Hacker News Reader

Comment by Konnstann | Hacker News Reader

Can you give me an example of something a non-white, non-middle class person can't say or do in public? Maybe it's my limited world-view, but I can't think of anything specific.

View on HN

Picking up trash on your own lawn (the officer involved in this faced no penalty and is currently getting paid in full until 2020 because he resigned).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzjkmsKr6sM

As a minority male, I can pretty much say and do anything on public that a white person can say and do.

In addition, I am not viewed by a certain portion of the population as a oppressor based on my skin color.

If anything, sometimes I feel sorry for my white friends and am happy for my minority privilege of not being held responsible for things my ancestors did long before I was born.

If you’re an African American male you have to be very careful how you express anger, however justified it may be.

If you’re a female, it’s more difficult to be taken seriously or heard in meetings, and people constantly talk over you.

If you’re basically anything that’s not white, people will embarrassingly coddle or patronize you, if they’re not prejudicing you.

I never really thought about specific examples until I read this comment, but this is what came to mind.

What a ridiculous statement. The US is the least oppressed society in history. Especially for women and minorities.

there were laws through the 1960s and I think even later that prevents african americans and other non-caucasians from marrying caucasians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia required Supreme Court to override laws that violated the constitution.

If that's your standard for "least oppressed", I think your standards are very low.

Believe it or not, a lot of things have changed since the 60's. Name a society with more rights, more opportunities for the historically oppressed. Deny reality all you want, you're only hurting yourself.

Canada? Anywhere in western/northern Europe?

The US is the least oppressed society in history.

What is ridiculous is to think that is an argument against the truth of parent's statement.

The parent statement is objectively not truth.

Of the your two comments thus far, neither is even remotely what one might call a counter-argument. "Nuh-uh!" does not count. There's still time to edit the comment, care to throw me something more substantial to work with?

You're attempting to refute an absolute statement with a relative one; "--- are oppressed" / "--- are less oppressed than ever." These two statements are logically consistent.

I question your definition of "objectively" in this situation

What does "least oppressed society", a comparative term, have to do with the claims made by the parent commenter? That designation does not preclude the existence of any disparity or injustice.

Where do you even begin to pick apart a statement like this... The US is completely fucked with regards to racial tensions, it's a complete shithole in that respect, for the standard of a developed nation. Race permeates public consciousness to a degree not really seen anywhere in Western Europe. Until the 60s there was institutionalised discrimination for crying out loud. Even today there is a measured, objective disparity in: arrests, convictions, police brutality, not to mention job applications and other areas. Can you compare this to a country like Spain or the Netherlands?

"Least oppressed society in HISTORY", this reads like a Trump tweet. Sure is some egregious lack of self-awareness.

Sure, if you (10 years ago) smoked a joint on the street, and you were black, you carried a far far higher risk of being imprisoned.

Where's the parallel between doing something illegal (10 years ago) and being able to comment on the political climate without fearing for your life/livelihood?

The unequal application of the law based on race. Equal treatment under the law is just as much a fundamental right as freedom of expression is and, arguably, equal treatment prevents the subtle and slow erosion of other rights.

The fact that African Americans are the most likely people by race to be stripped of their right to representation and political expression by a wide margin.

To clarify - this is via them losing access to representation by being deemed a felon, and a lot more African Americans are sentenced with drug possession or intent to distribute than any other racial group proportionally.

lol What an awful example.

Depending on where you are, simply leaving the house. Black people are more likely to be "randomly" stopped, more likely to be searched at a stop, and more likely to be arrested at a stop. Other statistics highlight similar issues faced by other minorities.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/black-people-more...

The article you linked draws more of a link between income levels and police violence than it does race. They explicitly say that the crime rates of low-income neighborhoods, populated by majority minority groups, are higher than that of more affluent neighborhoods. Furthermore most of the injuries happen when the person stopped has a gun, regardless of race.

Not great, and certainly unacceptable, but not equivalent to not being able to "simply leave the house".

if you want to deny the lived experience of african americans in the US, you're free to do so (it falls under free speech) but frankly I think making ivory tower-level statements like this ignores an extraordinary amount of evidence that african americans (and many non-caucasians) experience systemic racism that affects their economic opportunities and health.

I grew up in a majority non-white area, and am now subsequently living in another majority non-white area. I can count on one hand the number of beat cops I've seen in those cities. Seems to me if there's a higher crime rate, the amount of cops increases, and the likelihood you get stopped increases as well.

