He's racist. I can't believe I'm still seeing anything about him on HN. I really wish HN had a filter/mute function.
I don't think that ESR associates color of the skin with some intrinsic propensity to become a criminal (this would be indeed racism). The fact is that many members of Afro-American community leaves in a rather poor conditions (lack of education, contact with drugs, gangs) what results in a over-representation of the (violent) criminals in that group.
This is very unfortunate, but statistics is statistics - there are significanly more crimes committed by Afro-Americans than white people, so, indeed, it is rational to expect that someone having black color of the skin and behaves in a suspected way could be a criminal.
Maybe there are some other racist claims by ESR I don't know about, however I don't find this particular sentence to be racist.
As much as he thinks he and everyone else should own lots guns, Eric S Raymond has recently stated (2017) that he believes blacks are too unintelligent to own or to be trained to use guns:
https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/816449724127608833
>Unfortunately, this doesn't cover the BLM crowd, which would have an average IQ of about 85 if it's statistically representative of American blacks as a whole. I've never tried to train anyone that dim and wouldn't want to.
https://twitter.com/angusm/status/971804887964094467
https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/971786541621112832
https://www.dropbox.com/s/05lb6x6ndullsig/Screenshot%202015-...
esr on 2015-11-25 at 15:14:09 said:
>So when Chicago cops seem a bit paramilitary, it might have something to do with Chicago’s homicide rate being more typical of Africa than peaceful civilization.
Recalls a point I have made several times on this blog, that criminologically the U.S. is divided into Switzerland and Swaziland. Or, more precisely, mostly one big Switzerland – white, very low crime rates – and a bunch of Swaziland-like enclaves, mostly black, with very high crime rates. Chicago is one of the Swazilands.
His software work is unremarkable (fetchmail is trivial and buggy, and CML2 was rejected by the Linux kernel developers), and he's made his career not by writing software but by attacking real hackers like Richard Stallman and trying to bring down their work, not by actually constructively developing any useful software himself. Attacking real hackers and trying to discourage people from using "free software" isn't "hacking".
He used to call himself "Eric the Flute", and he would go on and on ad nauseum about his beloved "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle NetNews Reader" and how it was so much better than every other netnews reader. But he never collaborated with anyone, and he never released it under any license. Much more Bizarre than Cathedral.
Just keep reading the other posts and quotes in this threads. You have a lot of catching up to do if you're still not convinced he's racist, assuming you're not just another one of his racist sycophants trying to rationalize his beliefs, carry his water, and mansplain away his racism.
See his blog for many more examples of his racist statements ("Affirmative action _is_ racism, by definition." -ESR) and his followers sucking up to him.
https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/780839196231630848
He has a huge following of racist alt-right pro-gun whack jobs (even the occasional self-loathing gay brony, not to mention "Tron Guy") who he panders to.
Yes. THAT "Tron Guy":
> assuming you're not just another one of his racist sycophants.
Implying that all who do not agree with you are racist is a bit of a weighty allegation. I have no doubt you will call me a racist sycophant in retaliation. This is not to say I agree with him; I don't.
> mansplain away his racism.
Please don't use this term. It implies someone is doing something because of gender; how do you know the gender of the explainer? Or of all the explainees? It's a silly term used to attack certain points of view. If some one is a condescending horse's rear, just call him a condescending horse's rear.
> Affirmative action _is_ racism, by definition
This is a point agreed upon by many. Half the nation doesn't agree with you. This includes non-whites; it isn't fair to assume that every one who doesn't agree with you is racist.
> He has a huge following of racist alt-right pro-gun whack jobs
Guilt by association is not fair. Just because some one agrees with something I say doesn't mean I agree with what he says. Also, again not fair trying to paint all pro-gun people as whack jobs; much of the country disagrees with you.
In summary, you make generally good points, but adulterate them with a political message hostile to many. You needlessly attack people for political beliefs which are reasonably main-stream, thus turning them away from otherwise good points about ESR's deficiencies. Discussion on this ought to stay intellectual, rather than devolving into personal attacks on vast swathes of people you have never met or conversed with.
Quite the contrary. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not one of his racist sycophants.
>> mansplain away his racism.
>Please don't use this term.
Every one of his racist sycophants I've ever encountered have been men. Perhaps his Sex Tips for Geeks don't make him and his ideas as attractive to women as he thinks they do.
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/sextips/
>>Affirmative action _is_ racism, by definition
>This is a point agreed upon by many.
Many who have an extremely simplistic, distorted understanding of what racism is. That doesn't make them right.
>In summary, you make generally good points, but adulterate them with a political message hostile to many.
If anybody wants to ignore the objective facts I've presented because I hurt their feelings by implicitly criticizing their political beliefs by associating them with Eric Raymond's racist beliefs, then that's their problem. If they don't have a problem with the hostile political messages that ESR adulterates all of his arguments with, then they should be able to tolerate mine too.
Perhaps they should read ESR's Sex Tips For Geeks advice about Avoiding the Curse of Oversensitivity:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/sextips/oversensitivity.htm...
