>You're taking a very individualist stance on the issue - nobody reasonable thinks you should literally give your money to oppressed people to assuage privilege guilt.

I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?

I know. I was being hyperbolic with the US$20 bit.

Upon reflection, I interpreted GP's comment as moralistic and condescending, which colored my response in a bad way.

My error was I did not attempt to see their comment in the best possible light and that's not fair to them.

Others who've read my comment appear to agree.

>Often times the "I don't see colour" people are just sticking their heads in the sand about ongoing racial issues,

Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.

I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.

More's the pity.

> I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?

Of course - individualism in a political sense means the rejection of collective action. It usually boils down to the belief that people's political actions should be limited to financial transactions - solving climate change by individuals recycling, solving food insecurity by individuals donating, that sort of thing. I knew you were being hyperbolic, but a lack of familiarity with institutional or systemic change made me think you might be missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's really common in the US.

> Sadly, those who pile that sand on these folks' heads are never held to account.

Yeah, I was considering saying in my original comment that targeting those types of people has been a conservative strategy for years now, but figured it was political enough already. It seems its easy to switch people over from "nominally anti racism but also anti change" to "nominally anti racist but practically anti anti racist, ie pro racist" by getting them to support counter protest movements escalating in extreme from "all lives matter" and "its OK to be white" up to believing in the white genocide conspiracy theory.

> I suspect that many of those with their "heads in the sand" would be less inclined to ignore the intolerance if the sand shovelers (dump truck operators?) were shown for the venal, cynical scum they are.

Unfortunately people aren't very easy to reason out of positions they've dug themselves into. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, as they say.

Taking a single thing I said without context is quite disingenuous.

I suggest you re-read the comment to which you replied. Perhaps you'd like to revise your barely concealed and completely unfounded attack on the straw man you created around my comment.

Huh? I was just expanding on your comment about not knowing what people were expecting you to do about systemic problems - I wasn't attacking you. Do you mean the bit about conservative talking heads? I assumed that's who you meant when you were talking about the sand shovelers.

From your reaction I'm guessing the sand shovelers you think are scum are the "woke" people but I hope I'm wrong.

>Huh? I was just expanding on your comment about not knowing what people were expecting you to do about systemic problems - I wasn't attacking you.

That's as may be, but you focused on a single sentence ("I have no control over what other people do, think or say. What other stance can I take?") in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.

You then deigned to forgive me (and 300+ million other people) my ignorance.

   ...a lack of familiarity with institutional or 
   systemic change made me think you might be 
   missing that option. That's not a criticism; it's 
   really common in the US.

How gracious of you.

I'll wait with bated breath for your next brilliant missive.

I'm sorry if I offended you - I didn't mean for that to come across as patronising or as some kind of sanctimonious forgiving of sin, I was just wary that a lot of people tend to get their backs up around the topic of systemic problems and wanted to be clear that I wasn't attacking you. You did also literally say "what other stance could I take?" which I interpreted as meaning you didn't know your options for helping combat systemic problems.

> you focused on a single sentence [...] in my comment and ignored everything else I wrote.

I did address you saying the $20 thing was hyperbole, but I guess I'm not sure what you wanted me to add to the rest? You said you misinterpreted GP's comment - okay? What am I to add to that? It's not much of a prompt for discussion.

>You did also literally say "what other stance could I take?" which I interpreted as meaning you didn't know your options for helping combat systemic problems.

And you interpreted that incorrectly.

the "stance" I take (in this case, support for the equal rights and equal opporunities of all) is the stance of one who doesn't have governmental or corporate power to directly impact change other than my behavior and my advocacy.

You interpreted what I said to mean that I'm powerless to effect any change. Which is unfortunate since not only is that not true, I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

All that said, I suspect we're, in large part, in violent agreement on this topic.

Go back and read the comment[0] to which you originally replied. You'll see that it makes clear what I think.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30608880

I feel like I didn't interpret you incorrectly, because while I missed that it was a rhetorical question, I didn't miss that you didn't list a single way to affect systemic change outside of voting - which is to say that you have an individualist perspective on systemic change. That's why I listed those other options for action - because let's be real here, US electoral politics is a corporate duopoly between a neoliberal party and a vaguely conservative, trending towards fascistic party, neither of which are known for advancing social progress (because the Democrats are wilfully incompetent). Thus, things like BLM protesting for rights or the progressive caucus of the Democrats smuggling actual progressives into Congress. All I wanted to highlight was that real political change happens outside the ballot box, and even though we don't have the power to enact change by fiat the way the powerful do, we can do things beyond just voting and trying to be good people individually, to advance progressive causes. That was all I was trying to say - I do think we're in agreement broadly speaking (though beyond being a progressive I'm also an anarchist, so perhaps we differ there).

