Ever since I've looked up what the fourteen words are, I'm both struggling to understand why they are controversial and associated with the far right. They seem pretty reasonable and on par with the "It's okay to be white" campaign.
Fourteen Words, 14, or 14/88, is a reference to the fourteen-word slogan
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,
"[1] or the less commonly used "Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman
must not perish from the earth."[2] The slogans were originally coined by white
supremacist David Lane,[3] a founding member of the terrorist organization The
Order[4] and serve as a rallying cry for militant white nationalists across the globe."
"Hey white-nationalist, I see that you really like white people and that's okay. You want white kids to be happy, go for it. If someone else wants green kids to be happy, they should do that too. Just don't be a dick to everyone else."
If they're directing their energy towards anything good at all, it's probably best to recognize the validity there, while doing your best to devalidate things they shouldn't be doing. It's not like "fuck everything about you white nationalist" is paying off... it's kind of how we got Trump IMO.
Now, down the street are three other families: one white, one black, and one asian. They all have kids, too. Now what does the saying say?
Here's a family where the parents are white, the kids are mixed, because they also adopted some kids from Africa. Those adopted kids are just as much their children as the natural children are. What does the saying say to them?
Here's an anglo who married a person of another race. What does the saying say to them?
We want a good future for kids - our kids, and our community's kids. Whether they're white has nothing to do with it.
And because whether they're white has nothing to do with it, adding that to the phrase is what makes it racist. It winds up at least implying that white children deserve a good future, and other children don't (or at least don't as much).
What they are trying to demonstrate is that there is a massive double standard. There are organizations, government programs, scholarships, etc which are explicitly designed to help the futures of children of color. Many people are openly, consciously, and unapologetically acting in a focused way to make the future better for them. But merely saying that we should be concerned about the future of white children is hotly contested.
But yeah, the correct full position is we want to secure a good and fair future for all children, and fair sometimes means compensating for historical and ongoing inequalities and injustices created by racism.
Starting off as AnimalMuppet did (basically, trying to make white people feel bad for merely wanting for people of their category something which numerous institutions openly, explicitly, and unapologetically try to provide to people of other categories) is a pretty good way to convince white people that you can't be trusted to look out for their children without bias.
On to the your point. Yes, there are organizations and programs that explicitly try to help non-white children. And why? Because those children have disproportionately more poverty and worse outcomes than white children. So, you know, if you're going to try to fix things, maybe starting where the problems are is a reasonable idea.
If one of those organizations was explicitly trying to have "other" children have better outcomes than white children, that would be a problem. But trying to get to equal seems perfectly reasonable.
Now, if you want to argue that white parents don't hear that as the intent, I would agree that at least some probably don't. But your position seems to be something beyond merely "some of them hear it that way". I've no desire to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that anything further I will not agree with.
As far as the institutions go, you're not saying anything that anyone here is unaware of. Everyone here is totally familiar with the justifications for those institutions. That is not the point.
The point is that you led off by pulling the heart strings of white people merely for saying they want something for people of their category, when they can look around and see that not only is every other category allowed to say that and want that for people of their category, they actually have institutions that are openly explicitly trying to provide it to them.
The appearance is that you are holding them to a different standard than those other people, which is an indication of bias. That is how you fell into the trap.
It's not a good starting point if your next point is that you're just trying to make everyone equal. How can they trust you?
So, when those words are spoken by the far right, can you see a problem?
Could someone in complete innocence say the same words, and have no ill intent? Sure. But such words are also said by the far right. Do you hold them as having no ill intent?
I've got a problem with the meaning the far right puts on the words. Do you not?
Frankly, the thing you are arguing and arguing and arguing about is not something I care very much about. Innocent whites can see the words as being completely benign? Yeah, dog whistles are like that.
If you don't want to see it, then there's not much point talking to you. And in fact, whether you're honestly looking or not, I'm done with this conversation. You can take the last word if you want.
Are you saying this is reasonable?
EDIT: Here come the downvotes. You can't prove I meant X... oh the irony.
It is truly a subversive phrase because it takes control of the argument from a place that requires, IMO, a lot of basics to be explained and/or challenged... which most people don't want to sit through. It's like a self-generating mine field of arguments.
It depends on the context of the comment.
This phasing in particular was literally created by 4chan people, for the purpose of demonstrating some sort of anti SJW agenda.
