than “Black” not generally including East Asians.
- Yizahi 4y ago
  I didn't say that "poc" was a catch-all for marginalized groups. I was using the term literally, as in - Jews are not "white", therefore they are "people of color" by the definition. And Asian people, be they from middle east or far east, are "people of color" too. But they are often excluded from that group due to the reasons unclear for me. My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word "black". So they have constructed a hypocritical landmine by their own hands, and after "other" people of color readily showed up, from all across the globe, they are in a collective denial.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Jews are not “white” In classical racial theory terms, Jewish people, as a (sub)racial group are, actually, White (the subcategory hierarchy running, from the top, Caucasian -> Mediterranean -> Semitic -> Jewish.) Now, its true that despite classic racial theory being intimately connected to various forms of White supremacy, most actual forms of White supremacy include bigotry that operates on different levels than classic races, and treats lots fo White subgroups as either non-White or inferior within the broader White race, but that’s a side issue. “People of color” has never been intended to mean “every group marginalized by the particular people adhering to White supremacy in the immediate social context”; it is fairly inclusive, but its not intended as a catchall, and exclusion of people from that label is not discrimination against them. > My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word “black”. Actually, he term was one of many used during the period of de jure discrimination to refer to people of black ancestry (in some times and places, like “mulatto”, with precise legal definitions which distinguished it from “black”.) From there it was one of many terms adopted to varying degrees within the community of black ancestry (sometimes, as equivalent to “black”, and sometimes, within some corners of the community that use “black” more narrowly, with a broader definition.) It faded as an identity label within that community, and was recycle for broader use fairly recently (“black and brown” has been used in a fairly similar sense for a longer time, and still has considerable currency; a lot of activists will use “black and brown people” as the general collective term, but something like “woman of color” when referring to an individual – actual or hypothetical – person.)