>I didn't miss that you didn't list a single way to affect systemic change outside of voting - which is to say that you have an individualist perspective on systemic change. That's why I listed those other options for action

My apologies for not listing every possible activity. I'll make sure to write a Phd thesis here in future.

As for the rest of your paranoid (and condescending) blather, I can do without it. From now on, I will.

Alright, I thought we were having a mutual conversation but it was your decision to get offended and act like an asshole, so do what you will.

There is a huge difference of who asks. The answer to if I support BLM is different and can even contradict itself if the family of George Floyd asks or some corporate media that runs a populist ad campaign. I still believe people were scammed out of their money, that their good nature was taken advantage of.

Black girl programmers should not be black girl programmers, they should be programmers. And they most certainly won't face discrimination because of that. I do think that treating people differently will breed animosity and it does not solve any problem.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the BLM stuff. You would support them privately but not publicly?

> Black girl programmers should not be black girl programmers, they should be programmers. And they most certainly won't face discrimination because of that.

This is a perfect demonstration of the "head in the sand" position that leads to conservatism that I was talking about. The whole point of "black girls code" is that black girls have less opportunity to get into programming, which is a form of systemic racism given that programming is a lucrative career. It's not an identity thing, it's an access thing - it's an outreach program.

It's also absurd to claim that black women never face discrimination in the workplace.

You seem to be starting from a belief that equal opportunity and discrimination based on race are solved problems and then putting yourself in opposition to programs that try to alleviate these problems (which actually do still exist).

I doesn't have to do with public or private support. I think people were scammed to a significant degree. To offer solidarity means to let yourself be exploited too.

I don't see how my position leads to conservatism. If I prefer not making race a relevant attribute in an outreach program, I guess I am. But the label doesn't mean much to me.

There perhaps aren't many black women in programming yet, but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it.

You keep avoiding explicitly saying what you mean. By scamming, do you mean the houses bought by Patrice Cullors? The ones she bought with the profits from her bestselling book, where there's no evidence donations were involved?

The idea that progressives are creating a newly racialised world where before everything was meritocratic and equal opportunity /is/ the modern conservative line, and it's a lie. The whole reason for outreach programs is to counteract lack of opportunities that are race based - what exactly do you think racism is?

Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that?

> Actively opposing programs designed to counteract racism, is supporting racism, you do realise that?

Your accusation is weak. I disagree and I think a lot of programs are racist and should be opposed on that merit. I am not talking about outreach programs here. There are much more relevant factors why specifically black women might be underrepresented. If I generalize that to women, the reason is sexism. I don't believe in these simple explanations and much more importantly I believe these facts do not allow for anyone to be discriminated, which has to be said specifically also extends to white people.

This is so pointless; every time I try to get a concrete example out of you, you pivot. First you dislike BLM but don't give a reason, then you dislike black girls code but then "have no problem with outreach programs", now you're vaguely hinting at affirmative action being racist because it considers race. Just figure it out yourself.

>but opposing a new racialized world is not sticking my head in the sand. I am pretty actively opposed to it.

New?

Are you claiming that the genocide of the indiginous peoples of the Americas, the centuries-long enslavement (and then another century of legal discrimination) of Africans, discrimination against indiginous peoples of Australia and New Zealand, domination of South Asia by Britain, etc., etc., etc. wasn't "racialized"?

I suppose you could try to argue that all that was a long time ago and is irrelevant to today's society. But that doesn't really work. Laws forbidding marriage between "white" and "black" folks were in full force in my lifetime.

Or Are you claimng that The Spanish, Dutch, British and Portuguese conquerors and slave traders in the 16th and 17th centuries were pushing for the equal inclusion of Africans who "emigrated" to the Americas and the indiginous peoples of the America into their societies?

Are you claiming that the genocide of indiginous American peoples and the maintenance of slave economies that excusively used POC weren't "racialized"?

Are you claiming that the differences in family wealth, quality of education/infrastructure/housing, treatment by law "enforcement" agencies and a dozen other testable, measurable ares aren't the result of centuries of a "racialized" world?

What is new is that those who have been murdered, enslaved and discriminated against are being given a platform to speak out about the legacies of those centuries of mistreatment and the ways that discrimination is embedded into our societies.

And I haven't even touched on the appalling treatment of half the population (women) as well as those who want to live and love (LGBTQ) as they need to.

So, when you say you are opposed to a "new racialized world," to what exactly are you opposed?

Is it equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of gender, melanin content or national origin?

If that's what you're opposing, I can certainly understand why you're upset. Please do elucidate.