13 ms·

I see it as unintentional discrimination. It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It'

I see it as unintentional discrimination. It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It's so condescending. Minorities don't need white Knights to save them, neither do the disabled. If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. But a group of academics should not be able to sit around and decide that a group as a whole needs saving. It very much forces otherness on people and to your point furthers the divide. it forces us to see them as different. Side note, and this is completely off topic and I really mean this in the most positive way but you typing here has completely altered my perception of the need for following web standards for accessibility. I don't know any blind people in real life so really just assumed that accessibility standards really weren't worth the effort as they wouldn't make a difference. But here you are reading and responding in a manner that's probably better than I do. I am 100% on board now. You opened my mind today, thanks for that.

hutzlibu 4y ago
[flagged]
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  There are always exceptions and genocide is very obviously one. I was referring more to the socially constructed self inflicted battles society has been engaging in lately.
  - attemptone 4y ago
    I was looking around for societal battles that were not socially constructed. But I guess I'm visually impaired in that respect. Maybe you can help me?
    - raspberry1337 4y ago
      I was looking around for something that is not socially constructed. But I guess I am socio-constructually visio-impaired in that respect. Maybe you can help me?
      - attemptone 4y ago
        In that case I think we have to find some one-eyed man and make him king. Maybe we can take some of the 'intellectual dark-web'figureheads and blindly follow them. They pretend to have a grasp of this scoial-construction thing. But I'd rather like to continue searching the intellectual deep-web for a person with actual sight.
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      Got me ;)
  - cutemonster 4y ago
    It's a somewhat common exception unfortunately.
- hardlytrueisit 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Veen 4y ago
    I didn’t know the British had manufactured potato blight. That’s quite advanced tech for the time.
    - rocketbop 4y ago
      Parent doesn’t say that they manufactured blight but that they manufactured famine. This is also incorrect although they did preside over one and were reluctant to intervene for a variety of reasons, some economic and some philosophical. Edit: and just to add, it was certainly not an attempt at genocide.
    - raspberry1337 4y ago
      The blight in itself of course was not manufactured, however the policies that led up to the total dependency on one type of crop never failing, and the botched emergency reponse; was. However, this famine is of course, not even a tear in the sea compared to the holocaust, which remains the most horrific act ever, forever; and every other act past or future will only be a tiny fraction of the depth of its importance. History begin and ends with the holocaust the plight of the Jews.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      If you mean the disease, no. If you mean blight as in "a thing that spoils or damages something", that something being the Irish substinence, they absolutely did. Read some history. And since a million died, it's not exactly laughing matter to joke about.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    Well, the nazis and jews and the evaluation of the events is a quite clear example. The jews went into the death camps, because no one came to save them and they had no chance on their own at that time. There are not many people debating this, I supposed. (but might have been wrong) That's why choose this example and not to discuss about Hitler. Where on the other hand your example, is pretty much debatable, like you see on the reactions. So why on earth, are you lecturing me about HN from a green account?
- recuter 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    So your family members would have rejected the help of Schindler and co while under occupation and in direct death threat? Or would have rejected the allies when they came liberating the camps? Seriously? As far as I know, the jews and all other surpressed minorities of europe were making great risks, to get information (like from a hidden radio) about the advance of the allies. Because this was the main thing bringing hope. edit: and sure, it was the gestapo who flagged you and not simply people annoyed by your insulting debate style.
    - recuter 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        Nope. I did not made any claims about myself here. I merley stated, that no one came to save the jews in europe, which is why they went to the death camps. Which you are debating for some reason, along with personal insults. I suppose because you think the jews should have been organized better and fend for themself? Well, maybe. But they were not organized. They were in the weaker position and chased by the Nazis. In this situation, outside help is needed in my perception, but you may think whatever you want about it all. And if you can share what you think without insults, I might read it.
        recuter 4y ago
        [flagged]
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >So your family members would have rejected the help of Schindler and co while under occupation and in direct death threat? They would have accepted it out of necessity. Doesn't mean depending on "white knights" is desirable or effective. Didn't work out of several other million, for starters. Even less desirable when there is no "direct death threat", and the victims are perfectly capable of having opinions and speaking for themselves, as opposed to others co-opting and/or hijacking their concerns.
