'Master' and 'slave': Tech terms face scrutiny amid anti-racism efforts

[EEVblog]

The whole cancel culture thing is deeply worrying, and I'm sure it will not be long before it is eating their own.

There are already countless examples of that happening. J.K.Rowling is but one high profile example. She was the darling of the identity politics crowd, and then the next day, canceled.

[SkyMaster]

Why would you expect people to be killed in proportion to their number in a fair society? Some groups have far more interactions with the police. The number of black and white people killed by the police in the US is roughly in line with the number of interactions their group has with the police. The interesting question is why black people have far more interactions with the police in the US.

To answer your last question, maybe this is the resultant of 250 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of constitutional segregation that only officially ended in the '50s and inequality that continued long after...

These American people had a very difficult life for a long time (350 years), and this could play a part in the rebellious attitude of some individuals.

If I was in their shoes, I would probably have a rebellious attitude.

 

[Kjelt]

To answer your last question, maybe this is the resultant of 250 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of constitutional segregation that only officially ended in the '50s and inequality that continued long after...

These American people had a very difficult life for a long time (350 years), and this could play a part in the rebellious attitude of some individuals.

If I was in their shoes, I would probably have a rebellious attitude.

I don't agree, I think it depends on their personal situation and corresponding mindset.
The persons that did well and made a good living for themselves and family don't have that "anger" unless indeed they are the victim of racism.

What could play a large role is the induced mindset from the parents. I had a mother that was put in a japanese camp in Indonesia in WW2 when she was 11 to 15 yrs old under harsh conditions. She was afraid of crowds and go to public places the rest of her life. That was induced to me and my brothers, it is well known as second generation camp syndrome. The jewish people that survived the concentration camps in WW2 had this in an even much severe way, I have been lucky to have known a man who survived Auschwitz and been to his funeral and heard his children speak awfull things and I realized that this was induced upbringing.

 I can elaborate on that but for this topic it suffices to say that IMHO the situation of your parents while raising kids is very important in how these kids stand in life, and even then when they become adults they have to choose, do I want to be a victim and play that role or do I want to do everything I can to make it. If they choose the latter and are obstructed in those goals by real racist contra forces then they have all the right imo to complain and protest (as long as they do their best to keep it from their children  ). And the latter, the real racism should be the topic and should be abolished. What happened in once family 200 years ago or 75 years ago is the past and you have the choice to (re-)live the past and hang in it or live for the future and try to do your best.
Just my 2 cents.

PS: I heard in some interviews that parents teach their children from young age to be very afraid of the police because they are evil and instruct them to comply.
What do you think that this results in ? How can there ever be a balanced trustworthy interaction when their mind is already so preprogrammed? This is probably very controversial because the parents want to protect their children by doing that but think about it what it teaches their children.

[magic]

It's no coincidence the word black, rather than African or even brown, were originally chosen to describe Africans, because it has negative connotations.

Historically races  mixed and treated equally.

It wasn't until Europeans were looking for excuses to go colonising and enslaving other continents, that the idea of white supremacy was created to justify it

Why would you expect people to be killed in proportion to their number in a fair society? Some groups have far more interactions with the police.

In a fair society all groups would have equal interactions with the police.
That's the end goal of liberalism; some folks are just getting impatient.

My first impression on most of the police incidents is that they were not racially targeted because why would the police target people of a particular race? I mean I wouldn't, I'd target people who are committing crimes, that's what the police are supposed to do and from what I see, it's what most of them are doing.

That's indeed a projection

When you look at that latest video, it seems like the motivation was to make a show of him being a drug junkie. They probably thought it was very funny when he cried for his momma, but kinda unluckily this time he kicked the bucket while under one officer's knee and now a 2nd degree murder charge, oopsie.

That's not just "targeting" criminals, it's a deep kind of hatred for the pathological society he probably grew up in and total disregard for those who lack the strength and/or motivation to raise above the filth. It happens.

I don't wanna get all political but that's half the problem I have with that guy, he's constantly waving his dick around and making empty threats and rarely follows through. Wish he'd learn to shut his mouth sometimes, and under-promise but I don't think he's ever going to figure that out.

Either he says that stuff just to gauge public opinion (people will never honestly tell you what you they think about something unless you actually do / pretend to do it) or is an idiot. Possibly both, but honestly, I don't envy anyone trying to run that United Trainwreck of America at this point

[Fred Basset]

I remember a TV show called Love Thy Neighbor.

That always was grim, but there was one that was even worse: "Mind Your Language".

