Hacker News Reader

Comment by tdeck | Hacker News Reader

Whether the term "black hat" perpetuates racial prejudices or not (I'm unconvinced), I think this kind of comment has the potential to take the whole thread down the wrong path. It asserts (without evidence) that no working-class Black people care about this¹, then argues that the author is "no doubt nevertheless wrong", and then quotes a work of fiction without any explanation of why the analogy is apt. Why is it that every time there's a discussion about language like this people try to shut it down with hyperbolic comparisons to totalitarianism rather than actually engaging? We can have these kinds of discussions while also pushing companies to put their money where their mouth is.

¹ Could it be instead that when working-class Black people complain about this they don't get national press?

View on HN

People make hyperbolic comparisons because the previous hyperbolic comparisons keep coming true. A decade or two ago, "activists want us to examine all black-colored things to make sure they're not racist" was a ridiculous hyperbolic claim.

As far as I can tell, that's a bad-faith misrepresentation of the position. The position is more like "we've got lots of expressions that associate `black` with `bad`, and maybe we should move away from them in a professional context." The claim isn't that the origin of these terms itself is necessarily racist (e.g. a black sheep is a sheep whose wool can't be dyed), only that their use helps to an unconscious climate of anti-blackness. Again, I'm not really convinced that this is true, but it's not the same as saying we should examine every "black-colored thing" to make sure it's not racist.

And crucially, I'm not irrationally upset over the mere suggestion that we should rethink certain language, and someone withdrawing from a conference doesn't immediately make me think of a fictional evil regime that tortures people for reading a book or saying the wrong thing.

Can you go into more detail? I'm not sure I see how it isn't the same. If we think any use of the word "black" to describe something negative causes "an unconscious climate of anti-blackness", it seems like that implies a commitment to examine every black-colored thing.

I think "thing" is too broad a term, the focus is specifically on a small set of negative expressions. For example, if I walk down the street and see a black mailbox or a black manhole cover, I don't see anyone arguing that those things might be racist.

It isn't irrational to be upset at masses of people being stupid. It is quite rational given the sheer history of damage they have caused.

Calling it "rethink" is a euphemism that damages the truth. It is rethinking in the same sense that a true king doesn't have to say he is king as power, deeds, and masses of followers make it abundantly obvious. In this case it is clearly a demand. Actual thinking would involve enough introspection to ask "isn't avoiding black in phrases like the plague in itself suggesting that black is bad far more than any tangental occurance?".

A proper rethinking would be demonstrative instead of imperative - for the previous only demonstrates what they shouldn't do instead of demonstrating what they should do. Coin a new set of phrases for the roles and explain why they are preferrable to the faded zeitgeist. But that would require creation instead of more destructive social bullshit slinging.

That's why you should never joke around "social justice warriors" - you don't want to give them any ideas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com