- marmee 4y ago
  Jews in WW2 needed the Allies to bomb Auschwitz, they did not need Churchill to stop using the word Jew because it is offensive. It is not similar, unless if you have the preconceived notion that 'language is action'
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "Jews in WW2 needed the Allies to bomb Auschwitz" I don't really think, the jews in the camp, would have welcomed to be bombed, on top of the daily routine. Can you elaborate how being blown to pieces would have helped anyone, except maybe a lucky person used the chaos to escape (to where exactly)? Also I did not say anything about language equals action and were just speaking in broad terms about helping minorities. And "jew" is not offensive, but there are offensive terms for jews. And whether banning them would have helped, I did not made any statement about. But I forgot, it is friday and probably not the best time to comment here.
    - marmee 4y ago
      Auschwitz was effectively a factory of death. Bombing the gas chambers, crematorium, rail lines might have helped. About Jew: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/05/jew-not-slur/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/05/jew-not-sl... Also forgive me if I have assumed because of the context that you argued through analogy for protecting minorities of harmful language, my bad
      - wonderwonder 4y ago
        As a Jew, what else would you call a group of us? A flock of Jew? A gaggle of Jew? A Jewbilee? Feel free to use the word Jews, otherwise it's just going to get weird ;)
        bombcar 4y ago
        This right here strikes at the root of the issue - if someone wants to refer to a group with hate, there is NO way to fix that by changing the term. And changing the term to try to avoid it just results in weird terms and euphemisms, it doesn’t eliminate hate.
- boredumb 4y ago
  You mean the home-country-challenged people living among THE biggest oppressors in history needed help after literally-hitler was about to unalive them?
- jrd259 4y ago
  I can't explain the downvotes. Visit https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous.html https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous.html for a chronicle of some of the people who saved some of my people.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "I can't explain the downvotes" I forgot it is friday and "white Knight" is a trigger word for some. So when there's a headline that says: "Banning words won’t make the world more just" and then I say "it depends" to a subpoint with white knight, then I seem to represent the woke enemy to them, who wants to dictate what words they are allowed to use (even though I am actually very pro free speech). And as a german regarding the righteous and why there were so few of them: I know the mindset from my grandparents and it was/is one of having a very strong taboo of doing anything against the state, or just thinking about it. They were not nazis and knew what the state was doing was wrong even though they didn't know the details. But they kept their head as low as possible, as most did. And marched in line, if ordered so. So they share their responsibility. I would like to think, that I would have acted different, but would I? I would have been a different person, being born into that time and culture. So it is also a tough question of what I personally feel about it. Should I feel personally sorry about industrial mass murdering done by "my kind"? Well, I don't really feel connected to those germans as a whole at all. But I do feel connected to my grandparents, so sorry on their behalf, that my family didn't do anything to my knowledge, to help your people. (And personally I do my best to keep the local nazis in check today) edit: and those words still feel empty. But I don't find better words. Because the holocaust was just outstanding industrial mass murder with the goal to wipe out a whole race. What can you say about it? Certainly not, what a member of the new german right said: "The german history is a great one and the holocaust was just a litle dirt on it" So back on topic, I think this person should have the right to say this. Because everyone else now knows what those people (who are all officially against nazis) are really standing for.
trompetenaccoun 4y ago
Identity politics is not unintentional. Those indoctrinated into it may be unaware but the intention is to divide us.
- jraph 4y ago
  > the intention is to divide us Who actually has this intention and why?
  - meany 4y ago
    In general, creating division between classes, races, religious groups presents opportunities for individuals to gather power by taking up the cause for one group. By establishing an “other” you have an enemy to rally support for your leadership. This is the basis of power for every demagogue from the Cleon in Athens to Joe McCarthy and the American Red Scare. This is also a core theme in Orwell’s 1984. In the context of the OPs topic, there are those who honestly are trying to improve the world, but many people have new found careers and political power created by the division on both the Right and Left.
    - jraph 4y ago
      Still not buying this in the current context but interested if you have any concrete example.
      - lazyeye 4y ago
        This is like someone swimming in an ocean asking for proof that water is wet.
      - kodt 4y ago
        Concentration of wealth under capitalism?
  - JacobThreeThree 4y ago
    The "who" is pretty easy - it's corporate media outlets: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great...
scotty79 4y ago
I think that people feel increasingly alienated. They feel bad so they search for their special "community". In doing that they alienate themselves further from average person. They create terminology and adopt language for their niche with clear disregard of any real people and issues.
lynx23 4y ago
