Hacker News Reader

Comment by syzarian | Hacker News Reader

A great example of this phenomenon is the white response to desegregation in the United States. White union workers voted against their labor interests, white flight from major cities, municipalities closing down public swimming pools, disappearance of social clubs, etc. Community services were shut down in favor of the "free market" and we've seen the rise of pay as you go government services. Even obviously true notions like "it takes a village" were derided. Collectivism and the notion of "community" were greatly reduced in response to desegregation. The nation self immolated its social fabric in response to desegregation.

EDIT: In the last sentence I wrote above “nation” should have been written as “white people of the nation”.

View on HN

> The (white people) self immolated the social fabric of the (white people) in response to desegregation.

It's important to note that Black people never had access to those things to start with. They were destroyed out of spite and moved to private clubs that could get away with not admitting Black members.

And when they managed to build them, white people burned them to the ground out of spite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

Yes. I made an edit to my comment as a result of you pointing this out. I did not chose my words carefully in my last sentence. Thank you for pointing this out.

>A great example of this phenomenon is the white response to

In picking an example, you're forced to be reductive. Rather than considering the content of the character, all the comments are focused on the color of its skin.

We could be having a productive conversation about how working class run societies and government (The basic core of the US experiment in self rule) were divided and conquered by the Owner class.

But instead, we'd rather pick apart the example. This is far, far too common here on HN. It leads to a reduction of the value of HN as a whole.

PS: What's the HN shorthand to name syzarian's comment that I'm replying to?

Indeed. And the way the ruling class divided the working class in the U.S. was by using race as the talking point instead of class. I do maintain though that this was especially easy to do because with desegregation white working class Americans had a target to blame that wasn’t the ruling class.

Class reductionism doesn't provide a concrete example of "harming their own group rather than help the Other" as much as the changes the U.S went under in response to the end of Jim Crow.

You're offended that someone is using white as a descriptor ?

You're engaging in the same behavior.

> White union workers voted against their labor interests

What were these interests, and was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group, and if not what was it?

Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions, and a clear objective understanding of their actual interests, or is this just your interpretation of their actions?

I'm not into the subject but this article covers race and unions in the US. Might be relevant.

https://racial-justice.aflcio.org/blog/est-aliquid-se-ipsum-...

> Was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group?

This is beside the point. From the paper:

However, real-world decision-making often entails making choices where harm is unavoidable (7, 8). Groups may have to choose between in-group losses and out-group gains, a circumstance that has not been previously studied and reveals that individuals’ decisions cannot be explained by existing theories.

> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?

Often we do, because people generally are not all that shy in telling one another - and the media - what they think.

It is also highly improbable that a group which fought hard for union representation, or made considerable use of a public pool, suddenly decided these things were against their own interests right at the time these benefits were being extended to other people.

> This is beside the point. From the paper:

I was asking someone who made a specific claim, they were not quoting from the paper. I'm asking him about the claim they made.

Specifically the person said "A great example of this phenomenon is the white response to desegregation in the United States. White union workers voted against their labor interests".

In the context of an article titled "Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group.

If the person did present an example of something claimed by the article, the article cannot be used to substantiate it, the article cannot be an example of itself, it could contain examples, but this was presented as an independent example, which needs independent justification.

> > Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?

> Often we do

Do we have any for the specific instance in question?

> I was asking someone who made a specific claim, they were not quoting from the paper. I'm asking him about the claim they made.

In showing that a specific question you asked is beside the point of the paper, there is nothing wrong in quoting the paper to demonstrate what that point is.

Furthermore, I quoted the specific question you posed (for reference: 'Was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group?') Syzarian's comment (and, more relevantly, the claim you specifically picked out in your latest reply) neither implies nor is predicated on either a yes or no answer to the question I quoted - and there is no reason it should, especially if, as I suspect (but cannot prove), Syzarian is well aware that this is beside the point of the paper.

> In the context of an article titled "Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group.

This is an entire paragraph, yet it does not even appear to be a complete sentence, but you do seem to be agreeing that the context created by the paper is relevant.

> If the person did present an example of something claimed by the article, the article cannot be used to substantiate it...

The question of yours that I responded to is not about, and does not raise an issue concerning, the veracity of the claim you have specifically identified.

>>> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?

>> Often we do [because people generally are not all that shy in telling one another - and the media - what they think.]

> Do we have any for the specific instance in question?

This is the most blatant example so far of something that pervades all your posts here: attempting to shift the burden of proof by raising questions where there is no real doubt, knowing that any attempt to respond could be stretched out indefinitely through the use of similar questions [Update: as you have demonstrated in your further replies to Syzarian and others.] If you have a point to make here, the burden's on you to make it, bud.

