Hacker News Reader

Comment by occultist_throw | Hacker News Reader

I just attributed it to standard SJW virtue signalling. It's meaningless aside to others who understand the same lingo, and agree with it.

Edit: Ah, the usual SJW refrain. Silence any criticism via flags, -1's and other tools available, instead of discussing why the quote is right/not and what it means.

View on HN

Can you rephrase what you said? Whenever I see "SJW" or "virtue signaling" in a post, I immediately stop reading and move on. Those terms are meaningless to those who don't subscribe to the groupthink of a devout cult of sheltered sexists.

There is no other word to describe the groups behind the wave of petty but vicious activism in the last decade or so. The people calling for "safe spaces" and trigger warnings, literally shaking from micro-aggressions, trying to ruin people's careers for holding common opinions, and always claiming to be the victims of some -ism. What would you call them?

Calling for a safe spaces? "Trump demands safe space for Mike Pence after he was booed at Hamilton" - https://news.avclub.com/trump-demands-safe-space-for-mike-pe... ("The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!")

Trying to ruin someone's career? "Donald Trump Casually Threatens To ‘Destroy’ The Career Of State Lawmaker" who promoted asset forfeiture reform. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-destroy-state-lawm... . I believe most people are for forfeiture reform.

Or more recently, "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a b---- off the field right now. Out," Trump said amid applause. "He's fired. He's fired!" - https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-protests-donald-trump... . This form of silent protest against discrimination is increasingly common.

Always claiming to be a victim (though not from some -ism)?

"Trump claims to be victim of ‘witch hunt’ following appointment of special counsel in Russia case" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05...

"Trump on sex assault allegations: 'I am a victim'" - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/donald-trump-sexu... ("As you have seen, I am a victim of one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country")

"Trump paints himself as the real victim of Charlottesville in angry speech" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/donald-trump...

"Trump: IRS audits me because I’m a “strong Christian”" - https://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/26/trump-irs-audits-me-b...

Is Trump an SJW?

Trump is deliberately using the language and tactics of his political enemies against them in a kind of counter-trolling demagoguery.

This is ugly stuff. The discourse has descended to the level where the media is dominated by two different groups of extremist trolls taking potshots at each other using the language of outrage and grievance. The rest of us are caught in the middle and our society is becoming deranged as a result.

Indeed he is. Even more so, go download Tor Browser Bundle and read what the Daily Stormer has to say. Aside the obvious racism, it seems to match what and how Trump talks. Its one of their ways of conducting rallies as well, to cloak themselves in "normalcy" and use the weapons of the other side against them.

On the other side, they are willing to stop at nothing to destroy lives of people they see a threat as well. Ive seen it time and again. It turns into what amounts to a mob, exerting its will.

This is going to end very badly, for many. I see the underlying grievances as something neither side can amicably talk about, nor will either side give up.

How can you tell? Perhaps he's using the language because he really thinks it's meaningful?

How do you know there isn't only one group of extremist trolls?

If two groups disagree, they don't have to be balanced yin and yang.

If two groups disagree, the real answer doesn't have to lie in the middle.

In the 1850s US, there were pro-slavers and anti-slavers. Who was in the middle, and were they right?

But hey, I watch Democracy Now, 'cause I think the the real problems are corporate owned media and media centralization. At the very least, DN doesn't dominate the media.

> In the 1850s US, there were pro-slavers and anti-slavers. Who was in the middle, and were they right?

Abraham Lincoln

And was he right? Because he seems to have changed his mind.

was he right? he's one of the most historically examined leaders of all time and we still don't know. In the present we have the benefit of hindsight and can more easily see that war was inevitable and we might even think Lincoln was foolish to initially pursue a policy that sought to avoid war. Was that so obvious in his own time though?

Lincoln did change his mind but he seems to have changed it not because he had an epiphany about the evil of slavery, but because he became convinced during the war that it would be a total war and not a containable skirmish. once that logic was in play the Emancipation Proclamation made sense to issue. It also bolstered his support with abolitionists.

