Comment by makmanalp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by makmanalp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm Middle Eastern, and I think this is hilarious. Anyone who is offended by this, can you please unplug your internet cables so the rest of us can stop being all touchy?

In Turkish there is a very fitting proverb which loosely translates to "Whoever has a scar will take offense" meaning if you say something, and someone overreacts to it, it's not your fault and probably just because they have some hidden problem or feeling of inadequacy (the "scar").

If everyone can take themselves a little less seriously, we'd all be a little less pissed. Thank you for listening. </rant>

Edit: Okay, here comes Pandora's Box again. The way I see it, what is so offensive about racist speech (or any generalization for that matter) is the presumption that all members of that group are equally <insert derogatory adjective here>. Once you realize how absurd, dumb and wrong that is, I don't see how anyone could possibly take racism seriously and be offended by it. At most, you should conclude that the person who is making the remarks is probably not intelligent, and not worth your time.

Heck, perhaps I have some sort of emotional deficiency or something, but I don't even see how people can get so angry about words. For example, I have seen people taunting each other with stuff like "your mother was amazing in bed last night", and the other person getting gradually angrier up to the point that they start physically fighting. I think it's a very curious thing about the human psyche that I can make up something absurd, blabber about it, and get another human to the point of total lack of self control. I think it's all just a dumb made up social convention that we're better off without.

It's as if every politically correct statement should be prefixed with the pre-amble:

"Since I know that you are all racist/sexist/homophobes and think that Straight White American Males are superior to all other beings, I am going to use one as the person in this narrative who commits a negative act in order to avoid further reinforcing your beliefs!"

Since you are from the middle east and do not believe that Straight White American Males are superior to all other beings, the political correctness seems ridiculous, as it does to most people from non white-majority countries. In fact, it seems that the white people who have the strongest underlying beliefs that they are superior to other races and that they should constantly remind themselves to feel guilty about it are the strongest advocates of political correctness.

> "Since I know that you are all racist/sexist/homophobes and think that Straight White American Males are superior to all other beings, I am going to use one as the person in this narrative who commits a negative act in order to avoid further reinforcing your beliefs!"

The dumb thing is, if you point out how racist this is you're the evil racist one.

"Lighten up, will ya? Why can’t we all enjoy a little racist caricature?"

Everyone deserves a presumption of respect and dignity. I don’t make bigoted caricatures at the expense of others just to make some point about trust and certificates, and I don’t expect other people to enjoy and defend it when someone is ignorant enough to resort to racist caricature.

It’s the whole Ruby sexism debate all over again, I guess.

link for Ruby sexism debate reference: http://www.ultrasaurus.com/sarahblog/2009/04/gender-and-sex-...

>It’s the whole Ruby sexism debate all over again, I guess.

I must've missed that one. Sounds like a barrel of laughs.

Yes, you know who also deserves respect and dignity and the benefit of any doubt you can come up with? The author of the OP.

You don't need to get all philosophical about it, it's simple: Racist speech is A Bad Thing* because people actually do make that absurd, dumb and wrong presumption, and racist speech reinforces those racist attitudes.

(* let's forget the word "offensive" because this is not the same territory as yo' momma jokes and curse words - racism affects the real world)

Exactly, thank you. I was starting to lose patience with all the esoteric non-arguments.

Racism is a dangerous toy to play with. Just because you’re a good person who didn’t become a racist after reading that doesn’t mean it’s a mistake to cry foul against racist caricature. The caricature is still wrong. It communicated nothing but the writer’s lazy prejudice.

The (general, de-stupidified) point being made by the caricaturist can be correct, and the racist caricature foul and despicable...all at the same time!

> doesn’t mean it’s wrong to cry foul against racist caricature. It’s still wrong.

Throwing around false accusations of racism is also wrong. Of course, not all accusations are false, but most are these days.

And then there's the whole "cry wolf" thing.

How do you know "most" are false? Who are you to determine whether someone is legitimately offended?

What does legitimately offended mean?

Take a look at my hypothetical scenario.

If I'm a Foo and Foo's have always owned, sold and even killed Baz's on a whim. And their whole history, culture and law reinforces and even encourages them to do so.

And now someone tells me that my progenitors were assholes to do so. Do I have right to be legitimately offended? And if so - does this make racism ok?

I don't know. If this kind of Foo situation is analogous to racial discrimination in your mind, perhaps you haven't studied many situations of actual discrimination. There's no need for hypothetical situations, we have innumerable actual examples to choose from.

It is not just about racial discrimination. It is about balance of power in general and how that impacts what is legitimate, regarding to ones position.

There is also a certain point where combating racism transforms into fighting with ghosts.

From the original story - the Achmed and his extended family kinda fit - since people from general area of mediterran and middle east tend to pay more attention to their relatives - and so this story could also work with Giuseppe from Sicily or Zorbas the Greek, Jovo from Serbia or someone else. It's main point is hardly that muslims are scoundrels who prey on every opportunity to shaft their fellow human. You could argue that it is racist by proxy (He picked an Arab name - so it has to be racist). To me it is the same case of native American woman trying to ban Brave new World since some people in the book whose race isn't even mentioned, live in low tech reservations.

The way I see it it is a caricature. A mild one at that.

> There's no need for hypothetical situations, we have innumerable actual examples to choose from.