>"As one of my beautiful geekgirl assistants pointed out previously, women have egos too." -Eric S Raymond
Much appreciated, but the way you word this implies that if some one disagrees with you, he is a racist sycophant.
> Every one of his racist sycophants I've ever encountered have been men.
But I've usually heard "man splaining" defined as a man explaining "at" a woman. Have all the targets of his "racist sycophants" been women? You are making sex an issue where it does not need to be one.
> Many how have an extremely simplistic, distorted understanding of what racism is. That doesn't make them right.
You can't just claim every one who disagrees with your point of view on this has a "simplistic, distorted understanding" without supporting that. My understanding is pretty simple: racism is deliberately treating people differently because of race. I guess you could take that as simple, but I view it as a stark moral wrong and so don't see the need for a more complex one. If you disagree, please feel free to discuss why.
> criticizing their political beliefs by associating them with Eric Raymond's racist beliefs
No reason to try to draw a baseless association between other stuff and bad stuff some one has said.
> objective facts.
Any thing you didn't provide a link for I consider subjective. You can't declare your opinions "the objective fact".
> If they don't have a problem with the hostile political messages that ESR adulterates all of his arguments with, then they should be able to tolerate mine too.
I don't like the political message with which he adulterates his beliefs, nor did I say I did. I opened my above reply by criticizing him. However, I see no reason why I cannot criticize you for adding unnecessary political opinions to a discussion.
> Perhaps they should read ESR's Sex Tips for Geeks
This whole "writing" seems to be contemptible. I'm not defending it.
In summary, I'm not defending this guy; I don't like him either. I just don't like the way you stated your objection.
That's precisely what I meant by a simplistic, distorted (mis)understanding of racism. I could refer you to wikipedia, but that would be leading a horse to water.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
Seems pretty simple to me. I could be sarcastic and snarky too, but I'm not going to. If you've got a reason to prefer your definition, I'm genuinely open to being convinced other wise. Affirmative action is, by that definition, racist. Do you have a different definition which is for some reason preferable which states otherwise?
No, I picked the third definition entry. You have to give me a better reason to prefer than "it's got a lower number in Merriam Webster's". More importantly, affirmative actions essentially posits that black people cannot get ahead because of an inherent characteristic - skin color. It says that race effectively determines the capacity of a black without other intervention. It's demeaning.
> Labor force participation != gender equality. If women want to stay home, it's their choice. Wage equality is a bogus measurement, especially considering that men move more, stay overtime (including unpaid) more, die more on the job, work outside more, work more hours, etc. Same goes for estimated earned income. Gender ratio of bureaucrats is inconsequential; fewer women run. Again, their choice. Professional and technical workers again bogus; their choice. Literacy is fine in a nation where every one is supposed to be literate (such as America), but college and post-grad are again choices and therefore bogus. Life expectancy is bogus; women live longer and so that can't be counted. Women in parliament is bogus; not all nations have those. Also, again, people choose to run or not run for office; fewer women run in America. Ministerial positions are what, exactly? This is clearly written for commonwealth nations and those set up according to the English prototype. America is not, therefore she is not easily compared in this area. Years with female head of state is bogus. Individual choices.
It is discrimination and prejudice when you down-weight the application of a more-qualified asian to a less-qualified black. That is definitionally discriminatory and prejudicial, as you are attempting to select more blacks at the expense of others because of race.
> Affirmative action's aim is meant to compensate for the effects of discrimination and prejudice, and it's based on the belief that races are equal. The opposite of racism, not the definition of racism.
What discrimination? What prejudice? Blacks are equal. Can you quantify any?
> But if you want to ignore those important facts, and contradict the actual meaning of both the dictionary and wikipedia definitions of racism, in order to cling to Eric Raymond's conveniently simplistic mis-definition of racism, which is based on his mistaken beliefs that races are not equal, go knock yourself out. When you lay down with the dogs, you get up with fleas.
I'm not sticking with Eric Raymond's definition, I'm using the one which I believe to be correct. You can't use yours, other wise saying blacks can't vote would technically not be racist (by your definition only) if you didn't believe they were inferior but did so for purposes of politics. Your definition takes the issue to one of belief (which cannot be quantified), whereas mine deals with concrete actions.
That said, the burden to prove your definition is still on you, and you haven't actually defended the substance of the definition based on its merits. You've just said "mine's got a higher number in the dictionary".
> Are you going to whine about "reverse discrimination" next?
Depends on the definition, again. By my definition, [0] qualifies (music festival tried to charge whites double). By yours, it wasn't based on a belief of superiority and so didn't qualify. However, I don't believe there is significant racism on either side.
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/festival-white-people-...
Out of curiosity, I looked through your history and found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19727302#19737906 where you decided to use the Wikipedia definition of racism - "the belief in the superiority of another" - to support your argument that a facial recognition systems which provided more precise results for light skinned people was not 'unintentionally racist'.
Have you changed your mind in the last three months?