Today we have no ambiguity about the evil of slavery and view it as one of the greatest moral failings in our history and a legacy we are continuing to face down and one which has caused huge misery for millions of African-Americans. Even with this modern perspective, it's hard to view Lincoln as anything other than a conflicted man trying to weigh very heavy decisions indeed. So I dunno if he was right. I don't think Lincoln knew in his own time and I don't think we will ever be able to adequately judge. We know what happened but we don't know what else could have or should have happened instead.

So the middle between "pro-slaver" and "anti-slaver" is "anti-slaver". Got it

you just reflexively accused someone of being a sexist on no evidence

Thereby proving the OP's point. lol.

for what it's worth, I was poking fun at the knucklehead I was responding to, because they said this in a branch of the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15332975

Can you rephrase what you said? Whenever I see "devout cult of sheltered sexists" in a post, I immediately stop reading and move on. Those terms are meaningless to those who don't subscribe to the groupthink that you mentioned.

Is it rude to say whoosh on hn?

for what it's worth, I was poking fun at the knucklehead I was responding to, because they said this in a branch of the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15332975

A nod-ignore-and-keep-reading Lit Crit academese filler thing, then? I guess it stood out to me because the review doesn't have much of that, otherwise, and because the paragraph it's in seemed to be making some kind of point, though I couldn't decipher what it was in such a way that that sentence contributed anything.

Truthfully, these days if I see SJW buzzwords, I just skip over the rest of the text. It's not worth subjecting oneself in that sort of groupthink - lest you eat babies. Because if you don't agree with them, you must assuredly agree with rape, sex crimes, and eating babies. There is no middle ground. There is no discussion. Only fuming mouths.

Are there wrongs? Absolutely. But we can tackle those when we have clear evidence and direct corrective action. Striking out at anyone with a will to discuss and have legitimate concerns is not a way to bridge the communication gap.

I think you are being downvoted because there is little information in what you are saying.

Off topic. Well known argument. Tone seems angry.

Just a guess

> I just skip over the rest of the text.

You could also skip over the step of posting in comment threads.

You're indeed right. I could. But this stuff is everywhere, whether you want to read it or be part of it, or not.

1. Donglegate. Told a dongle joke, got fired.

2. Meritocracy Rug, Github.

3. "CodeOfConduct.md"

4. GamerGate

5. Throwing fits about pronouns: https://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate...

6. NodeJS leadership splitting at the seams https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/72dff4/nodejs_...

7. Demonization if you are a "White male in tech" - regardless if you are for equality or not

8. Google Memo/"Anti-diversity Screed"

So you're right. I could stay quiet about this. But these problems aren't going to go away with silence. And they aren't going to go away by shaming people into submission or silence under threat of job loss. These things are affecting the whole industry, and it's about high time to confront these issues head-on, without fear of losing your house, your food, and your livelihood. (Why do you think I run under a pseudonym?)

There is an entire thread of meaningful, respectful discussion that follows your initial remark, and you haven't even tried to engage with it.

I've not read Lit Crit. I have read history. The European colonial period was justified using logic very similar to the argument described in this article.

British colonialism specifically argued for Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the Kipling's "The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands" used a similar logic to argue that the US should take over the Philippines.

I get what "a Victorian faith in white mythologies" means re: racist colonialism and cultural imperialism, I just don't get what it means for the show to "still [believe] in 'culture' with a Victorian faith in white mythologies". The scare-quoted (I think?) "culture", in the context of the rest of the sentence, is what's getting me. To believe in "culture" with a victorian faith in white mythologies. That's some badly criss-crossing modifiers and a really unclear use of quotes, as I see it, standing out in an otherwise fairly comprehensible paragraph.

