Hacker News Reader

Comment by YUMad | Hacker News Reader

It is weird that he comments on that, and not that it's become the most advertised interracial coupling even tho IRL it's the 2nd least common interracial coupling?

Or are you just trying to ad-hominem him?

View on HN

It's weird that he (and you) comment on that because if someone is extremely concerned about the media promoting miscegenation, that's usually a good proxy for them being a racist cretin.

So just the good old ad hominem then?

I simply pointed out a fact: there is a significant discrepancy between the rate of black male + white female couplings IRL and in the media. I am bringing no judgement on it.

Considering how frothy at the mouth you got over this fact being mentioned, you are no better than those 'racist cretins' you try to insinuate I am part of.

Do you actually have any valid arguments to dispute the claim, or only the attempts at shaming ad-hominems to try and suppress that claim?

>Considering how frothy at the mouth you got over this fact being mentioned

Is it a fact, or just your imagination? Does this fact come from statistics or your gut?

Did I type what you're responding to, or is it your imagination?

I misread your question so my reply was unnecessary snarky.

Black male+white female is 2nd least common coupling in USA, this at least is a fact unrelated to my opinion.

Comparison to media rates is based on Hollywood blockbusters and Netflix lineup. While the numbers for Hollywood are lower than on Netflix, black male+white female is 2nd most common coupling in Netflix originals.

P.S. I am European and child of a mixed marriage myself, so this is no 'keep America white!' effort. It's just that the idea of 'forbidden truths' 1984-style rubs me the wrong way.

To be frank, I don't think you've actually conducted an empirical comparison of "black male + white female couplings IRL and in the media", nor do I think such a discrepancy would be worthy of comment even if it exists, and perhaps most importantly, I do not believe in the innocent motives of anyone who brings up the subject and then acts like they are only attempting to make an innocuous anthropological observation.

I'm not interested in a 'debate' about race-mixing with you. I just want to point out that when you tell on yourself like this, both online and IRL, people notice, and we'll treat you accordingly.

In defense of the guy that brought it up: race-mixing is a huge scissor statement. It's already working here - you're getting your socks in a tizzy over a mention of it and can't get past the object-level. The meta-level is it doesn't matter what concept they use - race, gender, sex, identity - posters can and will use it to make you fight people you would otherwise get along with.

Now that the drama is over and I won't be accused of lying, I'd like to point out that I'm European and a child of a mixed marriage myself. So the reaction of this wannabe Jihadi John SJW is even more troubling.

As for the scissor statements, here's another good one: 'Women have smaller brains than men'. It is true (on average) but it will draw out mouth-frothing SJWs without fail.

Yet you keep commenting, while actually avoiding the answer. You keep going in circle, trying to insinuate things about me based on the topic, while working hard to pretend the topic is irrelevant. Do you even see the dichotomy in your actions?

> I'm not interested in a 'debate' about race-mixing with you. I just want to point out that when you tell on yourself like this, both online and IRL, people notice, and we'll treat you accordingly.

Ah yes, upgrade from ad hominem to attempts of silencing through threats. Keep going. You think people don't notice _that_?

There is a significant discrepancy between coupling rates of black male + white female IRL (2nd least common pairing) and in media.

Where's the ad hom? I'm not implying anything about the commenter, and I clearly didn't state anything about them. I just wanted more information about why that specifically is an example of an attempt to move the Overton window. Given the premise of the comment--that immensely wealthy and powerful (but apparently nameless) organizations are shaping public opinion of the masses via social media and advertising--they would choose positive feelings about miscegenation or black men in general over, I don't know, foreign policy, consumerism, or expansive federal power. It's weird. I called it weird. I stand by it.

For crying out loud, the commenter didn't even establish with evidence that it really is a pattern, or what "their" goal could even be.

EDIT Just noticed your username. Congrats, you got people riled up.

'It is weird you chose this topic' seems like you insinuate the issue is with the poster, not the topic.

My intention wasn't to troll.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com