Web accessibility is indeed a very important thing for people like me. I am aware we are a very small minority with rather special needs in this regard, but believe me, investing in accessibility and therefore allowing people with visual and motor disabilities to interact with the digital world can have unexpectedly wonderful consequences for those benefiting from it. It is not often that I manage to pull tech people into this topic such that it actually lasts, but the few I know have made quite a difference. I am pretty thrilled to hear I might have sparked an interest in web accessibility in you. Thanks for caring! Its a wonderful rabbit hole.
- eru 4y ago
  I'm only colour-blind, but I am too, benefitting from accessibility work meant primarily for blind people. And so do the elderly. Which will be all of us in the future (except those who plan to live fast and die young). Humanity is getting older and older on average, too.
  - lynx23 4y ago
    Thats right. My girlfriend works for an assistive technology reseller. A growing number of their customers are elderly people who end up using technologies designed for the blind to keep on communicating. iOS with VoiceOver comes to mind. This was designed for the blind. But a determined elderly person whoes vision has deteriorated enough can also use it to avoid being cut off from everything.
- Tzela 4y ago
  I'm interested as well. I run a small science club for kids, mainly coding and electronics. Accessibility and being more inclusive is a very old bullet point on my long list of things to do, but I never found a place to start. Do you have any recommendation on where to learn this?
  - lynx23 4y ago
    Hard question, because the field so diverse. In a sense, accessibility is much more then just trying to make computers useable for the blind. At a fundamental level, it is about making software flexible enough to be used in different modalities. People with very little motor capabilities are quite capable of looking at a screen, but they need help moving the mouse and perhaps a good predictive onscreen keyboard to be able to type. Blind people on the other hand are mostly quite content with a standard keyboard, but they need a totally different way of output, like tactile braille or synthesized speech. For the output part, it boils down to having an API which makes a third party app (like a screen reader) able to traverse the logical structure of what the application is presenting on-screen. That is mostly a sort of tree which reflects which widget contains what, and the different types of content. Such an API, however, is not only required for screen readers, but also very useful for things like automated testing, for instance. So a web automation or testing framework could actually be written on top of the accessibility APIs, and sometimes actually is. I am rumbling about this to get you in the right mindset. Its so hard to not see the forest because of all the trees around... That said, if we're talking about web accessibility, the obvious recommendation is the WAI WCAG. Maybe not the best reference for learning on how to implement things, but its a good start. Depending on the platform you're at home with, there are screen readers (NVDA, Orca, BRLTTY) which are open source and can be studied. On the user side, and on the "how is this implemented" side. Installing NVDA on Windows and turning the monitor off is a good way to get your feet wet. It might feel strange at first, but you will notice that things can actually get done this way. Its also a good way to test a website if you have no specific accessibility knowhow yet. Just try to navigate and read its contents.
coldtea 4y ago
>It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It also help give the later a role, some power over others (policing various such language and issues, using it against their enemies -out of good nature of course, sure), and sometimes, a full career...
madaxe_again 4y ago
I have been told in no uncertain terms that the word “minority” is offensive, as it has come to have pejorative use. No alternative term was suggested, rather that one should refer to specific groups of people with their specific terms, and never generalise. Additionally, “white knight” I have also been told off for, for the reasons you might expect. In both of these cases (actually, almost every case I can think of) my language was being policed by, um, materially unencumbered birthgivers of reduced melanin.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  I love the term white knight specifically because it's offensive to those I reference with it and because it does such a great job describing my view of them and ironically their unconcious view of themselves. Also the amusing thing is that they are always white.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    > they are always white Might it be because they think they know best?
- wholinator2 4y ago
  I feel like, Materially Unencumbered Birth Gives of Reduced Melanin, is approaching an actual usable acronym for the typical pejorative, Karen. I bet chatgpt could bridge the gap
  - samastur 4y ago
    I don't see white women standing out in their behaviour, but they sure will always remain an acceptable group to beat up on without losing your progressive or otherwise credentials. Karen at this point is always pejorative and pretty much just not well hidden sexism at best.
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      That's been the most impactful change of the entire progressive movement. It's now ok to be sexist and racist against white women. It's feminism stood on its head. The reduction of white women to a meme has been incredible to watch. No idea why anyone would be for this.
azangru 4y ago
