8 ms·

>"Low-trust" "multicultural" "society" is race-war code language, isn't it? Says you, they're just words. If you don't agree you can go ahead and disagree. I w

>"Low-trust" "multicultural" "society" is race-war code language, isn't it? Says you, they're just words. If you don't agree you can go ahead and disagree. I won't comment about your rhetoric other than to say it's functionally ad-hominem. Calling something a trope is a also a pretty easy way to hand-wave away anything you don't want to think about. >and spark a whole unproductive discussion about what it is we "trust" or "don't trust" about people I would say that trust has not improved, I would say that race relations have not improved (probably deteriorated). Even you can probably agree with that? Mr. Rodgers prescriptions for life are lovely but impractical, and they haven't helped society at all I would say.

pvg 8y ago
I won't comment about your rhetoric other than to say it's functionally ad-hominem. Wait, how? It's specifically about your language, not you. If, hypothetically, he'd taken a little scroll through your older comments and happened to, purely hypothetically, run across some stuff about how slaves had room and board and the persistent racist oppression of white males and then jumped to a conclusion and called you a racist, that would be ad hominem. But that's totally not what happened.
- ManFromUranus 8y ago
  The poster is literally talking about my language, but implying something about me, which is ad-hominem. What they should do is say why I am wrong if they believe Im wrong. If they dont say why I'm wrong because the scope of it is beyond their ability to convey in a HN comment, then fair enough. But they're essentially hand-waving away me and what I'm saying because they've declared it racist (and indirectly me). Actually everyone is racist so the term is redundant. La Raza (now renamed for PR reasons) is not protesting admissions discrimination against Asian applicants in academia for example. They exclusively advocate for the rights of their own ethnic group, the only reason they advocate for other groups is where such advocacy also directly benefits themselves. You're quite disingenuous, I made a comment that slavery is expensive and slaves have to be fed and housed so slavery is not very useful, and actually more expensive that just having "free" people. The reason you choose to cherry pick something to say about "oppression of white males" (which I would never use a phrase like that) is you know the negative sentiment that surrounds that phrase here on HN, so that's why you use it and attach it to me.
  - pvg 8y ago
    Everything is an ad-hominem attack and everyone is the real racist. That's a beautiful constrictor knot of logic, I'll give you that.
    - ManFromUranus 8y ago
      You didn't address anything I said. This comment is just you calling me stupid rather than demonstrating it.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
detcader 8y ago
> I would say that race relations have not improved The proportion of interracial marriages as a proportion of all marriages has been increasing since, such that 15.1% of all new marriages in the United States were interracial marriages by 2010 compared to a low single-digit percentage in the mid 20th century. Public approval of interracial marriage rose from around 5% in the 1950s to around 80% in the 2000s. The previous sentences are copy-pasted from Wikipedia.
- ManFromUranus 8y ago
  Again, I would say that relations have not improved regardless of interracial marriages. Public approval has increased likely in lockstep with how functionally illegal it is to not approve.
  - detcader 8y ago
    You're right, somehow I forgot about all those anonymous poll data leaks leading to mass round-ups by the armed liberal masses.
tptacek 8y ago
It's Rogers. R-o-g-e-r-s. His name was Fred Rogers.
- ManFromUranus 8y ago
  I know what his name is and how to spell it I just reflexively spell it that way. Why don't you just write that you think I'm stupid rather than hide behind this trivial spelling error comment?
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    Making sweeping assertions without any proof (such as U.S. race relations have deteriorated) does sounds like pretty stupid behavior.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      The only point I am making is that this person has attempted to take a thread about Mr. Rogers on a race-war tangent, and if they're going to do that, they should at least know how to spell his name. I have no idea whether they're intelligent or not; I just know that they're unserious about the topic of the thread.
    - ManFromUranus 8y ago
      I don't think it would be possible to prove to you that race relations have deteriorated. I could very well be wrong that's true, I can only state my opinion after all. I don't think I am wrong though (obviously) and I think that race relations are going to get very much worse within our lifetimes. It's no more stupid to believe they got worse without evidence as to believe they have improved without evidence. I think if you were to poll black americans today I don't think that many of them would have a super high opinion of white people right now (not that they ever did to begin with) but especially now.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I would say that race relations have not improved (probably deteriorated). Since Mr. Rogers Neighborhood first aired in 1968? No, race relations are much better now. It's true that they've deteriorated in some respects in the last handful of years, but mostly that's a result of a desperate rearguard action by White supremacists as institutionalized racism and it's automatic acceptance by the masses has been further eroded, and even if the federal government role today is in some respects worse than in 1968, the overall state of race relations is not. > Mr. Rodgers prescriptions for life are lovely but impractical In what concrete respect? You've been waving around a lot of generalizations (false ones, at that) about societal differences between now and the past to explain why they might have become impractical having been valid in the past, but you haven't actually explaining what the actual impracticality in any of them is (or even what specific prescriptions you are criticizing); while the inaccuracy of your generalizations is a problem, a bigger problem is your failure to establish, or even concretely define, the problem that supposedly has developed with Rogers’ approach that you are using them to explain.
- ManFromUranus 8y ago
  >Since Mr. Rogers Neighborhood first aired in 1968? No, race relations are much better now. I disagree. I think they never improved or went anywhere. We had Rodney King in the 90s and Michael brown recently (among others) nothing has changed, nothing has improved and it never will. Who are the white supremacists? Would a nation run by white supremacists ever have white poeople become a minority? America has the most bungled "institutionalized racism" I've ever seen. They racismed a black president and then white supremicied themselves into minorities in many major cities and an absoulte minority within 50 years. If that's white supremecy then you should hope they stay on track. Mr. Rogers says that feeling are important and you should be able to discuss your feelings, hmm I hope you have the right feelings or you probably shouldn't discuss them. Mr. Rogers was a lovely caring man who couldn't exist today. There are no Mr. Rogers out there right now, society is polarizing and cynical and hateful (in many directions) a Mr Rogers cannot exist in that environment. Mr Rogers comes from an essentially homogeneous cultural and ethnic environment which doesn't exist today. The America Fred Rogers grew up in was Christian and >90% white, that America is gone. His lovey philosophy and outlook can only come about in the particular time in which he lived.

