Many papers in America are already racist. This is just their projections. Our organizations specifically ignore any special treatment to blacks and do fire any employees pro that movement. Good thing we are outside of American reach.
Is it really so difficult for people to just (to put it harshly) shut up and do their work? I don't understand why people, especially prominent people, feel to need to go on social issue tirades that jeopardize their livelihoods.
Might it be possible that the guy is undergoing a mental breakdown?
I mean, he might still have been extremely racist, but it's strange how he recently came off the hinge and out of the blue decided to just spew all kinds of extremely racist statements and conspiracy theories.
She doesn't have a bizarre anti trans stance, that's made up and willfully repeated by a media that wants to stir up clicks. What she's said is that she supports trans people but has limits on what people are obliged to call/consider them, in terms of factual gender.
Hard to say whether Adams is suffering from online radicalisation and cognitive decline, or whether he was always of this opinion and online radicalisation and cognitive decline have just meant he no longer has the self-control to hide it.
it can be called 'online radicalisation', but the ease with which many people I know can just start repeating crazy ideas they've heard on some podcast or something.. really scares me. Its like so many people on a search for meaning or dissatisfied with some part of their life are being funneled into people transmitting batshit crazy ideas.
> Hard to say whether Adams is suffering from online radicalisation and cognitive decline, or whether he was always of this opinion and online radicalisation and cognitive decline have just meant he no longer has the self-control to hide it.
Hasn't most of Adams’ public life and career been a very sharp public reaction to being passed over for promotion on a basis he has always blamed on racial and gender politics, even if in the early part of it more of that resentment was channelled into more broadly palatable forms than it has been recently?
I was trying to read this charitably, but here’s a quote from Adams’ Twitter:
> 1. Treat everyone as an individual (no discrimination).
> 2. Avoid any group that doesn't respect you.
The irony is that the second point is literally discrimination. Wholesale avoiding a specific race, regardless of your reasoning, is racist by definition.
This is no different than Kanye talking about “the Jews”.
Don’t take group generalizations (especially distorted ones) and prejudiciously apply them to individuals.
I have no skin in this game, but a quick reading gave me the impression that he is claiming that Black Americans on average don't like White Americans, and therefore the latter should avoid the former.
I don't know if he says that in good faith, or if there's a subtext I'm missing, but it seems like there's a reasonable way to interpret this that doesn't involve Adams harbouring an unfair negative prejudice.
I don't expect anyone is going to come along and steelman his argument for us, but I do have difficulty seeing how the NYP's article and the general reaction follows from what I naively impute from Adams' quotes.
To be clear, I'm not trying to say who's right or anything, I'm saying that I think as someone disconnected from US racial politics I seem to lack some necessary context.
Wasn't that a response to the survey results discussed in the article? Or do you mean that he had this prejudice and used the survey as a post-hoc justification?
Respect is a two-way street and you owe no respect to those who don't respect you.
If a group doesn't respect you, it's fair to ignore them. Tough shit if they are offended by the response. Plus, if you apply this to /everyone equally/ it's not discrimination.
Also as already mentioned by another commenter: group !== race
This is anti-individualist and collectivist rhetoric. A "group" of heterogeneous people with different viewpoints can't disrespect you. Only a subset of individuals within that group are capable of that. All the other individuals within that same group are innocent. So this talk of grouping all Black people into a homogeneous group that hate white people is factually incorrect, anti-individualist and dangerous.
Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :)
PS: Just a joke about hypocrisy of some individuals, I personally support all kinds of different discriminated groups, both locally and globally, including Jews.
> Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :)
Generally, Jewish people (either the religious or the ethnic group, for different reasons) per se are not generally included in “people of color”, though the religious group overlaps with “people of color”. But “people of color” is not a catch-all for all marginalized groups, or even all racial/ethnic marginalized groups, Jewish people being excluded from it is no more “hypocrisy” than “Black” not generally including East Asians.
I didn't say that "poc" was a catch-all for marginalized groups. I was using the term literally, as in - Jews are not "white", therefore they are "people of color" by the definition. And Asian people, be they from middle east or far east, are "people of color" too. But they are often excluded from that group due to the reasons unclear for me.
My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word "black". So they have constructed a hypocritical landmine by their own hands, and after "other" people of color readily showed up, from all across the globe, they are in a collective denial.
In classical racial theory terms, Jewish people, as a (sub)racial group are, actually, White (the subcategory hierarchy running, from the top, Caucasian -> Mediterranean -> Semitic -> Jewish.)
Now, its true that despite classic racial theory being intimately connected to various forms of White supremacy, most actual forms of White supremacy include bigotry that operates on different levels than classic races, and treats lots fo White subgroups as either non-White or inferior within the broader White race, but that’s a side issue. “People of color” has never been intended to mean “every group marginalized by the particular people adhering to White supremacy in the immediate social context”; it is fairly inclusive, but its not intended as a catchall, and exclusion of people from that label is not discrimination against them.
> My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word “black”.
Actually, he term was one of many used during the period of de jure discrimination to refer to people of black ancestry (in some times and places, like “mulatto”, with precise legal definitions which distinguished it from “black”.)
From there it was one of many terms adopted to varying degrees within the community of black ancestry (sometimes, as equivalent to “black”, and sometimes, within some corners of the community that use “black” more narrowly, with a broader definition.)
