Comment by titzer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by titzer | Hacker News Reader

I was nodding along up until this:

> The clearest evidence of this is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. [2]

I think there is a ton of nuance that contradicts this. For example, a white, upper-middleclass college graduate could proclaim:

"College graduation rates are lower for black people. It must be difficult for them to finish."

And a black person with a low income background who has failed to finish college can utter the exact same words and it means something totally different.

The first might be considered subtly racist, depending on how its delivered, who it is delivered to--maybe even flagrantly racist under the right circumstances. The second might be considered exactly the opposite, alleging racism while not itself being racist.

The context and speaker matter a lot for these value judgments, not to mention tone, implication, insinuation, etc. Paul is bordering on socially crippled here.

You're just demonstrating PG's point exactly: that the x-ism depends on who says it even though it has no relation to truth.

You didn't even try to argue once that the statement is less true when a white graduate says it. The most you can say is one "might be considered" x-ist and affects a vague "value judgement". What does "might be considered subtly racist" have to do with truth?

You're technically correct, the first statement might be considered subtly racist because as PG argues: that's the heretical world we live in. I'd find it hard to argue that PG is socially crippled when he is precisely spelling out this social dynamic that leads to heresy.

The only difference is you seem content that society works this way.

But in this case one can be true and one can be false. If you imagine a world where either situation is true, then the context changes the truth of the statements.

The issue is that there is an implied difference in implied causation ("difficult because of their personal qualities" vs "difficult because of the college environment", say) and the truth values _with that implication included_ might be quite different.

I agree with what you're saying here, just want to add that your example also kind of upholds the original line. Delivery, audience, tone, implication/insinuation factors all matter a ton... but in a text medium, barring access to any of the above, we kinda assume that if someone's white, upper-middle class and well educated, they're at least a little prejudiced against black people. Which was the original point.

(For bonus points I likewise kinda assumed with nothing to go on except the broader context that our "white, upper-middleclass college graduate" is going to be male and likely middle-aged or older.)

In addition, all communication is context sensitive. When a politician who needs nei-nazi votes to get elected says something questionable, it's not unreasonable to assume it was intentional.

Dog whistles are why we can't have nice things.

Just struck me that the term 'dog whistle' to the general population just means something you toot to get a dog's attention, whereas to a select target audience it has far more sinister implications and acts as a call to action of sorts. Ironic.

“dog whistle” comes from supersonic dog whistles that dogs can hear but humans can’t, not just whistling to call a dog. The analogy is that a speaker can use a phrase that most people won’t notice but their intended audience will understand.

Maybe you already know this and I misunderstood your comment.

I didn't know this, thank you!

I'm confused - it sounds like you're simply agreeing with Paul here, while claiming to disagree.

Judging racist insinuation from tone of voice, emphasis, and social context can definitely be valid. But I think it's really not a great idea to jump to negative conclusions about what a speaker said based primarily on the racial identity of the speaker. And making judgments primarily based on identity is what Paul is criticizing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com