pvg 8y ago

I won't comment about your rhetoric other than to say it's functionally ad-hominem. Wait, how? It's specifically about your language, not you. If, hypothetically, he'd taken a little scroll through your older comments and happened to, purely hypothetically, run across some stuff about how slaves had room and board and the persistent racist oppression of white males and then jumped to a conclusion and called you a racist, that would be ad hominem. But that's totally not what happened.

ManFromUranus 8y ago
The poster is literally talking about my language, but implying something about me, which is ad-hominem. What they should do is say why I am wrong if they believe Im wrong. If they dont say why I'm wrong because the scope of it is beyond their ability to convey in a HN comment, then fair enough. But they're essentially hand-waving away me and what I'm saying because they've declared it racist (and indirectly me). Actually everyone is racist so the term is redundant. La Raza (now renamed for PR reasons) is not protesting admissions discrimination against Asian applicants in academia for example. They exclusively advocate for the rights of their own ethnic group, the only reason they advocate for other groups is where such advocacy also directly benefits themselves. You're quite disingenuous, I made a comment that slavery is expensive and slaves have to be fed and housed so slavery is not very useful, and actually more expensive that just having "free" people. The reason you choose to cherry pick something to say about "oppression of white males" (which I would never use a phrase like that) is you know the negative sentiment that surrounds that phrase here on HN, so that's why you use it and attach it to me.
- pvg 8y ago
  Everything is an ad-hominem attack and everyone is the real racist. That's a beautiful constrictor knot of logic, I'll give you that.
  - ManFromUranus 8y ago
    You didn't address anything I said. This comment is just you calling me stupid rather than demonstrating it.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

detcader 8y ago

> I would say that race relations have not improved The proportion of interracial marriages as a proportion of all marriages has been increasing since, such that 15.1% of all new marriages in the United States were interracial marriages by 2010 compared to a low single-digit percentage in the mid 20th century. Public approval of interracial marriage rose from around 5% in the 1950s to around 80% in the 2000s. The previous sentences are copy-pasted from Wikipedia.

