Hacker News Reader

Comment by temphn | Hacker News Reader

Interesting asymmetry: if A calls B a racist, the onus of proof is on B to defend themself, and the standard for innocence is so high that this is usually impossible. B's reputation is usually besmirched.

If A calls B a socialist or communist, however, then the burden of proof is on A to prove the charge, and the standard for guilt is so high that this is usually impossible. In this case it is A's reputation that is usually besmirched.

We live in an era of racial McCarthyism. It's all the more strange as the most powerful man in the world is black, and Arrington most likely voted for him. Strange kind of racist that does that. Strange kind of "institutional racism" that keeps blacks down in Silicon Valley yet gets the majority of the country (and the Valley) to vote for Obama as president.

View on HN

If one wants to discuss race, a much more interesting subject is how Obama is pretty much universally described as black, given that his heritage is just as much white.

It may be that his heritage is even more white than black because he was raised by his white mother without his black father.

Unfortunately I don't have a source for this, but it happened during the 2008 election:

When someone asked Obama why he would consider himself the potential first black President rather than the first mixed race President, he said (paraphrasing) "If I was waiting to catch a cab in NYC late night in a bad neighborhood, the cabbie won't think 'there's a mixed race man waiting to catch a cab', he'll think 'there's a black man waiting to catch a cab'"

I think that was well put. Even if you are of mixed race, it's how you are perceived when people make their initial assumptions that matters most in the context of these discussions.

My son is mixed; I'm white. Part of the discussion my wife and I had before having kids is about how mixed children are seen. They get the worst of both. People who look down on black, consider them black (that does not mean everyone who'd call them black are racist, but that racists while grasp at the "one drop" pretty much immediately). Often if they try to define themselves as white they get it from both sides - a lot of black people see them as "traitors", a lot of white people assume they're ashamed of their black heritage and look down on them for that, or in the case of racists often take offense at it. And if they try to define themselves as black, there are people that have issue with that too, grasping at anything to write them off as "not black enough".

So for him, I guess part of it is that being "black" is still more convenient than being mixed race at the same time that when dealing with somewhat racist white people, trying to insist you're white or mixed when you look a bit darker than them will just make it far less likely that they'll give you any kind of respect.

If he'd called himself white or mixed, I don't think there's any chance he'd have gotten elected - the entire election campaign would've been massively marred by a focus on race far beyond what it was, and I think it'd have lost him votes from both whites and blacks.

Personally I like to play a little game that goes: the first person to call someone else something is probably that thing. So if A calls B e.g. a racist, I will make the initial assumption that A is a racist. It's amazing how often this little game gets the truth of it.

Then you must be someone who accuses other people of being things that better apply to yourself.

How does that make any sense? It's been my experience that most people who call other people racists are, themselves, racists.

The theory behind it is pretty simple. Often A will say something like "you're a racist because you did X" but B never had any idea that X could have racist motivations. B, not being a racist, doesn't think that way. Racists do. So chances are (and this isn't 100%, which is why I said this was my initial assumption) A is a racist since they think this way. It could be that they were directly affected by such an occurrence and that's why X occurred to them.

But as I said, this little game works more than it doesn't in my experience.

I took your point to be that people only tend to perceive faults in others if they have those same faults. But since this projecting of faults is itself a fault that you've perceived in others, your maxim applies to you.

My intent was not to actually accuse you of this fault, but rather to imply that "it takes one to know one" might not actually be robustly true.

>But since this projecting of faults is itself a fault that you've perceived in others, your maxim applies to you.

What I've perceived is that when people accuse others of certain kind of behavior it is often because they think that way themselves (and therefore recognize it, even if the other party does not). My assumption makes no statement about me in regards to the accusation (racism for example). You might say it makes me judgmental, but no more than you if you believe A's accusation (or if you don't for that matter).

>"it takes one to know one" might not actually be robustly true.

I don't use it as "set in stone" proof of a person's character. I use it as a starting point. And it doesn't work for everything. Accusing someone of being a "socialist", for example. The game wont work in that case because the accuser probably doesn't think they've seen actual socialist behavior (and usually have no idea what "socialist behavior" is in any case). They are using it purely as a smear.