> If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. It's a pretty big cognitive load though, to remember what everyone finds or doesn't find offensive. This is what bothers me about the recent obsession with pronouns - I have enough trouble remembering people's names; and now I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given person? That's the complexity I don't want.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  We have externalized what used to be an internal issues Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" and replaced it with "words are violence" or even worse "silence is violence" Today it no longer enough to be "tolerant" you have to actively affirm, support, and validate everything about everyone at all times and support their emotional state no matter the practicality or reality of the situation.
  - tsgagnon 4y ago
    It feels a bit hypocritical to make this sort of proclamation on a social media site with extremely strict moderation. Almost as though this isn't as simple a topic as "stick and stones" and that everyone has different tolerances for what they'll put up with depending on the setting and context.
  - jraph 4y ago
    > Offense is a you problem, not a me problem Most definitely not. Of course people need to work on themselves to avoid being offended. But if you communicate with other people, it's because you want to achieve something. Probably not offending the target (or else fuck you I guess ;-)). So, usually, offense gets in the way, so you should care about not offending your target. And beyond this, as human beings, we usually care not to hurt other human beings. It's a we problem. > no matter the practicality or reality of the situation. Do you have example of this? Of course you are expected to show some empathy/sympathy, but I've never seem people impose unrealistic expectations.
pas 4y ago
... but ... are "group of academics [..] sit around and decide that a group as a whole needs saving"? (Yes, probably some are, academia always has a few truly crazy people.) Mostly they parrot the same "old tautologies" (like language matters, structural issues are real, people's personal prejudices manifest in many ways, etc) in various new forms, shapes, phrasings. However, that doesn't mean they are wrong. (Nor that they are automatically right.) white knights are not academics, they are usually the walking-talking examples of severe Dunning-Kruger phenomena. ... I'm writing all this, because your post uses very broad and general terms like progressives and academics, and I think that's bad. (Because it forces my ego to reconsider the `progressive` label, that I used to apply to myself. Naturally without doing anything good/bad progressive really. :| )
erulabs 4y ago
The absolute worst incarnation of this is "latinx". Don't worry latin world, the english speaking world is here once again to tell you how backwards your entire language and culture is! The absolute height of "offensive sensitivity" in my opinion. > But a group of academics should not be able to sit around and decide that a group as a whole needs saving If this isn't one of the core problems with every aspect of society...
- 8note 4y ago
  You'd think that, Latinx does come from Spanish speakers, both with the -x and -e endings https://youtu.be/P3yfGQivroE https://youtu.be/P3yfGQivroE
sonjat 4y ago
I can't speak towards how other people, particularly minorities or the disabled think, but, as a woman, I hate the unintentional "othering" of people trying to do the right thing. I am typically the only woman at work, and people will often correct others who use terms like "guys" with statements like "guys or girls". I understand that they are doing it with good intentions and don't get angry, but to me it just serves to drive home the point that I am different. I am not like the others.
- clarge1120 4y ago
  As a "minority" I completely agree with you. IMO, the White Knights target the "others" for an opportunity to virtue signal. It got old after the first time it happened.
rayiner 4y ago
> I see it as unintentional discrimination. It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It's so condescending. I don't know how "unintentional" it is, but it sure is "discrimination" and "condescending." It's like how liberal whites dumb down their speech when talkign to black people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liber.... The dynamic is entirely consistent with them thinking about themselves as shepherding sheep. It's why they don't really care that nobody likes "Latinx." Who care what the sheep want to call themselves? It's also why they don't care whether the people they platform as icons of minority groups (Ilhan Omar, etc.) are representative of those groups or not. It's not coalition politics with give-and-take and compromise. It's a parent/child relationship.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Isn't it enough just to point out that Hispanic/Latino people reject "Latinx", rather than continuously trying to psychoanalyze the people (who are not exclusively white) who do choose to use it? At a minimum, you're now citing social science research to make your point, but you are yourself a vociferous critical of social science research. You're making it hard to agree with you or to reach a shared understanding; like, I think "Latinx" as a universal term for Hispanic/Latino people is silly and mostly an elite discourse shibboleth, too, but the Extended Rayiner Cinematic Universe of paternal white behavior is not something I buy into.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    "Latinx" is just an easy-to-analyze example of a wider phenomenon where elite whites intervene on behalf of minorities while being wholly indifferent to what those minorities actually want. "Defund the police," racial preferences for hiring and education, "micro-aggressions," and many others are examples. I think the psychoanalysis is necessary to understand the phenomenon in a coherent way. Obviously I can't get in their heads. It's just a theory based on conversations where mentioning polling and statistics would be met with dead shark eyes in response.