It faded as an identity label within that community, and was recycle for broader use fairly recently (“black and brown” has been used in a fairly similar sense for a longer time, and still has considerable currency; a lot of activists will use “black and brown people” as the general collective term, but something like “woman of color” when referring to an individual – actual or hypothetical – person.)
I intentionally don't want to know _anything_ about the personal lives of artists I like, be they musicians, comic book artists or book authors. It's a lot easier to separate the art and artist if you don't dig into the artist's fandom at all.
I didn't figure out that Tracy Hickman of Dragonlance fame was a man until the 2010s - and I read the books in the late 80's / early 90's. Teenage me happily thought that the books were written by two women and didn't think past it.
Should we or is it even possible? I was a big fan of Kanye West and now when hours music comes on my feed a find I suddenly don’t enjoy it after all his latest rantings. I get the visceral feeling that I don’t want to support him even by listening to him, so I can’t enjoy it the way I used to.
This was my issue -- "okay" seems a synonym for "acceptable." And 47% of those polled saying that they cannot accept the existence of white people, taken at face value, would indeed be quite alarming.
But, most people won't take it at face value, and those who responded to the survey didn't likely have this interpretation either.
Adams fell right into the trap of responding to this sort of bait.
Not that he'd ever have been the spokesman for radically rethinking race relations. But no, I don't expect he's secretly a klansman.
52 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadI mean, he might still have been extremely racist, but it's strange how he recently came off the hinge and out of the blue decided to just spew all kinds of extremely racist statements and conspiracy theories.
If it it hadn’t been advocating that from a PoC perspective it would have been considered hate speech I guess.
[1] 2019 - https://www.wired.com/story/we-should-seriously-consider-seg...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34939717
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34942090
People are very much easy to mold. Thanks to the internet it’s even easier.
Hasn't most of Adams’ public life and career been a very sharp public reaction to being passed over for promotion on a basis he has always blamed on racial and gender politics, even if in the early part of it more of that resentment was channelled into more broadly palatable forms than it has been recently?
> 1. Treat everyone as an individual (no discrimination).
> 2. Avoid any group that doesn't respect you.
The irony is that the second point is literally discrimination. Wholesale avoiding a specific race, regardless of your reasoning, is racist by definition.
This is no different than Kanye talking about “the Jews”.
Don’t take group generalizations (especially distorted ones) and prejudiciously apply them to individuals.
You inferred race
I don't know if he says that in good faith, or if there's a subtext I'm missing, but it seems like there's a reasonable way to interpret this that doesn't involve Adams harbouring an unfair negative prejudice.
I don't expect anyone is going to come along and steelman his argument for us, but I do have difficulty seeing how the NYP's article and the general reaction follows from what I naively impute from Adams' quotes.
To be clear, I'm not trying to say who's right or anything, I'm saying that I think as someone disconnected from US racial politics I seem to lack some necessary context.
If a group doesn't respect you, it's fair to ignore them. Tough shit if they are offended by the response. Plus, if you apply this to /everyone equally/ it's not discrimination.
Also as already mentioned by another commenter: group !== race
You don’t sound very happy. You sound very, very angry.
PS: Just a joke about hypocrisy of some individuals, I personally support all kinds of different discriminated groups, both locally and globally, including Jews.
Generally, Jewish people (either the religious or the ethnic group, for different reasons) per se are not generally included in “people of color”, though the religious group overlaps with “people of color”. But “people of color” is not a catch-all for all marginalized groups, or even all racial/ethnic marginalized groups, Jewish people being excluded from it is no more “hypocrisy” than “Black” not generally including East Asians.
My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word "black". So they have constructed a hypocritical landmine by their own hands, and after "other" people of color readily showed up, from all across the globe, they are in a collective denial.
In classical racial theory terms, Jewish people, as a (sub)racial group are, actually, White (the subcategory hierarchy running, from the top, Caucasian -> Mediterranean -> Semitic -> Jewish.)
Now, its true that despite classic racial theory being intimately connected to various forms of White supremacy, most actual forms of White supremacy include bigotry that operates on different levels than classic races, and treats lots fo White subgroups as either non-White or inferior within the broader White race, but that’s a side issue. “People of color” has never been intended to mean “every group marginalized by the particular people adhering to White supremacy in the immediate social context”; it is fairly inclusive, but its not intended as a catchall, and exclusion of people from that label is not discrimination against them.
> My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word “black”.
Actually, he term was one of many used during the period of de jure discrimination to refer to people of black ancestry (in some times and places, like “mulatto”, with precise legal definitions which distinguished it from “black”.)
From there it was one of many terms adopted to varying degrees within the community of black ancestry (sometimes, as equivalent to “black”, and sometimes, within some corners of the community that use “black” more narrowly, with a broader definition.)
It faded as an identity label within that community, and was recycle for broader use fairly recently (“black and brown” has been used in a fairly similar sense for a longer time, and still has considerable currency; a lot of activists will use “black and brown people” as the general collective term, but something like “woman of color” when referring to an individual – actual or hypothetical – person.)
The main problem I have with Dilbert's comics is that they are nowhere near as great as they were 10, or even 20 years ago.
I didn't figure out that Tracy Hickman of Dragonlance fame was a man until the 2010s - and I read the books in the late 80's / early 90's. Teenage me happily thought that the books were written by two women and didn't think past it.
But, most people won't take it at face value, and those who responded to the survey didn't likely have this interpretation either.
Adams fell right into the trap of responding to this sort of bait.
Not that he'd ever have been the spokesman for radically rethinking race relations. But no, I don't expect he's secretly a klansman.