3 ms·

> those are the worst the media has been able to drag up, and all taken completely out of context In what context is it okay to say this? > Reject feminism. S

> those are the worst the media has been able to drag up, and all taken completely out of context In what context is it okay to say this? > Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge. ---- > you probably think the "If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?" is an edgelord hypothetical This is a strawman. They think pointing out that someone is a "WNBA, pot-smoking, black lesbian" is hateful and unnecessary. The statement is otherwise implying that a pot smoker should be denigrated, and a WNBA player should be denigrated, and a black person should be denigrated, and a lesbian should be denigrated in a way that a United States Marine should not be denigrated.

somenameforme 1y ago
No, he's offering a vivid illustration of how efforts to combat racism can end up overtly racist themselves. Take the exact situation and simply reverse it. We have a highly qualified and upstanding black marine (make them a lesbian if you fancy) imprisoned in Russia for years for "spying." And the government just kind of shrugs. Then along comes a this dope headed white guy athlete who gets arrested for unquestionably bringing drugs into the country. And suddenly the entire government apparatus kicks into action to get him out, to the point of offering who is perhaps our single highest value Russian prisoner, an international arms dealer, in exchange for him - all the while continuing to just shrug at the black guy (or gal) left lingering in prison. You would obviously find this sort of behavior repulsive, wouldn't you? I mean I certainly would - I think anybody would. Yet when you flip the script and change the races suddenly there's this segment of society that's like 'Yeah, this is okay.' No, it's not okay. His reason for opposing this action is not because of her race, but mostly the only reason some people found it acceptable was because of her race - so it became a relevant component of the story.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  The spy wasn't famous. Griner was. It had nothing to do with the false dichotomy you painted. Kirk is the one that turned it into identity politics.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - zahlman 1y ago
    Just as a data point, as a Canadian I had never heard this name before, and I couldn't possibly name a single other WNBA athlete, whereas I could name international female athletes from many other sports. Here in Toronto, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_League_(women%27s_football) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_League_(women%27s_football) (which infamously included a former mayor's niece) is probably better known than the WNBA. By contrast, the mere words "United States Marine" paint a clear picture of a very particular sort of individual that is instantly legible, internationally.
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      That may just be a regional thing. I certainly couldn't name a single X league player. Regardless, she was certainly more famous than some spy whose job required that he not be famous or even memorable. Right choice or not, Biden likely just made the choice that got him the most positive attention, as one does when they're a politician.
zahlman 1y ago
> This is a strawman. No, someone who says "you probably think" is not thereby strawmanning. This is an attempt to guess what someone else's position is (granted, guesses like this are often not very charitable, but that in turn often results from a genuine inability to understand the other side). A strawman is when someone goes on to argue against that position without waiting for confirmation. GP's argument goes on to justify the quote. The justification does not depend on whether the guess about GGP's position was correct. > The statement is otherwise implying that a pot smoker should be denigrated, and a WNBA player should be denigrated, and a black person should be denigrated, and a lesbian should be denigrated No, it is not. It is lamenting that a WNBA player may be (in Kirk's view) praised more than a USM despite (in his view) a lesser achievement, and in spite of smoking pot, because of a system that (in his view) treats black people and lesbians preferentially. I give thanks here to GP for the context, which makes it entirely clear why Kirk would hold this view and give this specific object example. It also makes it obvious why my view of the statement is correct, but I already knew it would be something like this anyway before seeing the context. In fact, I wrote the above before reading GP. (In fact, I also realized this going in; qv https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45233308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45233308 .) It's very easy to understand things like this by understanding the fundamentals of the arguments being made and policies being proposed (here, something like an objection to "DEI") and considering the speaker's statement within the speaker's own evidenced framework of morals and values, rather than your own. You appear to think, fundamentally, in terms of whether groups are being "hated" or described as superior or inferior. Someone like Kirk thought, from what I could tell, fundamentally, in terms of whether rules are being applied consistently and fairly to groups, and about whether the rules are acceptable in the abstract.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > No, it is not. It's a dog whistle. You're falling for the plausible deniability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > It's a dog whistle. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. My evidence is that my interpretation is consistent with many other things I have learned about viewpoints like Kirk's, from observing him and others over a period of many years. It is not a matter of "plausible deniability"; my interpretation is plainly and straightforwardly the one that makes the most sense to me, by far. As noted upthread, the example also clearly maps to a specific object example. Your reading, meanwhile, requires transforming a rhetorical question about whether someone should be "treated better" than someone whom Kirk clearly sees as highly virtuous, into a claim that every single aspect described of that person is a basis for denigration. That is supremely uncharitable and frankly implausible.

