Hacker News Reader

Comment by b112 | Hacker News Reader

What a weird way to put it, it makes it sound as if this difference of opinion is hate based, not just a wrong belief.

It isn't forbidden "because it works", it is forbidden "because teaching works", and a step back, "they believe it to be wrong information"

By stating your shortcut, eg "teaching works", I feel you are glossing over, while unintentionally, the fact that there is an actual difference of belief here.

Such people can believe black people are inferior, or lgbtq is wrong, without it deriving from hate. Their hate comes from people trying to "corrupt" their children's beliefs, and anyone with a child would feel precisely the same way, if they thought the thing taught, was very wrong.

By understanding the source of the hate, by keeping the source in mind, we are better able to counter it... to perhaps fix it.

View on HN

Whatever your definition of "hate" is, if it doesn't capture teaching people to believe Black people are inferior, it's an unproductive definition, one that will just lead you into constant unproductive semantic debates. A lesson that Black people are inferior is a lesson reasonable people will consider hateful. Some beliefs people hold are simply hateful; we are not bound to respect them.

You are seeing hate, as a reflection of your own emotional response to the act. You are also insisting that those responsible, must believe just as you do, and therefore presuming they think their act wrong.

If you cannot see how they view they world, how their thinking is wrong, cannot see how they think, you have zero chance of correcting it.

I'm sure many people who took part in historical lynchings against minorities thought themselves absolutely justified and were having a grand ol' time doing it. If you look up the records, you'll find that some lynchings were even treated as spontaneous parties by the aggressors: they broke out the good booze, started up some campfire cooking, danced and played music... all while their targets hung dead in the background or, sometimes, slowly choked to death.

None of that makes it any less of a hateful act.

You are now discussing an entirely different thibg, I therefore presume you had no valid response to my prior comment.

Your comments about this are just plain boring when we see the injustice around us every single day.

We don’t want to lean back in our comfort and pontificate from our position of privilege and safety and ‘well, akchtually’ people who experience these acts of hate and violence.

Teaching and believing and spreading that some people are inferior because of where they were born or the color of their skin is just plain wrong. If you are telling your kids that, it isn’t an opinion, it’s hate.

It isn’t a position that deserves debate, conversation or any space in our polities.

Tolerance has it’s limits and a lot of people are tired and refusing to tolerate the likes of your juvenile, puerile attempts at ‘conversation’.

My prior comments discussed zero acts of violence, and further, you are pontificating the second you reply to anything on hackernews.

People here have been discussing how to teach people about equality, how to resolve racism in the young. My comment was about ensuring that is targeted correctly, both in youth and older people, so it actually works.

You cannot fix something, if you target the wrong thing to fix. You cannot fix something, if you don't even understand the source of the issue.

But sure... yell at the guy trying to rationally frame this issue, so we can correctly fix it.

That makes sense.

See what I mean about unproductive semantic debates? I recommend you just use the word the way everyone else does; that's what words are for, communicating. When you do the "a-ha, gotcha, I meant something totally unexpected by the word 'hate'" thing, most of what you manage to communicate is that you think racial hatred is a game.

See what I mean about unproductive semantic debates? I recommend you just use the word the way everyone else does; that's what words are for, communicating

What presumption!

A few responses, are not indicative of the world, or even a majority opinion. They do not indicate "the way everyone else does", and in fact may be responses from people misusing the word!

This seems more to be the case, for the responses either tried to paint my statments in a poor light, even after I clarified my usage, or went off the deep end.

When you do the "a-ha, gotcha, I meant something totally unexpected by the word 'hate'" thing,

What are you even talking about? I clearly defined this from the start.

most of what you manage to communicate is that you think racial hatred is a game.

A game? It is as if you have not read my posts, or this thread. Or even the post you are responding to.

Just because I think racism can exist without hatred, does not mean racism cannot be hate based. This all or nothing, this "it is this way, and no other way", this "a problem can only be approached from one angle" thinking seldom results in solutions.

And we want to fix things, right? We don't just want to complain, and throw words at it, right?

Or do we want to understand, frame correctly, then fix?

Just because I think racism can exist without hatred [...]

See above.

You introduced the word "hate" to the conversation.