hutzlibu 4y ago

[flagged]

wonderwonder 4y ago
There are always exceptions and genocide is very obviously one. I was referring more to the socially constructed self inflicted battles society has been engaging in lately.
- attemptone 4y ago
  I was looking around for societal battles that were not socially constructed. But I guess I'm visually impaired in that respect. Maybe you can help me?
  - raspberry1337 4y ago
    I was looking around for something that is not socially constructed. But I guess I am socio-constructually visio-impaired in that respect. Maybe you can help me?
    - attemptone 4y ago
      In that case I think we have to find some one-eyed man and make him king. Maybe we can take some of the 'intellectual dark-web'figureheads and blindly follow them. They pretend to have a grasp of this scoial-construction thing. But I'd rather like to continue searching the intellectual deep-web for a person with actual sight.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    Got me ;)
- cutemonster 4y ago
  It's a somewhat common exception unfortunately.
hardlytrueisit 4y ago
[flagged]
- Veen 4y ago
  I didn’t know the British had manufactured potato blight. That’s quite advanced tech for the time.
  - rocketbop 4y ago
    Parent doesn’t say that they manufactured blight but that they manufactured famine. This is also incorrect although they did preside over one and were reluctant to intervene for a variety of reasons, some economic and some philosophical. Edit: and just to add, it was certainly not an attempt at genocide.
  - raspberry1337 4y ago
    The blight in itself of course was not manufactured, however the policies that led up to the total dependency on one type of crop never failing, and the botched emergency reponse; was. However, this famine is of course, not even a tear in the sea compared to the holocaust, which remains the most horrific act ever, forever; and every other act past or future will only be a tiny fraction of the depth of its importance. History begin and ends with the holocaust the plight of the Jews.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    If you mean the disease, no. If you mean blight as in "a thing that spoils or damages something", that something being the Irish substinence, they absolutely did. Read some history. And since a million died, it's not exactly laughing matter to joke about.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  Well, the nazis and jews and the evaluation of the events is a quite clear example. The jews went into the death camps, because no one came to save them and they had no chance on their own at that time. There are not many people debating this, I supposed. (but might have been wrong) That's why choose this example and not to discuss about Hitler. Where on the other hand your example, is pretty much debatable, like you see on the reactions. So why on earth, are you lecturing me about HN from a green account?
recuter 4y ago
[flagged]
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  So your family members would have rejected the help of Schindler and co while under occupation and in direct death threat? Or would have rejected the allies when they came liberating the camps? Seriously? As far as I know, the jews and all other surpressed minorities of europe were making great risks, to get information (like from a hidden radio) about the advance of the allies. Because this was the main thing bringing hope. edit: and sure, it was the gestapo who flagged you and not simply people annoyed by your insulting debate style.
  - recuter 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      Nope. I did not made any claims about myself here. I merley stated, that no one came to save the jews in europe, which is why they went to the death camps. Which you are debating for some reason, along with personal insults. I suppose because you think the jews should have been organized better and fend for themself? Well, maybe. But they were not organized. They were in the weaker position and chased by the Nazis. In this situation, outside help is needed in my perception, but you may think whatever you want about it all. And if you can share what you think without insults, I might read it.
      - recuter 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >So your family members would have rejected the help of Schindler and co while under occupation and in direct death threat? They would have accepted it out of necessity. Doesn't mean depending on "white knights" is desirable or effective. Didn't work out of several other million, for starters. Even less desirable when there is no "direct death threat", and the victims are perfectly capable of having opinions and speaking for themselves, as opposed to others co-opting and/or hijacking their concerns.
marmee 4y ago
Jews in WW2 needed the Allies to bomb Auschwitz, they did not need Churchill to stop using the word Jew because it is offensive. It is not similar, unless if you have the preconceived notion that 'language is action'
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "Jews in WW2 needed the Allies to bomb Auschwitz" I don't really think, the jews in the camp, would have welcomed to be bombed, on top of the daily routine. Can you elaborate how being blown to pieces would have helped anyone, except maybe a lucky person used the chaos to escape (to where exactly)? Also I did not say anything about language equals action and were just speaking in broad terms about helping minorities. And "jew" is not offensive, but there are offensive terms for jews. And whether banning them would have helped, I did not made any statement about. But I forgot, it is friday and probably not the best time to comment here.
  - marmee 4y ago
    Auschwitz was effectively a factory of death. Bombing the gas chambers, crematorium, rail lines might have helped. About Jew: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/05/jew-not-slur/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/05/jew-not-sl... Also forgive me if I have assumed because of the context that you argued through analogy for protecting minorities of harmful language, my bad
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      As a Jew, what else would you call a group of us? A flock of Jew? A gaggle of Jew? A Jewbilee? Feel free to use the word Jews, otherwise it's just going to get weird ;)
      - bombcar 4y ago
        This right here strikes at the root of the issue - if someone wants to refer to a group with hate, there is NO way to fix that by changing the term. And changing the term to try to avoid it just results in weird terms and euphemisms, it doesn’t eliminate hate.
boredumb 4y ago
You mean the home-country-challenged people living among THE biggest oppressors in history needed help after literally-hitler was about to unalive them?
jrd259 4y ago
I can't explain the downvotes. Visit https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous.html https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous.html for a chronicle of some of the people who saved some of my people.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "I can't explain the downvotes" I forgot it is friday and "white Knight" is a trigger word for some. So when there's a headline that says: "Banning words won’t make the world more just" and then I say "it depends" to a subpoint with white knight, then I seem to represent the woke enemy to them, who wants to dictate what words they are allowed to use (even though I am actually very pro free speech). And as a german regarding the righteous and why there were so few of them: I know the mindset from my grandparents and it was/is one of having a very strong taboo of doing anything against the state, or just thinking about it. They were not nazis and knew what the state was doing was wrong even though they didn't know the details. But they kept their head as low as possible, as most did. And marched in line, if ordered so. So they share their responsibility. I would like to think, that I would have acted different, but would I? I would have been a different person, being born into that time and culture. So it is also a tough question of what I personally feel about it. Should I feel personally sorry about industrial mass murdering done by "my kind"? Well, I don't really feel connected to those germans as a whole at all. But I do feel connected to my grandparents, so sorry on their behalf, that my family didn't do anything to my knowledge, to help your people. (And personally I do my best to keep the local nazis in check today) edit: and those words still feel empty. But I don't find better words. Because the holocaust was just outstanding industrial mass murder with the goal to wipe out a whole race. What can you say about it? Certainly not, what a member of the new german right said: "The german history is a great one and the holocaust was just a litle dirt on it" So back on topic, I think this person should have the right to say this. Because everyone else now knows what those people (who are all officially against nazis) are really standing for.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago

