charliesharding

> Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism.

I didn't realize you were qualified to assess every non-white person's definition of racism. Do you not see how you're over-reaching in terms of speaking for other people?

> If you disagree with it, you should explain what books on racism you've read and which one you're getting your definition from

I understand that the consequences of racism have been messy, but the definition is not. The definition is simple and plain and I gave you my source but I'll repeat it: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".

I'm curious why you believe that white people can't experience racism, William. From the definition it would imply that you think no other race could claim "inherent superior[ity]". I see why you would reject this definition that the majority of society has agreed on because it would make you a dictionary racist.

> That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism.

That is some insane mental gymnastics... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Go ahead and quote me in context. I'm not going to go back and read through all my comments like you have but I'm sure it's defensible

What makes you think it's ok to make wide, sweeping generalizations about how people of a certain race and gender think and how do you think that doesn't constitute racism?

Right, as in I'm arguing that it's a bad way to view the world... Total non sequitur. No, not everyone engages in identity politics. Only people who are looking for an easy out and not individually assessing ideas and their ramifications

Good intentions do not absolve people of objectively bad ideas. I drew that comparison because they are playing opposite sides of the same game of identity politics, which I'm saying is inherently flawed

> The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other

Yet this is the inevitable consequence of intersectional analysis.. It describes a way to calculate value discrepancy of opinions based off group membership of the opinion holder. This is just an attempt to overcorrect the "axes of oppression" from sins of the past. The solution moving forward should not be to sin in the opposite direction - this will just create backlash (re: Charlottesville). It should be centered around empowering individuals and telling people that they can achieve anything because they can. Telling people that they are victims is a great way to ruin them. Everyone is a victim to one thing or another. The answer isn't to dwell and blame your victimhood or oppressors, the answer is to go out there and achieve.

> Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles.

This is a bizarre take. It sounds like you're saying that no matter what the individual circumstances are, race is the ultimate decider of one's struggle. It could be argued that this is the exact line of thinking that leads to "systemic racism". It's surprising how prevalent this view is, on HN especially. Not two months ago there was a top voted article about how dangerous and stifling the "victimhood mentality" can be. If that is true, why would you so willingly put an entire race of people in the victim bucket? It smacks of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

I am and always will be on your side if you're advocating for personal empowerment of people and groups but I disagree with the tactic of using group membership as the most important deciding factor of someone's experience and a means to discredit one person over another due solely to the nature of their group intersections.

The ironic song about how she doesn't understand the meaning of irony?

Group membership is not the cause.. that's exactly the kind of reasoning that leads to racism. The cause is you believing your identity comes first from being a member of a group rather than being an individual first.

No group dictates the characteristics of the individuals in that group. Instead, the emergent quality of individuals that belong to a group can give that group a stereotype. However, being the unique individual that you know you are, you're capable of shattering any and all of those stereotypes! You're right that you can solve it for yourself; focus on that opportunity/growth mindset! Don't let anyone tell you how you should think/act because of your group "membership"

> Just having a 'racist' feeling doesn't make someone racist.

I would argue that that is exactly what racism is. It's having an irrational feeling towards someone and assuming they have characteristics based solely on their race. Why is it so hard to judge people on a case-by-case basis? By your own admission you say that these personal anxieties are irrational and then you go on to attribute it to being a minority. If instead you attribute it to yourself personally, it becomes a problem that you can solve for yourself rather than an affliction of which you are victim to. There are plenty of minorities (myself included) who don't feel this way.

That isn't at all the logical conclusion. You're projecting your dislike of religion and ironically being just as dogmatic in your dismissal. They were responding to the TLC poster saying they threw away a piece of machinery just because it was loud and they didn't see anyone using it. Given that characterization, would you say they were acting out of curiosity? Curiosity would be asking people what it was for before throwing it away - which is what the parable implores.

Without moral judgement? Jump to conclusions? The favicon and main graphic shows a bomb with a cross through it. The actual domain is a pointed question designed to assign blame. The graphic is intentionally misleading (as others pointed out), hiding the raw numbers and showing them as the radius size instead of area, drastically inflating the apparent size. The quote at the bottom is from 1984 - a book about a dystopian government.

> When you trespass, you are striking a blow against hierarchy and capitalism and uptight motherfuckers everywhere.