ManFromUranus 8y ago
Again, I would say that relations have not improved regardless of interracial marriages. Public approval has increased likely in lockstep with how functionally illegal it is to not approve.
- detcader 8y ago
  You're right, somehow I forgot about all those anonymous poll data leaks leading to mass round-ups by the armed liberal masses.

tptacek 8y ago

It's Rogers. R-o-g-e-r-s. His name was Fred Rogers.

ManFromUranus 8y ago
I know what his name is and how to spell it I just reflexively spell it that way. Why don't you just write that you think I'm stupid rather than hide behind this trivial spelling error comment?
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  Making sweeping assertions without any proof (such as U.S. race relations have deteriorated) does sounds like pretty stupid behavior.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The only point I am making is that this person has attempted to take a thread about Mr. Rogers on a race-war tangent, and if they're going to do that, they should at least know how to spell his name. I have no idea whether they're intelligent or not; I just know that they're unserious about the topic of the thread.
  - ManFromUranus 8y ago
    I don't think it would be possible to prove to you that race relations have deteriorated. I could very well be wrong that's true, I can only state my opinion after all. I don't think I am wrong though (obviously) and I think that race relations are going to get very much worse within our lifetimes. It's no more stupid to believe they got worse without evidence as to believe they have improved without evidence. I think if you were to poll black americans today I don't think that many of them would have a super high opinion of white people right now (not that they ever did to begin with) but especially now.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I would say that race relations have not improved (probably deteriorated). Since Mr. Rogers Neighborhood first aired in 1968? No, race relations are much better now. It's true that they've deteriorated in some respects in the last handful of years, but mostly that's a result of a desperate rearguard action by White supremacists as institutionalized racism and it's automatic acceptance by the masses has been further eroded, and even if the federal government role today is in some respects worse than in 1968, the overall state of race relations is not. > Mr. Rodgers prescriptions for life are lovely but impractical In what concrete respect? You've been waving around a lot of generalizations (false ones, at that) about societal differences between now and the past to explain why they might have become impractical having been valid in the past, but you haven't actually explaining what the actual impracticality in any of them is (or even what specific prescriptions you are criticizing); while the inaccuracy of your generalizations is a problem, a bigger problem is your failure to establish, or even concretely define, the problem that supposedly has developed with Rogers’ approach that you are using them to explain.

ManFromUranus 8y ago
>Since Mr. Rogers Neighborhood first aired in 1968? No, race relations are much better now. I disagree. I think they never improved or went anywhere. We had Rodney King in the 90s and Michael brown recently (among others) nothing has changed, nothing has improved and it never will. Who are the white supremacists? Would a nation run by white supremacists ever have white poeople become a minority? America has the most bungled "institutionalized racism" I've ever seen. They racismed a black president and then white supremicied themselves into minorities in many major cities and an absoulte minority within 50 years. If that's white supremecy then you should hope they stay on track. Mr. Rogers says that feeling are important and you should be able to discuss your feelings, hmm I hope you have the right feelings or you probably shouldn't discuss them. Mr. Rogers was a lovely caring man who couldn't exist today. There are no Mr. Rogers out there right now, society is polarizing and cynical and hateful (in many directions) a Mr Rogers cannot exist in that environment. Mr Rogers comes from an essentially homogeneous cultural and ethnic environment which doesn't exist today. The America Fred Rogers grew up in was Christian and >90% white, that America is gone. His lovey philosophy and outlook can only come about in the particular time in which he lived.