Hacker News Reader

Comment by linguistbreaker | Hacker News Reader

I think context is the important thing here. Taken out of context, the quote is reasonable. I had never heard of this but if you replace "white" with "black" it seems pretty acceptable right?

In context it sort of means repress and kill everyone else though.

View on HN

And how do you get from this quote to the context of genociding other people? That's a pretty big non-sequitur. The quote is about securing a future, not to "kill all infidels".

I just got back from reading a blogpost [0] by another commenter (presumably also German, if you are, in fact, German) in this thread about how Americans are so steeped in euphemism that they don't notice how much they respond to what they think their conversational parter is implying and not to what the partner is actually saying. I admit that I am American and the blogpost resonates with my experience.

That being said, you've just made a very interesting sequence of comments in this subthread that, taken as a whole, can be interpreted in at least a couple of quite different ways - and the more comments you make, the more your (probably predominately American) readers are going to build up a mental model of what you might be implying.

Personally, as an American who maybe has spent too much time on the internet, my interpretation of your comments in this subthread is that they are essentially a piece of performance art. Also personally, I am enjoying the performance quite a lot. I'll make no comment about whether or not the performance is appropriate to the spirit of this website as revealed to us by dang.

But! Maybe it's good for me to practice responding to what people actually say. And I think your logic slipped a little:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22924541 (GP) said:

>Taken out of context, the quote is reasonable. [Taken in context], it... means repress and kill everyone [but whites].

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22924684 (you) said:

>How do you get from this quote to the context of genociding other people?

The issue is that GP said "There is a context that the quote was made in, and that context turns the quote bad" and you non-sequitured by asking "How does one, starting from these words, derive the bad-making context?" You're right, you can't. The literal words are fine by themselves. But the words are not all there is (at least to an American audience in the current year, which the audience I'm most qualified to have an opinion on).

This is why when you tell an American "allahu ackbar" they think "suicide bomber". Or "it's time for a change" means "the boundless optimism of a young black presidential candiate". Or "planned parenthood" could mean either "women finally gaining control over their own bodies" or "state subsidy of immoral behavior" instead of, you know, literally planning whether/when one wants to have children.

Americans wouldn't tattoo 1488 on themselves if there were no additional, metatextual information that they wanted to convey to a viewer, so it seems kind of naive to interpret that kind of thing in the literal manner you've been exploring. I don't think you're suggesting they should be interpreted literally, though; I think you're lamenting that some humans have gotten to a place where they see terrible concepts in words that are intrinsically innocuous.

I think that's just a part of being human, but I'm American so maybe it's just a part of being American. I lament it also.

0: https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication

I believe the account is a troll, in the earlier internet definition, someone that goads others, often for the sake of contrarianism, often to make them say odd/unsupportable things in response to seemingly reasonable or mild posts.

When they're good, they have been performance art. I wouldn't rate this one particularly highly though.

"You can call me all the adjectives you want, but I do not care if earth explodes after I die. I just don't. I care for my benefits during my own life. I've said this before and I say it again, I do not have any moral problems with sacrificing other peoples benefits for my own benefits and neither should you. Doing this is insanity. Would you starve yourself to death so you can feed other people? Why should I care for other people? It's a silly notion. Maybe I'd care a little bit if I had children, but I don't."

I'm a bit surprised at how people spend energy engaging with this commenter without checking their history. Anyways, I really do hope it's a troll.

In a statistical sense, in an global integrated society, where everyone is freely equally likely to partner with everyone, there eventually won't be any children by the traditional racist definitions of white, ie, with white. no interbreeding with non European ancestry. (The whole concept of white is questionable and mostly racist, fyi.) This is what is generally called white genocide by the far right, even though it is anything but.

To prevent this scenario, we get some pretty ugly ethnostate and facist ideas. Controlling "race mixing", keeping different "races" separated to different countries, and in some cases, explicit calls for genocidal actions.

All this infringement on freedoms just to prevent an outcome that is just based on some made up unscientific discrimination like race and fear of race mixing.

Basically, 14 words are bad because they acknowledge the constructed idea of race and embrace it in the worst possible way.

> there eventually won't be any children by the traditional racist definitions of white, ie, with white. no interbreeding with non European ancestry.

There aren't any of those anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com