>> It is also highly improbable that a group which fought hard for union representation, or made considerable use of a public pool, suddenly decided these things were against their own interests right at the time these benefits were being extended to other people.

Don't you have anything to say here?

Yes it was in living memory and your elders who are honest about can tell you. Go ask your grandaddy I get the feeling he might have some insight.

They also wrote books, letters, and op-eds, all part of the historical record, and available if you were willing to spend a little energy on this subject.

> They also wrote books, letters, and op-eds, all part of the historical record, and available if you were willing to spend a little energy on this subject.

Mind citing any? I'm not going to try to do the work to substantiate someone else's claim, and besides, if I don't find anything that agrees with it your response would just be that I did not look hard enough. If you can't cite something, that is fine, just say this is your opinion, that is entirely okay, but claiming something as fact puts the burden of proof on you to substantiate it.

I'm not an American either, and my grandfather is demented now but I think I know him well enough to know that he is would not have done something like that, and I know of at least one case that could be said to show the opposite, where he voted against his own group interest to benefit another group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

https://the-ard.com/2022/05/31/the-jim-crow-roots-of-loiteri...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta...

I asked specific questions:

> What were these interests, and was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group, and if not what was it?

> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions, and a clear objective understanding of their actual interests, or is this just your interpretation of their actions?

This, at a glance, answers none of those. I'm not going to go do research to clarify someone else's claim. If they did not want to make it, they should not have made it, but they did, and thus it is up to them to clarify it.

Pattern recognition does not seem to be a forte of yours.

>I'm not going to try to do the work to substantiate someone else's claim

That's fine, but I'm not sure why you'd expect someone else to do it for you.

>and besides, if I don't find anything that agrees with it your response would just be that I did not look hard enough.

And now you're the one making unsupported claims.

As if it's unfathomable that preventing gains by groups seen to be competing with a groups interests could be an interest in and of itself.

The groups interests were not correctly understood. The progressive course when this happens would be to attempt to improve understanding of the groups interests. Alternatively, you can keep the invalid assumptions, disproved by the groups behavior, and assert the group is illogical and harming itself - at this point you're no longer reflecting on reality.

"Millions of white working-class and middle-class Americans vote against their own economic interest by defending policies that hurt them while profiting the rich, including the 1% wealthiest Americans. Several factors help explain this peculiar dimension of U.S. politics: myopia fostered by anti-intellectualism; the relationship between religious fundamentalism and free-market fundamentalism; blind faith in the American Dream; and how racism hinders economic solidarity."

- https://academic.oup.com/california-scholarship-online/book/...

Another: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0023656920089018...

Unfortunately don't have free links but if you're able to read these, they'll answer your questions.

Heather McGhee's "The Sum of Us" talks about this in detail - she refers to it as "drained pool politics." It's a great read.

https://www.powells.com/book/the-sum-of-us-9780525509561

Because the white club is one uniform group. In that case I don't even need any more details, since this is such an obvious oversimplification and frankly speaking even racist. "The white response" ...

It really isn’t. You’re just uncomfortable with a group of people that you’re a member of did something bad that was directly related to their membership in that group and you want a carve out so you can feel separate from them. We’re talking about an era in the US where white people were literally in control of everything, nobody else could have done this. And the response was directly related to their whiteness and racism.

So sure, it was only white racists that did this, and without a doubt you wouldn’t have been one of those had you been born back then despite it being the view of the overwhelming majority at the time.

Is there some "fellow white people" group I need to apply to ?

Or you you're a "member of a group" that you never even joined or cared to get close to ?

That's incredibly racist dude. It is exactly same thing actual racists do when they assume someone is <minority> therefore they will do <bad thing>.

If you say, “you’re a white man and therefore you must like Weezer” that’s the prejudice you’re describing. But if you say white men like Weezer you see how that’s an entirely different statement, right?

One is the behavior of an individual ant, one is describing the colony.

> white men like Weezer

This is exactly wrong though - do a majority of white men like Weezer? The right thing to say is "People who like Weezer are overwhelmingly white" (assuming it's true of course).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

> you want a carve out so you can feel separate from them.

I am separate from them. I didn’t do any of that stuff.

Also, I have many opinions that disagree with the overwhelming majority of my peers. Do you think you would have been racist back then?

Oh hell yeah I would have probably been super racist. I’m not no naive as to be believe that growing up in an environment where racism is the norm, pushed and supported by my community leaders, surrounded by everyone circulating stories of the evil scary black people to stroke fear, depicted in media, and backed by “science” wouldn’t have affected me.