The BBC is, I believe, not showing the classic "Till Death Us Do Part" due to racism concerns. Apparently audiences nowadays are to dim to realise that Alf Garnett's frequent racist statements are designed to show that racism is wrong and stupid.

I found Alf very sad, even when he got a gay black carer (remember after one of his rants, he just bent Alf's bare head forward and kissed him right in the middle of it?).

I loved Love Thy Neighbour as a kid, I found even better was Mind Your Language.  Full of stereotypes, but so is maths...we call them averages.

I am lucky enough to have MYL on DVD, along with all series of Please Sir!.  Want to talk disturbing?  Do you remember the first series of "Please Sir!"?  They were an hour long and they were meant to be 11 years old.  The one who had a crush on the teacher had a LOT more than a crush on him.  It was sexually explicit in places.  By the second series it was half an hour long, and it had been toned down to a crush.

At what point doesw anyone draw the line?  I used to love them when they were broadcast, but then I was a child and did not see things the way I do now.  I still like them and find them funny, but maybe that is because I remember them when they were taken at face value, and not all the things read into them that we do now?

For years people had to defend Love Thy Neighbour as showing how stupid racism was.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

It wasn't until Europeans were looking for excuses to go colonising and enslaving other continents, that the idea of white supremacy was created to justify it, backed up by bogus theology and science.

Yeah but in the modern era colonialism, when they were still running semi naked in the serengeti, the gap with the europeans was truly absolutely abysmal.

[tom66]

The whole cancel culture thing is deeply worrying, and I'm sure it will not be long before it is eating their own. People jump on board with it but sooner or later something will come up that affects them, almost nobody will have lived their whole life without ever uttering something objectionable, whether out of anger, ignorance, or simply words that someone else can interpret in a way other than what they meant. People like to bring up that the first amendment protects freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences, and that it only protects you from the government punishing you but that's rather disingenuous as free speech is useless if the mob will convict and sentence you. It's a very toxic environment when people are afraid to merely play devil's advocate, question a narrative, or even be seen as not fanatical enough in supporting a cause. Absolutely nobody has their mind changed by force, try to punish a person or group for holding an opinion and you might superficially silence them or even destroy that individual but at the same time you validate their stance and they and those like them will dig in their heals. With a more gentle approach one can create an ally, people do change their opinion on various matters as I have myself at times, it's called personal growth. If you manage to "cancel" them all you've created is a bitter unemployed person who is likely to ally with others who are even more extreme than they are. It's just a bad situation all around and I don't see it getting any better for a while.

Talking about "eating their own" but in the UK the Labour party recently sacked one of their left-wing "shadow" ministers for re-tweeting something that claimed that Israeli special forces were behind the training that American police officers used, which resulted in the death of George Floyd.

The left wing of the party were in uproar because this is exactly the sort of "cancel culture" that they were going for but it was against one of their own.  They claimed that because she didn't say Jewish but Israel that she was not racist, but they were not heard out.  *This* is the consequence of your decision to permit absolutely no ambiguity or fine-grain decision making.  It's quite beautiful.

[SilverSolder]

The whole cancel culture thing is deeply worrying, and I'm sure it will not be long before it is eating their own. People jump on board with it but sooner or later something will come up that affects them, almost nobody will have lived their whole life without ever uttering something objectionable, whether out of anger, ignorance, or simply words that someone else can interpret in a way other than what they meant. People like to bring up that the first amendment protects freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences, and that it only protects you from the government punishing you but that's rather disingenuous as free speech is useless if the mob will convict and sentence you. It's a very toxic environment when people are afraid to merely play devil's advocate, question a narrative, or even be seen as not fanatical enough in supporting a cause. Absolutely nobody has their mind changed by force, try to punish a person or group for holding an opinion and you might superficially silence them or even destroy that individual but at the same time you validate their stance and they and those like them will dig in their heals. With a more gentle approach one can create an ally, people do change their opinion on various matters as I have myself at times, it's called personal growth. If you manage to "cancel" them all you've created is a bitter unemployed person who is likely to ally with others who are even more extreme than they are. It's just a bad situation all around and I don't see it getting any better for a while.

Talking about "eating their own" but in the UK the Labour party recently sacked one of their left-wing "shadow" ministers for re-tweeting something that claimed that Israeli special forces were behind the training that American police officers used, which resulted in the death of George Floyd.

The left wing of the party were in uproar because this is exactly the sort of "cancel culture" that they were going for but it was against one of their own.  They claimed that because she didn't say Jewish but Israel that she was not racist, but they were not heard out.  *This* is the consequence of your decision to permit absolutely no ambiguity or fine-grain decision making.  It's quite beautiful.