Identity politics is not unintentional. Those indoctrinated into it may be unaware but the intention is to divide us.

jraph 4y ago
> the intention is to divide us Who actually has this intention and why?
- meany 4y ago
  In general, creating division between classes, races, religious groups presents opportunities for individuals to gather power by taking up the cause for one group. By establishing an “other” you have an enemy to rally support for your leadership. This is the basis of power for every demagogue from the Cleon in Athens to Joe McCarthy and the American Red Scare. This is also a core theme in Orwell’s 1984. In the context of the OPs topic, there are those who honestly are trying to improve the world, but many people have new found careers and political power created by the division on both the Right and Left.
  - jraph 4y ago
    Still not buying this in the current context but interested if you have any concrete example.
    - lazyeye 4y ago
      This is like someone swimming in an ocean asking for proof that water is wet.
    - kodt 4y ago
      Concentration of wealth under capitalism?
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  The "who" is pretty easy - it's corporate media outlets: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great-racial-awakening https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great...

scotty79 4y ago

I think that people feel increasingly alienated. They feel bad so they search for their special "community". In doing that they alienate themselves further from average person. They create terminology and adopt language for their niche with clear disregard of any real people and issues.

lynx23 4y ago

Web accessibility is indeed a very important thing for people like me. I am aware we are a very small minority with rather special needs in this regard, but believe me, investing in accessibility and therefore allowing people with visual and motor disabilities to interact with the digital world can have unexpectedly wonderful consequences for those benefiting from it. It is not often that I manage to pull tech people into this topic such that it actually lasts, but the few I know have made quite a difference. I am pretty thrilled to hear I might have sparked an interest in web accessibility in you. Thanks for caring! Its a wonderful rabbit hole.