On another note, when did Caucasian become a term for white people? As an actual Caucasian, having immigrated to the US from a region near Caucasus, I don't get why people use the term so loosely. The debate is about skin color, just use skin color.

To introduce some humor into this deeply humorless world (this is a South Park comment thread), try hearing the word "Caucasian" as "Cock-Asian."

Ha! Gets me chuckling during every intense race-relation debate. I can't not hear it, now!

Parent: "substantive objective measurements show that nonwhite people are subject to systemic racism"

You: "yeah but I grew up in so and so and I never saw anything like that, plus I have a friend who is black and bla bla bla"

Come on...

The "substantive objective measurements" don't even need to be debunked, the article does that itself. My example wasn't to illustrate "no discrimination doesn't happen" it was to illustrate the fact that maybe, the relative wealth of different geographic areas, combined with racial demographics and crime rates, could have more to do with policing practices that JUST skin color. I specifically didn't bring up any of my multicultural friends or whatever, because my argument is not "I didn't see anything therefore it isn't there" but "fewer cops mean fewer people get stopped". Urban density which means that 1 cop can cover more people, and higher crime rate which means more cops are likely out on the street instead of on traffic duty, equate to more people getting stopped by police.

Go ahead and reduce my argument to a strawman and put words into my mouth, but don't act like you're contributing to the conversation.

The data shows that income is by far the biggest factor, but also that it is not the only factor. Income is the biggest differentiator, and therefore the priority issue to tackle, but "skin color" discrimination does happen and it is a factor to explain these disparities. These are two separate things that are important to remember.

I agree. My belief is that the racial biases of the police don't come from beliefs about racial supremacy, but due to the patterns that emerge due to the income factor. If we can solve the first issue, the biases will disappear. This is supported by the fact that the race of the officer doesn't appear to be a factor in police violence cases. It seems, to me at least, that removing the root of the bias would be vastly more effective than trying to instill counter-biases.

Exercise their second amendment rights? Note the differences in the stories of Philando Castile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile) and Brandon Vreeland (https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/men-who-walked-into-dear...).

How about Erik Scott? [1] Or Daniel Shaver? [2]

These are just two incidents that immediately spring to mind to counter your cherry picking. White people are not free from the danger of being shot by police. In fact, there is evidence [3] that white people may be more vulnerable than black people in any given scenario, because scrutiny on police use of force has been applied disproportionately in cases of black victims.

1. https://reason.com/2012/06/12/family-of-west-point-graduate-...

2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27...

As a white man with upper-middle class money to afford good lawyers, I can tell a cop to piss off when they're out of line and suffer fewer repercussions than others. I might go to jail for the evening (no biggie, I've traveled that road), but come Monday morning me and Ms. Pit Bull Lawyer, Esq. go smooth it over with the judge. If it even gets that far...'cuz, you know, I'm white.

This could all be in my head, but based on reporting and anecdotes from friends, I firmly believe that if a cop's being a dick and I call him/her on it, the cuffs will go on much more slowly than if I were another color or lived in a different neighborhood.

Anybody with good enough lawyers can tell a cop to piss off, you might even get the cop on a hate crime if you're non-white. I've got the same amount of anecdotes to suggest the opposite. My dad got pulled over because he didn't stop at a stop sign for the mandatory 3-mississippi in our neighborhood, and no lack of melanin in his skin would have been enough to prevent the ticket.

Yes, watching the news these past few years we can totally see that cops get convicted for "hate crime" every single day.

They shoot innocent, unarmed men to death as a matter of course, and get off with a few months' suspension, but somehow you think you can charge a cop for a "hate crime" for getting pulled over (conveniently concluding then that it's the black folk who are "privileged").

No my point was that wealth supersedes race in police interactions. Look at the Jussie Smollett case, you can definitely stir up some anti-police sentiment if you're rich enough. The conclusion isn't that black folk are privileged, it's that if you are well-off and look the part, race will play a much lower role when you get pulled over.

Not parent, but thanks for the reply. In response to my own sibling comment I say, "hmm, I apparently was not hearing you right."

What I hear you saying is that in a hypothetical world where one can change race like changing a shirt, when confronted by on overbearing cop you'd choose "Black Man, size M" as soon as you'd choose "White Man, size L". And whilst telling the fine officer to piss off, you stand equal chance of living long enough to even need a lawyer no matter which race you chose that day. If I'm hearing correctly, I strongly disagree, but such are different perspectives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com