Statistically speaking, yes. We have a sample size in the tens of millions that demonstrate this fact. A large majority of your views on right and wrong are based on the society you grew up in. For instance, if was a man born in Afghanistan in 1990 it is extremely likely that my views on divorce, marital rape, child abuse, etc. would be quite different than what my views currently are.

> I am separate from them. I didn’t do any of that stuff.

You're doing it right now.

> You’re just uncomfortable with a group of people that you’re a member of did something

Projection much? I'm not white and I feel the same way as gp

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33831208

Yep, textbook projection.

> We’re talking about an era in the US where white people were literally in control of everything, nobody else could have done this.

It's also the era that created the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid and the War on Poverty. You're correct that political leadership in the United States was almost entirely white at the time. But the fact that they passed many substantial pieces of legislation helping other groups shows that people are more decent than the "race war" narrative that gets pushed a lot these days.

I contend that the logic of segregation became unsustainable legally, morally, and in the social conscience of a large portion of the public. With the demonstrations, riots, etc. it became necessary to make the appropriate legal adjustments. However, whites largely weren’t comfortable with the sudden requirement to desegregate and white flight from cities and the other things I mentioned in my original comment occurred.

From my perspective, what occurred is that people wanted desegregation in principle but not in their particular social circles. They didn’t want large numbers of black students in their child’s school for instance.

It was expedient; decency was unnecessary to explain their actions.

These laws were passed in an environment of both great social upheaval domestically, and the cold war internationally. Both contributed.

The Soviet Union kept pointing out US race relations whenever the US claimed to be for freedom. The hypocrisy of the US could not be ignored by the predominantly white christian leaders who enacted these laws while expecting to have any credibility abroad. And, now that the cold war is over, the predominantly white christian political right is attempting to dismantle every single one of these acts and more.

> white people were literally in control of everything

I think there's a big difference between "white people were in control of everything" and "the people who were in control were white".

We can talk about the “white response” to desegregation in the same way we can talk about any other historical event involving massive social change. This does not mean there is absolute uniformity. It means a pattern emerged and that by and large this is how members of said group reacted. For instance it is an undeniable fact that white flight from major cities occurred. Of course not every white person fled a city but, as we normally speak and communicate, it’s correct to say that white flight occurred.

lol

White flight was more about racial unrest and riots.

I don’t exactly blame people for leaving. You can support civil rights and not want to live in a neighborhood where quality of life is getting worse.

>I don’t exactly blame people for leaving. You can support civil rights and not want to live in a neighborhood where quality of life is getting worse.

The quality of life declined BECAUSE the majority of tax-payers left causing city services to fail.

They left due to a rise in crime and other low trust behaviors exhibited post desegregation.

That trend persists today - look at crime rates by race especially the white on black vs black on white crime rate. Controlling per capita shows an enormous disparity. And that’s just the extreme end of low trust behaviors and certainly indicating a litany of other reasons one would want to move away. It only takes 1 instance of being a victim to realize it’s not worth the risk.

Do you know what the violent crime rate of poor blacks was vs. poor whites in 1950s/60s?

No, I think you have the timeline backwards. Crime didn’t rise before white flight happened. Crime rose after white flight happened because there was no longer any funding for the social programs that helped keep crime down. Remember it was still legal to deny black people financial opportunities solely for their blackness at the time, so white people actively denied black peoples business loans and other necessary financial funding to build those programs that white people had happily funded for themselves.

No the quality of life declined because of rioting in the streets.

White flight became inevitable with forced integration of schools.

Implied in this: White and black people are distinct, different groups. Good luck approaching these issues with that preconception.

Are you saying that in the US during the Civil Rights era, they weren't?

Uh, they quite literally were under the law back when segregation existed. Yes there were rich black people and white people who marched with MLK. Zoom out to a population level however and they were clearly distinct groups and treated as such.

Good luck understanding the world while refusing to apply historical perceptions to historical issues.

The historical perception is part of the problem.

So are posters who want to grandstand about something other than the comment they're responding to.

Original comment cited a historical example relevant to the posted article. You responded that the comment implied (in the present) that whites and blacks are two different groups, which they never did except in a historical context. Therefore you either disagree that historically whites and blacks were two separate groups in post-war America (good luck arguing that) or you're trying to contort the conversation to a discussion of "the problem" whatever that is in your mind.

The latter, and i think it necessary. I'll gladly hijack more threads to point it out until enough people are aware of this annoyingly subversive detail.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com