eru 4y ago
I'm only colour-blind, but I am too, benefitting from accessibility work meant primarily for blind people. And so do the elderly. Which will be all of us in the future (except those who plan to live fast and die young). Humanity is getting older and older on average, too.
- lynx23 4y ago
  Thats right. My girlfriend works for an assistive technology reseller. A growing number of their customers are elderly people who end up using technologies designed for the blind to keep on communicating. iOS with VoiceOver comes to mind. This was designed for the blind. But a determined elderly person whoes vision has deteriorated enough can also use it to avoid being cut off from everything.
Tzela 4y ago
I'm interested as well. I run a small science club for kids, mainly coding and electronics. Accessibility and being more inclusive is a very old bullet point on my long list of things to do, but I never found a place to start. Do you have any recommendation on where to learn this?
- lynx23 4y ago
  Hard question, because the field so diverse. In a sense, accessibility is much more then just trying to make computers useable for the blind. At a fundamental level, it is about making software flexible enough to be used in different modalities. People with very little motor capabilities are quite capable of looking at a screen, but they need help moving the mouse and perhaps a good predictive onscreen keyboard to be able to type. Blind people on the other hand are mostly quite content with a standard keyboard, but they need a totally different way of output, like tactile braille or synthesized speech. For the output part, it boils down to having an API which makes a third party app (like a screen reader) able to traverse the logical structure of what the application is presenting on-screen. That is mostly a sort of tree which reflects which widget contains what, and the different types of content. Such an API, however, is not only required for screen readers, but also very useful for things like automated testing, for instance. So a web automation or testing framework could actually be written on top of the accessibility APIs, and sometimes actually is. I am rumbling about this to get you in the right mindset. Its so hard to not see the forest because of all the trees around... That said, if we're talking about web accessibility, the obvious recommendation is the WAI WCAG. Maybe not the best reference for learning on how to implement things, but its a good start. Depending on the platform you're at home with, there are screen readers (NVDA, Orca, BRLTTY) which are open source and can be studied. On the user side, and on the "how is this implemented" side. Installing NVDA on Windows and turning the monitor off is a good way to get your feet wet. It might feel strange at first, but you will notice that things can actually get done this way. Its also a good way to test a website if you have no specific accessibility knowhow yet. Just try to navigate and read its contents.

coldtea 4y ago

>It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It also help give the later a role, some power over others (policing various such language and issues, using it against their enemies -out of good nature of course, sure), and sometimes, a full career...

madaxe_again 4y ago

I have been told in no uncertain terms that the word “minority” is offensive, as it has come to have pejorative use. No alternative term was suggested, rather that one should refer to specific groups of people with their specific terms, and never generalise. Additionally, “white knight” I have also been told off for, for the reasons you might expect. In both of these cases (actually, almost every case I can think of) my language was being policed by, um, materially unencumbered birthgivers of reduced melanin.

wonderwonder 4y ago
I love the term white knight specifically because it's offensive to those I reference with it and because it does such a great job describing my view of them and ironically their unconcious view of themselves. Also the amusing thing is that they are always white.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > they are always white Might it be because they think they know best?
wholinator2 4y ago
I feel like, Materially Unencumbered Birth Gives of Reduced Melanin, is approaching an actual usable acronym for the typical pejorative, Karen. I bet chatgpt could bridge the gap
- samastur 4y ago
  I don't see white women standing out in their behaviour, but they sure will always remain an acceptable group to beat up on without losing your progressive or otherwise credentials. Karen at this point is always pejorative and pretty much just not well hidden sexism at best.
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    That's been the most impactful change of the entire progressive movement. It's now ok to be sexist and racist against white women. It's feminism stood on its head. The reduction of white women to a meme has been incredible to watch. No idea why anyone would be for this.

azangru 4y ago

> If an individual wants me to not refer to them as x because they find it offensive, no problem. It's a pretty big cognitive load though, to remember what everyone finds or doesn't find offensive. This is what bothers me about the recent obsession with pronouns - I have enough trouble remembering people's names; and now I am also asked to remember how to modify my grammar or lexicon when in vicinity of a given person? That's the complexity I don't want.