Yes, racism can exist without hatred. We can view an ancient dead civilization through a racist lens without hating the people we study. But, so what?

This thread started from a specific example - segregated swimming pools. I don't know why you've written so much on this thread without actually discussing the issue.

We know whites were angry about desegregating swimming pools, and committed violence in order to preserve their belief in a segregated society protecting the legal and social status of whites over blacks.

That's not simply saying "there was hate", but giving a reason for the belief (white supremacy) an explanation of the anger (increasing desegregation overturned the status people regarded as their birthright), and a way out of it (showing beloved Mr. Rogers share a wading pool with his black friend, Officer Clemmons).

That's a chance to correct it, through Mr. Rogers' deliberate anti-racist efforts.

You earlier wrote "My prior comments discussed zero acts of violence", which rather highlights that your comments are completely decoupled from how Mr. Rogers was responding to widespread acts of violence when blacks tried to swim in what had been white-only swimming areas. That's the context everyone else is addressing.

So don't be surprised when people are irritated by your irrelevant hypotheticals.

That's the context everyone else is addressing.

This is what I was referring to. I responded to a specific point, of a specific post, about a specific thing.

This happens all the time. It's how conversation works. Yet you continue to ignore context, continue to ignore what I was discussing, which I have reiterated in every single reply. Instead, you find fault that I was not discussing.. what? What you wanted to discuss?

I repeat again, and go back to my original reply, we must truly understand cause, to effect correction.

For some reason this appears to bother you greatly. All of your replies have been to posts of mine stating this. Apparently, you disagree?

Well, why even bother responding? You apparently don't care for cause, and get upset at targeted correction.

There's little else to say here.

> I repeat again, and go back to my original reply, we must truly understand cause, to effect correction.

Which I have specifically addressed in my earlier reply. To wit:

reason for the belief = white supremacy

explanation of the anger = increasing desegregation overturned the status people regarded as their birthright

way out of it = showing beloved Mr. Rogers share a wading pool with his black friend, Officer Clemmons (anti-racism efforts)

> You apparently don't care for cause

Perhaps your frustration caused you to overlook my earlier summary of the cause, and overlook my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32289951 where I link to additional resources about the cause.

> Such people can believe black people are inferior, or lgbtq is wrong, without it deriving from hate. Their hate comes from people trying to "corrupt" their children's beliefs, and anyone with a child would feel precisely the same way, if they thought the thing taught, was very wrong.

I think I understand what you’re trying to say but if you explore the next “layer” of their beliefs and ask why they’re so afraid you’ll find the ultimate root of these beliefs is hatred.

More likely fear

I’m not sure the distinction between the idea that this other group of people are inferior and hatred.

If a group is inferior it’s then ok to use the state and other social systems to keep them below you. That seems pretty hateful to me.

> it makes it sound as if this difference of opinion is hate based, not just a wrong belief

The belief was one of racial superiority and hatred over the movement towards equal rights and equal access, which knocked them off the pedestal they believed they were born to be on. They didn't like how their children were being "corrupted" by the ideals of racial equality, which upset their views about social hierarchy.

Public pools shut down or were privatized after desegregation and civil rights laws made it impossible to have "whites only" public pools. There's a book on this overall topic: Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America.

There's an infamous picture of a motel manager pouring pool chemicals into the motel pool to scare desegregationalist activists who were swimming in it - https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/motel-manager-pouring-acid-... .

Here's background on the context of the wading pool: https://www.today.com/popculture/how-mister-rogers-pool-mome... . "This 'Mister Rogers' moment broke race barriers. It's just as powerful today / The scene aired amid racial tensions in the U.S. over segregated swimming pools, and many see it as Rogers taking a stand against racism. ... The same year it aired, the Supreme Court ruled that pools could not be segregated by race."

You can also read what Clemmons (who played the officer) has to say about it in his memoir, "Officer Clemmons: A Memoir", which has this scene on the cover.

> it makes it sound as if this difference of opinion is hate based

Yes. If you think black people or gay people are inferior, and that their rights should be suppressed because of that, that is hate.

> “they believe it to be wrong information”

And we believe what they peddle to be lies grounded in hate and bigotry.

But it is, Blanche! It is hate based!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com