I guess I'm also a little confused that the review complains in such strong language[1] about what looks to be the most interesting thing in the show, assuming the writers have lead with this material for the reason that they intend to return to it though the rest of the season and need, you know, somewhere to go with it, so they can't just start at the end. If it finds a way to retain aliens-as-projections-of-human-psyco/social-demons of traditional Trek (and much popular sci-fi) but also address the definitely-smells-of-racism problems that naturally come with doing that for as long as Trek's done it... god, that'll be among the most interesting things Trek's ever done, and if the writers are competent then they sure seem to be setting up for something along those lines. It's easily the most promising thematic direction the first part of the series has set up, judging from this review, so wow, should they ever not clean it up, please. Dig in, get dirty, and find a way out that's a little more novel and nuanced than "hur hur see it was racism all along and now our protagonist learned a lesson!" and this'll be one for the ages.

[1] "We shall see. But to get there—and I have to say this as clearly as possible—this show needs to clean up its fucking act with respect to the deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons."

I do not believe it is a scare quote. I think it's an actual quote. The more complete quote from the show follows immediately afterward: “It would be unwise to confuse race and culture.” I believe "culture" is used to pull out that one term for further discussion.

The review assumes that the reader has watched the show. I have not. I cannot comment further on this point, nor on the "deeply racist portrayal of its Klingons". I can point out that http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/07/star-trek-discovery-trump-politi... says:

> “The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country. Isolationism is a big theme. Racial purity is a big theme. The Klingons are not the enemy, but they do have a different view on things. It raises big questions: Should we let people in? Do we want to change? There’s also the question of just because you reach your hand out to someone, do they have to take it? Sometimes, they don’t want to take it. It’s been interesting to see how the times have become more of a mirror than we even thought they were going to be.”

and various people have asserted that the new Klingons are supposed to be like Trump supporters.

> I do not believe it is a scare quote. I think it's an actual quote. The more complete quote from the show follows immediately afterward: “It would be unwise to confuse race and culture.” I believe "culture" is used to pull out that one term for further discussion.

I guess I'm gonna have to watch for context for the quote. I think the paragraph's getting a little clearer to me now.

As for the rest: haha, wow. Now I've gotta watch, just so I can figure out whether the Klingons are racist (as in, the depiction is racist and the Federation's going all high-colonial Britain on 'em) or racist (as in, they're Trump supporter stand-ins), or somehow both at the same time. Should be... interesting, anyway.

> Now I've gotta watch, just so I can figure out whether the Klingons are racist (as in, the depiction is racist and the Federation's going all high-colonial Britain on 'em) or racist (as in, they're Trump supporter stand-ins)

Possibly both, actually, from the one-hour broadcast “pilot” (which seems more of a teaser than a pilot, but I'm not buying CBS All Access on the strength of that teaser, so I probably won't see the rest.)

That is, the focal Klingons are xenophobes looking for a war with the Federation to Make the Empire Great Again, but also there is strong indication of the other, as well. So, something for everyone on that department.

A far better way to describe this phenomenon is to generalise it to the behaviour of a conquering culture or nation instead of one specific 'race'. Whether it be Mohammedans invading the Byzantine empire, Genghis Khan setting off to conquer the known world, Khoikoi on the war path against the San, Aleuts battling Inuit or Yupik, nearly all of them feel themselves superior to their opponents in some way.

This is not a race thing, not is it a cultural thing. It is a human trait which is universal. It is not just related to physical attacks either, e.g. so-called 'social justice warriors' feel themselves morally superior over those who do not follow their specific strain of self-flagellation and -denial, sports teams, philosophers, investors, anywhere people choose themselves a niche they plant their flags and wave their banners.

I have lost the thread of what you are talking about. What is "this phenomenon"?

Is the Federation in the new series supposed to be a conquering culture or nation, trying to take over the quadrant? If so, that's a huge change.

"It is a human trait which is universal"

Universal? What does that mean? Swedes and Norwegians each feel themselves to be better than the other nationality. They have flags and banners too. So, what is the consequence of this universal trait? Will Swedish tanks be going over the border soon?

Does that mean those who believe in internationalism ("the people of the world should unite across national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests") are not human?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com