phpisthebest 4y ago
We have externalized what used to be an internal issues Offense is a you problem, not a me problem. We have abandoned the axiom of "sticks and stones" and replaced it with "words are violence" or even worse "silence is violence" Today it no longer enough to be "tolerant" you have to actively affirm, support, and validate everything about everyone at all times and support their emotional state no matter the practicality or reality of the situation.
- tsgagnon 4y ago
  It feels a bit hypocritical to make this sort of proclamation on a social media site with extremely strict moderation. Almost as though this isn't as simple a topic as "stick and stones" and that everyone has different tolerances for what they'll put up with depending on the setting and context.
- jraph 4y ago
  > Offense is a you problem, not a me problem Most definitely not. Of course people need to work on themselves to avoid being offended. But if you communicate with other people, it's because you want to achieve something. Probably not offending the target (or else fuck you I guess ;-)). So, usually, offense gets in the way, so you should care about not offending your target. And beyond this, as human beings, we usually care not to hurt other human beings. It's a we problem. > no matter the practicality or reality of the situation. Do you have example of this? Of course you are expected to show some empathy/sympathy, but I've never seem people impose unrealistic expectations.

pas 4y ago

... but ... are "group of academics [..] sit around and decide that a group as a whole needs saving"? (Yes, probably some are, academia always has a few truly crazy people.) Mostly they parrot the same "old tautologies" (like language matters, structural issues are real, people's personal prejudices manifest in many ways, etc) in various new forms, shapes, phrasings. However, that doesn't mean they are wrong. (Nor that they are automatically right.) white knights are not academics, they are usually the walking-talking examples of severe Dunning-Kruger phenomena. ... I'm writing all this, because your post uses very broad and general terms like progressives and academics, and I think that's bad. (Because it forces my ego to reconsider the `progressive` label, that I used to apply to myself. Naturally without doing anything good/bad progressive really. :| )

erulabs 4y ago

The absolute worst incarnation of this is "latinx". Don't worry latin world, the english speaking world is here once again to tell you how backwards your entire language and culture is! The absolute height of "offensive sensitivity" in my opinion. > But a group of academics should not be able to sit around and decide that a group as a whole needs saving If this isn't one of the core problems with every aspect of society...

8note 4y ago
You'd think that, Latinx does come from Spanish speakers, both with the -x and -e endings https://youtu.be/P3yfGQivroE https://youtu.be/P3yfGQivroE

sonjat 4y ago

I can't speak towards how other people, particularly minorities or the disabled think, but, as a woman, I hate the unintentional "othering" of people trying to do the right thing. I am typically the only woman at work, and people will often correct others who use terms like "guys" with statements like "guys or girls". I understand that they are doing it with good intentions and don't get angry, but to me it just serves to drive home the point that I am different. I am not like the others.

clarge1120 4y ago
As a "minority" I completely agree with you. IMO, the White Knights target the "others" for an opportunity to virtue signal. It got old after the first time it happened.

rayiner 4y ago

> I see it as unintentional discrimination. It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It's so condescending. I don't know how "unintentional" it is, but it sure is "discrimination" and "condescending." It's like how liberal whites dumb down their speech when talkign to black people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liber.... The dynamic is entirely consistent with them thinking about themselves as shepherding sheep. It's why they don't really care that nobody likes "Latinx." Who care what the sheep want to call themselves? It's also why they don't care whether the people they platform as icons of minority groups (Ilhan Omar, etc.) are representative of those groups or not. It's not coalition politics with give-and-take and compromise. It's a parent/child relationship.

tptacek 4y ago
Isn't it enough just to point out that Hispanic/Latino people reject "Latinx", rather than continuously trying to psychoanalyze the people (who are not exclusively white) who do choose to use it? At a minimum, you're now citing social science research to make your point, but you are yourself a vociferous critical of social science research. You're making it hard to agree with you or to reach a shared understanding; like, I think "Latinx" as a universal term for Hispanic/Latino people is silly and mostly an elite discourse shibboleth, too, but the Extended Rayiner Cinematic Universe of paternal white behavior is not something I buy into.
- rayiner 4y ago
  "Latinx" is just an easy-to-analyze example of a wider phenomenon where elite whites intervene on behalf of minorities while being wholly indifferent to what those minorities actually want. "Defund the police," racial preferences for hiring and education, "micro-aggressions," and many others are examples. I think the psychoanalysis is necessary to understand the phenomenon in a coherent way. Obviously I can't get in their heads. It's just a theory based on conversations where mentioning polling and statistics would be met with dead shark eyes in response.