I think the controversy comes from the authors overall tone. Quotes like this make them sound like an edgy teenager

This is a sensational story based off of a shallow if not deliberate misreading of statistics. They point to an increase in raw number of deaths and say that the rate is increasing - completely leaving out population adjustments like density and raw numbers increasing. The only rate discussion is in a graph that shows % inside vehicle fatalities vs % outside vehicle fatalities. With cars becoming safer of course the % of outside vehicle fatalities will rise since the human body isn't becoming more resilient to car crashes at the same rate.

Also they didn't do any looking into the circumstances of death, as mentioned by throwGuardian - I suspect cell phone related incidents are on the rise.

World's top lenders help finance the industry that powers the world? I know we're supposed to grab our pitchforks but come on now.. 1.9T into wind and solar would produce a fraction of the power output and they have obligations to their clients

Of course it is - the action is to stop discrimination of any kind. And yes, yes it has been effective. Hate crimes have dropped off precipitously and minority unemployment is at an all time low. Continuing to play this reverse-discrimination game will foment resentment, especially in the group that is "allowed to be discriminated against" according to the political flavor of the times (particularly the ones that aren't winning in society) thus creating the monster that you sought to destroy.

Which wealth statistics? From this article, 90% of family wealth is lost by the third generation.

http://money.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

I think it's because Jews are also an ethnic group

It doesn't feel helpful to be viewed as an individual as opposed to simply a member of a group? Not every person with x skin color has the same experiences... You're taking racism and running the other way with it instead of just rejecting the premise of viewing people as tribe members as flawed. You shouldn't judge people by the groups they happen to belong to. Individuals should be judged on a case-by-base basis.

Really sad to see and feels like it's becoming more common (maybe just because I'm paying closer attention). If it fits the narrative, accept first, retract later. It would be interesting to see view statistics on the original article vs the retraction.

Accelerationism does not necessarily have to be specific to capitalism. There are those on the right who see the rise of identity politics and socialist thought; to them, the idea of accelerationism is to let socialism spread so that it too can be exposed as flawed.

Accelerationism can apply to any ideology taken to an extreme.

> the left have lost touch with the lower classes

How do you define "lower classes"? If you mean household income then quite the opposite is true: https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identific...

Great article. I wonder if different people respond to this kind of a message differently though..

I firmly believe in taking personal responsibility for my behaviors and my actions - however I think that is because I'm inherently wired to avoid responsibility and try to find the easy way out. Because of this, the only conscious way for me to effect positive change in my life is to strive for taking responsibility and ditching thoughts of victimhood.

On the other hand, I've known people who seem to be hardwired for responsibility so much that it is overwhelming for them and causes all kinds of anxiety (control issues).

For these people, would it be beneficial to use that conscious effort on relinquishing control and adopting more of a "victim" mindset?

In higher level competitive scenarios, yeah voice is predominant. However, that is by no means the majority. They only seem like a bigger segment of gamers because they're loud and make themselves known. All they said was that most is done through text, which is true

"No tragic yet convenient event will allow us to discard our complex, messy, and ever-changing social reality and live out our rugged individualistic fantasy."

"...it will be empathy, generosity, and courage that we need to survive. Kindness and fairness will be more valuable than any survival skill"

If you're interested in a concrete discussion of what a collapse may look like this is not for you. He says it won't hurt to know survival skills and that mainly you should learn to be kind (as if you missed that lesson in pre-k). One thing is for certain; he's definitely a paragon of morality. I mean.. you can't write an article like that without being totally rock solid.

It was mainly intended as a joke but I agree that I didn't make that clear. It's just a minor inconvenience for a massive quality of life improvement

Sad news for custom emoji users. So many look bad now.

In all seriousness though - I don't see why all apps/sites don't develop in a "dark mode" first mindset. With all the studies showing eye strain related health issues correlated to bright screens, you'd think this would be an easy solution to help alleviate the problem.

Imagine writing your name in the sand on a beach by digging out all the area around the text to make it appear.. why project mostly background light with dark content as opposed to projecting the content and letting the dead space remain dark.

I'm a little confused - can someone knowledgable in the area help out? In the introduction they assert:

"Once inhaled, ultrafine particles and the oxidant species located on their surface can translocate into the vascular space (13), resulting in a state of chronic vascular inflammation and oxidative stress noxious to endothelial function."

However in the conclusion they state:

"Inhaling nicotine-free electronic cigarette aerosol transiently impacted endothelial function in healthy nonsmokers"

It sounds like in the introduction they are aware of studies that concluded the aerosol inhalation causes chronic issues with endothelial function, but they concluded that it only has a transient effect. Are they refuting those claims? Did I miss something?

The same reason we don't assume the accused is guilty.

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