bubblewrap

"the way you used it is exactly how a racist would use it to mock a black person."

I still don't see what exactly is so mocking about it. Yes, I was perhaps "conjuring up" a stereotypical scenario. So what? Clearly, the stereotype exists. Even if it doesn't reflect reality, imo it would still be valid to refer to the stereotype, as the stereotype exists and is part of reality. The much celebrated Toni Morrison book also conjures a stereotype, about a black girl obsessing to become white. Somehow that is good - why?

And again, no - nobody should be forced to spend time learning about the behavior of racists. Why should they? Life is too short to spend it studying nasty people. I reject this as an attempt to control other people's life, with the power of being a minority.

"Generally the way to avoid being offensive in that situation is to write your characters respectfully as human beings, and to ask members of the minority group you are portraying to review your work for any unintentional offensiveness before publication."

Nope, and that is also why I am so defensive. I value freedom of thought and freedom of art higher than people's choice of being offended.

Of course any writer is free to make the choice to try to offend as few people as possible. But writers should also be allowed to write what they think.

I've never heard of AAVE before. Wikipedia claims it is "natively spoken, particularly in urban communities, by most working- and middle-class African Americans and some Black Canadians" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Vernacular_En...

So if it is so commonly used, why on earth should it be offensive to refer to it? In what way would you consider my statement "mocking"? I don't think it is very relevant what racists commonly do. I don't feel obliged to obtain knowledge about the lifestyle of racists, and neither should anybody else.

Even more interesting in the context of the original complaint of there not being enough books with black heroes. So if a white writer would write such a book, they wouldn't be allowed to use the word "momma" or refer to anything that PoC might do that is different from white people? You are creating an impossible world.

The example on Wiktionary given for momma is "My momma's so great: she bakes me cookies every week."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/momma

As I said, I am not a native speaker, so I don't really know how momma is typically used (if at all). It was more of a spontaneous use on a whim. But I also haven't found any indication yet that it is a derogatory term.

Sorry I still think the "offense taken" is overblown. I am also not concerned about not offending anybody at all. Frankly I think many people who feel offended about certain things perhaps should just get over themselves. I mean in this case, is momma used in the real world? If so, then I think it should be OK to use it. I don't believe in censoring statements about the real world.

Thanks for trying to explain, though.

Why are many characters white? Because many writers are white. Should white authors write books with non-white heroes? Wouldn't that result in an outcry about cultural appropriation and things like that? Never mind that it would presumably be difficult to credibly describe the experience of people you have not experienced yourself?

Are there many non-white authors writing books with white heroes/heroines? Maybe they should just write more books about people who "look like them"?

A lot of popular children books actually have female heroines, like Pippa Longstocking, Astrid Lindgren being one of the most popular authors of children's books. I never had a problem enjoying them, strange enough. It never occurred to me as a kid that I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy reading those books, because the protagonists have the wrong gender. Good thing today's children have better education on such issues - god forbid they could enjoy a book of the wrong identification!!!

What about Lord of the Rings, should PoC be able to enjoy that book? Should it be considered a hate crime to recommend the book to a PoC? Should the government give out a grant for someone to write an alternative to Lotr with PoC heroines?

Female Superheroes exist, but it is also only one rather silly genre (and only two publishers). Plus, there are other reasons why action heroes tend to be male: because men are expendable and therefore supposed to do the dangerous work, as in real life. Superheroes are a lie, anyway, but to tell women they could simply be action heroes would be an even greater lie.

As for the experiment: "These findings exposed internalized racism in African-American children, self-hatred that was more acute among children attending segregated schools" - that is clearly an unwarranted interpretation of the result, fueled by ideology. And wanting to play with white dolls is not "obsessing" over white dolls.

One of those silly toxic grievance ideas, that you should only enjoy fiction when the protagonist looks like you, has the same gender and so on.

Do real world PoC even ever obsess over white female dolls with blue eyes? It was just a work of fiction, after all. Do white girls obsess over black dolls? We have a black doll, that my white wife grew up with. I don't think it disturbed her in any way.

The legal framework could be wrong, though.

I thought this is about emotional upheaval and hating big corporations, not the law.

If it is about the law, why even discuss it, instead of waiting for the courts to sort it out?

That's what the pregnant woman claims. The manager could have disliked her for other reasons or considered her unfit for leading people for other reasons.

Oh dear - no, strictly speaking, they are not. Nobody is.

So the area where you live was never hot and humid before?

Sure, people are free to want anything. Acting on their wants may be another thing.

Sure, they are free to operate as they please. And people are free to dislike the way they operate.

Things that are projected to happen 10 to 12 years in the future seem to have a pesky tendency to happen 10 to 12 years in the future indefinitely.

Still, it is a pretty extreme scenario. And it is nothing new that some places on earth are uninhabitable or have become uninhabitable.

I'm pretty sure people are already living in places that are too hot for survival without technical aids. For example African deserts. In that light, I am not convinced that this article is more than fearmongering.

It's also just one of countless doomsday scenarios out there.

The choice would be looking for another job. A choice that slaves didn't have. By your definition, everybody is a slave, who is not so rich that they can afford to stop working.

