4 ms·

Black vikings do not model reality. Asking for 'an Irish person' produces a Leprechaun. Defending racism when it concerns racism against white people is just as

Black vikings do not model reality. Asking for 'an Irish person' produces a Leprechaun. Defending racism when it concerns racism against white people is just as bad as defending it when it concerns any other group.

GrumpySloth 3y ago
I think you two are agreeing.
- manjalyc 3y ago
  They indeed are, just in a very polemic way. What a funny time we live in.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    Different meaning to 'reality'. ie., social-historical vs. material-historical. Since black vikings are not part of material history, the model is not reflecting reality. Calling social-historical ideas 'reality' is the problem with the parent comment. They arent, and it lets the riggers at google off the hook. Colorising people of history isnt a reality corrective, it's merely anti-social-history, not pro-material-reality
    - manjalyc 3y ago
      I agree with you, and I think you have misunderstood the nuance of the parent comment. He is not letting google "off the hook", but rather being tongue-in-cheek/slightly satirical when he says that the reality is too troubling for google. Which I believe is exactly what you mean when you call it "anti-social-history, not pro-material-reality ".
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Maybe I don't understand the culture here on HN, but not every response to a comment has to be a disagreement. Sometimes you're just adding to a point somebody else made.
    - GrumpySloth 3y ago
      In this case though the comment starts with a categorical negation of something that was said in a tongue-in-cheek way in the comment being replied to. It suggests a counterpoint is made. Yet it’s not.
    - seanw444 3y ago
      Yep, it bugs me too. Actually you're wrong because <argument on semantics> when in reality the truth is <minor technicality>.
sconely 3y ago
[dead]
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Quite a hefty percentage of the people responsible for the current day's obsession with identity issues openly state racism against white people is impossible. This has been part of their belief system for decades, probably heard on a widescale for the first time during an episode of season one of 'The Real World' in 1992 but favored in academia for much longer than that.
- PurpleRamen 3y ago
  It's because they have a very different definition of racism. Basically, according to this belief, if you are seen as part of the ethnic group in power, you will not be able to experience noteworthy levels of discrimination because of your genetic makeup.
  - jansan 3y ago
    That sounds like a very racist defintion of racism to me.
    - jl6 3y ago
      Redefining words is what a lot of the last ~10 years of polarization boils down to.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    Ironically, this is the exact same reasoning Neo-Nazis use for their hatred of the Jewish population. Weird how these parallels between extremist ideologies keep arising.
    - hotdogscout 3y ago
      It's almost like the "socialism" part of "national socialism" was not in fact irrelevant. See: Ba'aathism.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

GrumpySloth 3y ago

I think you two are agreeing.

manjalyc 3y ago
They indeed are, just in a very polemic way. What a funny time we live in.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  Different meaning to 'reality'. ie., social-historical vs. material-historical. Since black vikings are not part of material history, the model is not reflecting reality. Calling social-historical ideas 'reality' is the problem with the parent comment. They arent, and it lets the riggers at google off the hook. Colorising people of history isnt a reality corrective, it's merely anti-social-history, not pro-material-reality
  - manjalyc 3y ago
    I agree with you, and I think you have misunderstood the nuance of the parent comment. He is not letting google "off the hook", but rather being tongue-in-cheek/slightly satirical when he says that the reality is too troubling for google. Which I believe is exactly what you mean when you call it "anti-social-history, not pro-material-reality ".
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Maybe I don't understand the culture here on HN, but not every response to a comment has to be a disagreement. Sometimes you're just adding to a point somebody else made.
  - GrumpySloth 3y ago
    In this case though the comment starts with a categorical negation of something that was said in a tongue-in-cheek way in the comment being replied to. It suggests a counterpoint is made. Yet it’s not.
  - seanw444 3y ago
    Yep, it bugs me too. Actually you're wrong because <argument on semantics> when in reality the truth is <minor technicality>.

sconely 3y ago

[dead]

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

Quite a hefty percentage of the people responsible for the current day's obsession with identity issues openly state racism against white people is impossible. This has been part of their belief system for decades, probably heard on a widescale for the first time during an episode of season one of 'The Real World' in 1992 but favored in academia for much longer than that.

PurpleRamen 3y ago
It's because they have a very different definition of racism. Basically, according to this belief, if you are seen as part of the ethnic group in power, you will not be able to experience noteworthy levels of discrimination because of your genetic makeup.
- jansan 3y ago
  That sounds like a very racist defintion of racism to me.
  - jl6 3y ago
    Redefining words is what a lot of the last ~10 years of polarization boils down to.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  Ironically, this is the exact same reasoning Neo-Nazis use for their hatred of the Jewish population. Weird how these parallels between extremist ideologies keep arising.
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    It's almost like the "socialism" part of "national socialism" was not in fact irrelevant. See: Ba'aathism.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]