somenameforme 1y ago

No, he's offering a vivid illustration of how efforts to combat racism can end up overtly racist themselves. Take the exact situation and simply reverse it. We have a highly qualified and upstanding black marine (make them a lesbian if you fancy) imprisoned in Russia for years for "spying." And the government just kind of shrugs. Then along comes a this dope headed white guy athlete who gets arrested for unquestionably bringing drugs into the country. And suddenly the entire government apparatus kicks into action to get him out, to the point of offering who is perhaps our single highest value Russian prisoner, an international arms dealer, in exchange for him - all the while continuing to just shrug at the black guy (or gal) left lingering in prison. You would obviously find this sort of behavior repulsive, wouldn't you? I mean I certainly would - I think anybody would. Yet when you flip the script and change the races suddenly there's this segment of society that's like 'Yeah, this is okay.' No, it's not okay. His reason for opposing this action is not because of her race, but mostly the only reason some people found it acceptable was because of her race - so it became a relevant component of the story.

mapontosevenths 1y ago
The spy wasn't famous. Griner was. It had nothing to do with the false dichotomy you painted. Kirk is the one that turned it into identity politics.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- zahlman 1y ago
  Just as a data point, as a Canadian I had never heard this name before, and I couldn't possibly name a single other WNBA athlete, whereas I could name international female athletes from many other sports. Here in Toronto, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_League_(women%27s_football) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_League_(women%27s_football) (which infamously included a former mayor's niece) is probably better known than the WNBA. By contrast, the mere words "United States Marine" paint a clear picture of a very particular sort of individual that is instantly legible, internationally.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    That may just be a regional thing. I certainly couldn't name a single X league player. Regardless, she was certainly more famous than some spy whose job required that he not be famous or even memorable. Right choice or not, Biden likely just made the choice that got him the most positive attention, as one does when they're a politician.

zahlman 1y ago

> This is a strawman. No, someone who says "you probably think" is not thereby strawmanning. This is an attempt to guess what someone else's position is (granted, guesses like this are often not very charitable, but that in turn often results from a genuine inability to understand the other side). A strawman is when someone goes on to argue against that position without waiting for confirmation. GP's argument goes on to justify the quote. The justification does not depend on whether the guess about GGP's position was correct. > The statement is otherwise implying that a pot smoker should be denigrated, and a WNBA player should be denigrated, and a black person should be denigrated, and a lesbian should be denigrated No, it is not. It is lamenting that a WNBA player may be (in Kirk's view) praised more than a USM despite (in his view) a lesser achievement, and in spite of smoking pot, because of a system that (in his view) treats black people and lesbians preferentially. I give thanks here to GP for the context, which makes it entirely clear why Kirk would hold this view and give this specific object example. It also makes it obvious why my view of the statement is correct, but I already knew it would be something like this anyway before seeing the context. In fact, I wrote the above before reading GP. (In fact, I also realized this going in; qv https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45233308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45233308 .) It's very easy to understand things like this by understanding the fundamentals of the arguments being made and policies being proposed (here, something like an objection to "DEI") and considering the speaker's statement within the speaker's own evidenced framework of morals and values, rather than your own. You appear to think, fundamentally, in terms of whether groups are being "hated" or described as superior or inferior. Someone like Kirk thought, from what I could tell, fundamentally, in terms of whether rules are being applied consistently and fairly to groups, and about whether the rules are acceptable in the abstract.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> No, it is not. It's a dog whistle. You're falling for the plausible deniability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
- zahlman 1y ago
  > It's a dog whistle. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. My evidence is that my interpretation is consistent with many other things I have learned about viewpoints like Kirk's, from observing him and others over a period of many years. It is not a matter of "plausible deniability"; my interpretation is plainly and straightforwardly the one that makes the most sense to me, by far. As noted upthread, the example also clearly maps to a specific object example. Your reading, meanwhile, requires transforming a rhetorical question about whether someone should be "treated better" than someone whom Kirk clearly sees as highly virtuous, into a claim that every single aspect described of that person is a basis for denigration. That is supremely uncharitable and frankly implausible.