And yet, we have people crying racism where none exists. Heck, we have people worrying about being exposed to racism in fictional worlds.

See Is HBO's Game of Thrones racist? http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2011/04/20...

"They are, in short, barbarians of the most stereotypical, un-PC sort. As I watched, I kept thinking, 'Are they still allowed to do that?'"

and

"... if it was 'possible to be racist toward a race that does not actually exist.'"

> How do you know "most" are false?

Because I look at the "offense".

> Who are you to determine whether someone is legitimately offended?

In this case, the "offended" party was offended on behalf of someone else. When a supposed "victim" of this "racism" spoke up, he was belittled because he didn't play along.

You want to be offended, fine, but don't claim to be doing so on someone else's behalf.

You seem offended that I think that most "anti-racism" is a sham. I was being nice. We could get into how most anti-racists are quite tolerant of horrific acts so long as they're performed by the correct people.

That pretty much proves that most "anti-racism" is not humanitarian but just crude political posturing.

Have a nice day.

So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism? And, perhaps conveniently, this determination preserves your existing worldview that claims of racism are false or exaggerated.

Most people would call that ignorance.

> So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism?

Not at all. I said that I looked at incidents of supposed racism such as the above. My observations drove my opinion of "anti-racists".

Is there racism - yes. My point is that the anti-racists aren't pointing it out, that they're engaged in political posturing.

BTW - I'm familiar with many of the so-called "direct" measurements. The vast majority don't measure racism so they're useful only to identify folks who either can't do science or don't bother in this case. Which category do you find virtuous? (You do know that "he meant well" is an insult, right?)

If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes.

All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias. You're presenting an argument based on biased assimilation of evidence -- accepting only the evidence which supports your positive opinion of yourself and your prior understanding of racism.

You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.

> If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes.

Good for you. I took notes while doing my observation - are you going to come over to read them? (I'm not typing them in for you.)

> All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias.

Actually, you are. You're assuming things about my observations without any supporting evidence.

> You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.

Pot, kettle, black.

Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?

Sorry, your anecdotal evidence is not valuable, nor are the generalizations derived thereof, and not deserving of serious consideration. If you had some actual evidence that we could consider here, that would be helpful. If your notes had any value then you should type them up, or at least don't expect anyone to take them seriously -- they're not a legitimate basis to get up and object to people claiming to be hurt.

For someone to say "my observations drove my opinions of anti-racists" is ill-conceived on so many levels. To use only your own observations as a meaningful source of knowledge about an entire group of people is the quintessential definition of prejudice. What are your controls? How are you countering for known psychological biases when making these determinations? That you expect other people to accept these conclusions simply because you claim to have had certain observations (not even presenting what those observations are), without qualification, is astounding.

On the other hand, people are presenting claims of taking offense at certain statements. They are only making claims about their own internal state. It's you who claims to have some special knowledge about the interior emotional states of other people. What you're presenting, without any kind of evidence, is essentially "I know when people are and aren't offended, and therefore I have a right to say XYZ because I know who is genuinely hurt."

I would guess, with a standard like this, that nobody can be genuinely, unjustly hurt by anything you say. They're all crying wolf. Or, perhaps most stupidly, people who claim to be hurt by Achmed stereotypes are faking, unless you personally observe them holding signs at next weekend's rally against some cause that you think is "actual" racism.

> Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?

Because I have been a victim of racism.

> That you expect other people to accept these conclusions simply because you claim to have had certain observations (not even presenting what those observations are), without qualification, is astounding.

Pot, kettle, black. Or, if you prefer, double standards much?

> On the other hand, people are presenting claims of taking offense at certain statements.

You're not paying attention. They claimed to be offended because the statements were supposedly offensive to other people.

While they're entitled to be offended by anything they please, surely it's relevant whether said other people are actually offended by said statements.

>> Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?

> Because I have been a victim of racism.

How, exactly, has someone saying "that's offensive to others" helped you? If that whinge hasn't helped you, why is defending such people important to you?

Note the specificity. I'm not asking about other people who helped you.

One more thing.

> Good for you. I took notes while doing my observation - are you going to come over to read them?

Yeah, it is good for me. I understand the basic principle of science, as well as how to use a dictionary. I wouldn't go around waving a notebook full of my scribblings and conclude from this that the vast majority of claims about racism are overblown.

I'm neither ignorant nor arrogant enough to assume that my own observations are sufficiently broad or relevant, that they support generalized statements about people I've never met.

> I understand the basic principle of science,

Oh really? I claim to have observations. That's pretty much how scientific theories are tested.

You claim that my obervations are flawed, but have yet to provide any supporting evidence for your claim.

Yes, it's possible that the folks that I run into are non-representative. It's also possible that my sampling wasn't good. However, you don't get to claim such things without actual evidence.

Scars come from being injured, not being inadequate.

It's a proverb. That means it's old, from back when losing a leg was a downgrade, not an upgrade.

Then you won't like the Greek version of that proverb, which makes little to no sense:

"Whoever has the fly gets flied."

On a side note - are there any other people that find politically correct modern (US? Western?) pop culture where every group of people has to contain all the notable minorities - offensive and racist?

I remember watching the Flyboys - and contemplating if the same movie could be made about any other WW1 squadron where there were no black pilots.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com