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?
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.
It's important to tell this part since it unsurprisingly always seems to get left out. That doesn't absolve any of the white people who then went on to participate in the riot or who originally wanted the guy lynched, but during that riot a significant number of men on both sides of the riot were killed (I believe it was 26 black people, 10 white people or roughly in line with those estimates).
Now, one could look at it and say well if someone didn't try to disarm one of the black men who had stormed the police station armed, then the riot never would have happened. And that's true. One could also say that if the group of white men outside of the police station weren't yelling about lynching the guy, then nobody would have stormed the police station and thus no riot. That is also true. So in reality there really is blame to go around. My point is, on every telling of this story it gets further and further from the truth.
Another interesting point that gets lost is there were more than TWICE as many white people lynched in Oklahoma than black people.[1] The point is with stories like this we need to let the data and first hand accounts tell the story, not emotion. If you go off emotion you'll be believing 800 people were killed and the whole town was firebombed by the US army.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1175147/lynching-by-race...
This is a loose interpretation of the article which loses important context. The initial shot was fired when a white man attempted to wrestle a gun away from a black man. The gun accidentally discharged and both sides started firing. Your interpretation would lead a reader to believe that a group of armed black men began the entire event by murdering white men.
> The gun accidentally discharged and both sides started firing.
There is blame to go around, as each side escalated it until there was bloodshed.
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?
https://racial-justice.aflcio.org/blog/est-aliquid-se-ipsum-...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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>.
One is the behavior of an individual ant, one is describing the colony.
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).
> "fellow white people"
Is oddly specific.
Were you referencing this by chance? https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fellow-white-people-arent-you...
If so, I got the reference and I'm unimpressed by your trolling, dude.
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?
Everyone wants to believe they would have been a dissenter, but the likelihood is low. Most people follow the crowd, especially if there are repercussions for doing otherwise. It's a terrible reality, which is why the ability to dissent must be protected.
You're doing it right now.
Projection much? I'm not white and I feel the same way as gp
Yep, textbook projection.
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.
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.
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.
I think there's a big difference between "white people were in control of everything" and "the people who were in control were white".
Good luck understanding the world while refusing to apply historical perceptions to historical issues.
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.
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.
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.