> This means people who know both terms are at constant risk of arguments of the form "You're weak-manning me!" "No, you're motte-and-baileying me!".
Have you ever considered that if you need to do a lot of explaining, and not even your own parents follow your logic, but the other person can persuasively summarize their argument... you might just be wrong?
A question for people downvoting:
Do you think I’m wrong or do you just not like what I’m saying?
It seems easy to correct me about the Harvard admissions point, if I’m just factually mistaken.
Por qué no los dos?
You don't see that half, because the left didn't take that side. There was no winning either way.
I have a browser extension [1] that lets me set custom tags on HN users. I'm not unconflicted about using it, since I have some ideological hangups that tell me to let people's words speak for themselves and to not let someone's history muddy the waters of a discussion in the present. That being said, HN isn't anonymous and it's a comparatively small community and I decided I might as well try keeping track (to some extent) of who's saying what here because it's practicable and there are other places I can experience death-of-the-author just fine. Besides, it reminds me that jacquesm sorted two metric tons of lego using legos and machine learning that one time, so now that always makes me smile when I see him comment.
So here I am, looking at your comment and trying to figure out what it tells me about you as a commenter - what I would want to remember about you if I saw you again. It needs to be fairly terse, to fit.
The first idea that arrives is "It's not reasonable to be white." I dismiss this immediately, because it's the most cynical and least-founded take on your comment (though darkly funny to me).
The second idea is "The 'It's ok to be white' campaign is not reasonable." I turn this over in my mind a few times and even start typing it out. But while I'm typing, I re-read your edit and pause. Then I realize - I'm doing exactly what that blogpost described. "What did 0xff00ffee mean here?"
What if all you meant to do is ask is the literal question "Are you saying that the 'It's ok to be white' campaign is reasonable?" And it's hard for me to even come up with a way of phrasing this in such a way that it sufficiently emphasises the literal, un-euphemistic, un-implicating character that I'm trying describe.
Then I pause again and realize that I've fallen down a semantic rabbithole and there's a snowball's chance in hell that you meant your comment in the third way. And by this time I've read your next comment [2] and am aware that you're aware of the ambiguous, scissor statement nature of your original comment and the amount of context that must be conveyed in order to disambiguate it. This humanises you. Instead of a snarky internet signaller, you become a real person, with parents whose views you care about and who's already expended effort trying to convey the that large context to people without setting off the self-generating minefield that you know exists. The snappy comment wasn't because you haven't stopped caring about changing people's minds; you're just tired of arguing with apparently superficial people who aren't prepared to take context into account (and you were responding to someone who may be a particularly strong example of such).
So I guess you're "a real human bean".
0: https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication
Precisely!
I didn't want to assume what the parent was asking, so I asked for more information.
With a highly-context-sensitive phrase like this it is best to ask them to explain. If it is asked in sincerity a conversation can evolve. If it is asked with an obvious attempt to deliver the subtext, it is quite clear in about 3-4 sentences.
I appreciate your documented thought process. I notice you diligently approach the phrase prima-facie and observe the semantics, but then don't move beyond that. You were super close there with "what did 0xff00ffee mean?", then moved on.
Beyond lexing and yaccing some tokens, there is one very important question, often referred to by historians as part of analysis via the "Period View":
"What is happening culturally (socially and politically) at that time and geography when the phrase was uttered?"
Much like how historical record needs to be digested in context, which is where many of the logical dissections of ideological slogans have a colossal, debilitating blind spot.
Not to say semantic analysis is wrong or irrelevant, it is just half of the process. A necessary half, but only half.
Middle-class white people have increasingly witnessed a media and a left-wing political coalition that can vilify them with impunity for gain, be that entertainment value or the easy political cohesion that hate can generate. So, I'd argue it's important to make room for and accept the very tepid and nonthreatening "It's okay to be white." Because if we don't, what follows that will be less palatable.
"Angry black woman" was a trope looooooooooong before Karen hit your screen. If you only care about meanness when it's targeted at white people, then this is not a meme problem; this is a you problem.
The accumulation of keywords that creates a clearer and clearer signal. If you see someone with a celtic cross and 1488 written below, do you really think that person is "pretty reasonable"?
It's yucky. It literally took us a century to kill that as policy, and that it survives as meme is deeply shameful.