You're implying that being called a socialist is as damning as being called a racist? Really? What is so evil about these Danes and Swedes?

The people who murdered millions in the USSR also saw themselves as "building socialism". Today "socialist" merely means a Western European country bound for bankruptcy, with the formerly[1] free market US following close behind.

I suppose that's progress of a sort, but it's mystifying as to why one would claim the label, let alone the label "communist".

[1] In recent years the US has plummeted on measures of economic freedom, falling further behind Hong Kong and Singapore, and even dropping below Canada.

I'm a socialist. I claim the label because I care about social responsibility and liberal values.

Compressing socialism to USSR and bankrupt countries is really a cheap kind of rhetoric. I could respond with a brief history of Chile or a tale about bankers living on a crisis - but that's kind of misses my point, which is that a comparison between socialism and racism is greatly inadequate.

I think the term "socialist" has a different connotation in the US than in Europe. In Europe, a third of all voters (roughly) vote for parties that call themselves socialist, while these parties are really center-left, in all likeliness quite to the right in terms of what the average American considers socialist.

Moreover, there is no mainstream socialist movement in the US. Merely calling Obama a socialist does not make it true.

That's his point; it's used as a perjorative in the US where in Europe it is not (without regard to the truth of it.)

Yes, I know about these different connotations. However, painting a sort of a symmetry between these two labels is - in my humble opinion - a step too far. Imagine someone saying Arrington is a socialist. Such "accusation" would have completely different weight than labeling him as a racist.

Depending on the context (country/period) "I'm a socialist" can signify both "I want to nationalize everything, kill the conservatives and, if possible, bring in the soviet army" or "I want slightly more progressive taxes and state funded healthcare". They don't make them like they used to ...

bgarbiak does have a valid point, in that today there are few places on earth where "I'm a socialist" implies the first meaning rather than the second.

I don't disagree, but you have to remember ... some people that supported stuff like the weathermen* in their twenties now have tenure, cushy government jobs etc. A lot of these are now "moderate" social-democrats, progressives or liberals. But sometimes only in the sense a white nationalist is a republican, ie. for lack of "better" options.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

Historically, in the USA, it was. The McCarthy years were like this. Today, it isn't, but that isn't really the point of the analogy.

In the '50s, here in the US, being called a socialist was more damning than being called a racist. In that era, being a racist (in certain areas of the country, at least) could even be construed as an advantage.

Being a socialist (or even being accused of such) led to severe consequences, like being blackballed in your industry, hauled before a Congressional committee, or even jail time.

To a large subset of white conservative Republicans, yes, it is.

"If A calls B a socialist or communist, however, then the burden of proof is on A to prove the charge, and the standard for guilt is so high that this is usually impossible. In this case it is A's reputation that is usually besmirched."

Do we live in the same America? Usually you can call just about any well known figure a socialist, and a huge cadre of conservative, fox news loving mouth breathers will assume it is so without a moment's thought.

No coherent conversation on race can emerge because race is not a coherent concept: it has several valid but highly contradictory definitions.

In my (highly arrogant, irrelevant because I wasn't there, and loftily ideal opinion that would have gotten Arrington crucified anyway) he should have said something like "Race isn't something we really take seriously as a concept here in the Valley. What do you mean?"

Of course, that would have been a poor statement, too, because the Valley still pats itself on the back for having a few successful minorities.

Interesting asymmetry: if A calls Black Guy a drug dealer or rapist, the onus of proof is on Black Guy to defend himself, and the standard for innocence is so high that this is usually impossible.

Happens all over our society in all different directions. Unfortunately for the guys being called racists, they have their reputations besmirched. Unfortunately for black guys getting called rapists, they have to spend 15 to 30 years behind bars before the Innocence Project can get them out. Assuming they are not executed, which many are.

Point is, Arrington can't do anything for 'Black Guy Falsely Accused Of Rape'. And most of us can't do anything for 'Guy A Falsely Accused Of Being Racist'.

THIS is why you are finding so much 'strangeness' out there...

because there are just enough race baiters out there to get on tv and accuse people of being racist or to get on juries and convict black guys of rape even in the absence of credible DNA evidence!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com