As for Amazon's Fulfillment centers, I'd like to read a statement by their operators before making a judgement. I suspect it is not as easy to make unskilled workers do useful work as many people think.

I suspect toilet rules are strict because people are prone to abuse the system.

Would be nice to have a warehouse operator for an AMA some time.

Slaves couldn't quit their jobs if they were unhappy about it. That is one of the defining aspects of slavery.

"Ice flows are melting faster than average rates observed over the last three decades"

This is actually normal for averages - some years are higher, some are lower. Otherwise it wouldn't be an average.

Maybe the state of affairs is still alarming, but then they should describe it better.

I thought gas was comparatively efficient, compared to other fossil fuels?

I still don't quite see the issue you have with my comment. I personally find it a good argument against Socialism, or at least a good reminder that Socialism is not an automatic solution to the world's problems. And is it really common knowledge how the Russians destroyed the Aral sea? I know it wasn't always known to me, and I haven't read about it that often. If it is common knowledge, why do people propose Socialism as a solution to environmental problems?

What would be a good comment on Socialism, in your opinion?

I know you have a policy against politics, or used to have it. It doesn't seem to be strictly enforced, though (see global warming, feminism and so on).

I know why you have your policies, but I am not convinced that they are optimal. Have you ever even tested them against alternatives?

I've been on HN since it was called Startup News. I actually almost hate it now, because of some of the policies. Sure, maybe you don't want people like me on the site. Your call. I know several oldtimers feel the same, though.

You have actually found some ways to make users hate you, which is an achievement in itself. For starters, how about a warning that you are beyond your posting limit BEFORE people spend time and effort to write comments?

And it feels very one sided now, so not as interesting as it used to be (is it really the quality of my comment, or just criticism of Socialism that is the issue?). Still, I keep coming back, admittedly. But grudgingly so.

Edit: looking through the policies again, I still don't see how my comment is supposed to break the rules: "Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads.". It's not a crap link, and it is not rude or dumb. Imo, of course. That the same argument has been made before can hardly be a deciding factor, because then you'd have to shut down the site right now.

Some more specific dangers other than "the rich will get richer" would have been useful to mention.

As with most AI scares, people forget that AIs only replace the even more faulty human brain. Bias in AI can be debugged and worked around. Bias in human brains is much harder. You get no insights into why your bank doesn't give you a credit. Is it because of your skin color? Because they didn't like your nose?

The scary scenario of an AI judging people's attitudes and ruling them criminals only because they had a bad morning: the scenario of a human mob believing somebody to be guilty is much more scary, and it happens on a regular basis.

It would of course be bad to leave the judging to an AI alone. Of course the whole justice system would still be in place. That is unrelated to AI. The surveillance camera is not calling a killer squad on an unsuspecting grumpy person on public transport. It could merely draw the attention of a human to the scene, who could then judge on needed actions.

The example of the illegal immigrants also seems weird. Isn't it a good thing to be able to expose illegal behavior? I sympathize with the plight of immigrants, but rather than tolerating illegal behavior, it seems better to improve the laws to make good, desirable behavior legal.

No I said the protestors claiming there is an easy solution is the problem. They believe everything could just be switched over to renewables at no cost, in fact, they think it would be cheaper to do so.

You do the same. You claim it is "technically a solved problem". It really isn't. You are just naive about "renewable energy".

Cool, but also energy efficient?

It seems to be news for the person blaming capitalism for the woes of the world, though. So discussion is not welcome? Why can't people just ignore threads they are not interested in?

Afaik a lot of stories repeat on HN, so the "newsworthiness" criterion seems a bit arbitrary. Also, shouldn't it make a difference if it is a top level thread? I wouldn't submit a story about "socialism starving millions of people".

I know, your "new" policies have been in place for a while, but I think you really kind of destroyed Hacker News. I don't understand why you worry about curbing discussions in deeply nested threads, as they would be easy to ignore by people who don't care. I don't think you worry about SEO or anything like that, so really, what is your incentive?

Also, there are lots of "boring" and repetitive threads on HN (like on global warming), I think you may actually single out "capitalism vs socialism" for ideological reasons. I don't believe you that nobody is curious about capitalism vs socialism anymore. On the contrary, the "battle" is more relevant than ever, with socialist having a real shot at the US elections. It is a question that affects most of us a lot more than most topics would.

Isn't it common knowledge that the energy storage problem still isn't solved. What solution do you think exists?

I'm not the one claiming there is an easy solution. I think Bill Gates also said the people claiming there is an easy solution is the biggest problem with fighting climate change, so maybe read his essays on the topic.

Can you give a citation? Where does this happen? Is it really just capitalist unwillingness to deliver food, or are these people in the hands of dictators, and it is capitalist unwillingness to sacrifice soldiers to topple them? And do capitalists start wars, or governments?

Sorry I don't understand your criticism. Is it not allowed to discuss capitalism or socialism, it is automatically an "ideological battle"? That doesn't make sense imo.

Sure - so the problem with capitalism is that it allows populations to grow too much? Or in what sense is capitalism to blame?

Solar apparently hasn't become viable after years of subsidization. And the problem of storing energy is still not solved. There is no solar power at night.

Subsidization of coal would of course be equally wrong.