What the loudmouths on both sides of the political divide seem to have difficulty understanding is: 
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!

[Connecteur]

Whomever decided to assign genders to connectors must have been drinking that day.

[tggzzz]

Whomever decided to assign genders to connectors must have been drinking that day.

You must be young.

What do you think of the colloquial name for three-prong pliers, as indicated on Wholesale Engineering Supplies webpage?

Or people being told to push a button by the phrase "push the tit".

And then there are names for Thinkpad's "red dot mouse". One is close to the button, another is close to the pliers. No, I am not going to engage in discussion of that topic!

[Ctrlocti]

i don't get the virgin pliers thing. what's the reference?

[tggzzz]

i don't get the virgin pliers thing. what's the reference?

I am not going to answer that, on principle.

There are several reasons I didn't spell out the colloquial name. I'll leave you to do your own research.

[SkyMaster]

To answer your last question, maybe this is the resultant of 250 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of constitutional segregation that only officially ended in the '50s and inequality that continued long after...

These American people had a very difficult life for a long time (350 years), and this could play a part in the rebellious attitude of some individuals.

If I was in their shoes, I would probably have a rebellious attitude.

What happened in once family 200 years ago or 75 years ago is the past and you have the choice to (re-)live the past and hang in it or live for the future and try to do your best.
Just my 2 cents.

It is not necessary to compare these 350 years of atrocities with any other atrocities to come to the conclusion that these 350 years were abominable, and that today's culture is still affected.

 

[tom66]

I suppose this comedy is to be banned now:


for it is clearly encouraging people to sexually harass others. 

[bd139]

That's bloody awful. Shouldn't be banned but they shouldn't have made it in the first place 

[coppice]

Why would you expect people to be killed in proportion to their number in a fair society? Some groups have far more interactions with the police. The number of black and white people killed by the police in the US is roughly in line with the number of interactions their group has with the police. The interesting question is why black people have far more interactions with the police in the US.

To answer your last question, maybe this is the resultant of 250 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of constitutional segregation that only officially ended in the '50s and inequality that continued long after...

These American people had a very difficult life for a long time (350 years), and this could play a part in the rebellious attitude of some individuals.

If I was in their shoes, I would probably have a rebellious attitude.

 

I wonder if for many Americans a focus on black vs white is a way of diverting their minds from just how gruesome the history of America has been. Just focus on one area of injustice, and ignore all the rest. What about the genecide of indigenous Americans? What about the waves of Chinese tricked into going to the western side of America with the promise of good jobs? What they found were indentured servitude conditions building the railroads, or working in mines in Arizona that would have made the actual slaves think "man, those people REALLY have it tough". What about the workers in northern industrial towns who couldn't be motivated to fight slavery, because they thought the slaves had better conditions than they did? When there was a downturn the factory workers starved on the streets, while a slave owner needed to keep his assets in good shape for the next upturn.

[maginnovision]

What do you expect people to do about things that happened in the past exactly? It's in the history books so learn it and understand why you shouldn't do it. Which country doesn't have bad shit in their past, present, or future?

[SkyMaster]

Why would you expect people to be killed in proportion to their number in a fair society? Some groups have far more interactions with the police. The number of black and white people killed by the police in the US is roughly in line with the number of interactions their group has with the police. The interesting question is why black people have far more interactions with the police in the US.

To answer your last question, maybe this is the resultant of 250 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of constitutional segregation that only officially ended in the '50s and inequality that continued long after...

These American people had a very difficult life for a long time (350 years), and this could play a part in the rebellious attitude of some individuals.

If I was in their shoes, I would probably have a rebellious attitude.

 

I wonder if for many Americans a focus on black vs white is a way of diverting their minds from just how gruesome the history of America has been. Just focus on one area of injustice, and ignore all the rest. What about the genecide of indigenous Americans? What about the waves of Chinese tricked into going to the western side of America with the promise of good jobs? What they found were indentured servitude conditions building the railroads, or working in mines in Arizona that would have made the actual slaves think "man, those people REALLY have it tough". What about the workers in northern industrial towns who couldn't be motivated to fight slavery, because they though the slaves had better conditions than they did? When there was a downturn the factory workers starved on the streets, while a slave owner needed to keep his assets in good shape for the next upturn.

It seems that the way you see it, slaves (with no rights, and not considered citizen) were in a better position than "normal" workers.

 

[SkyMaster]

What do you expect people to do about things that happened in the past exactly? It's in the history books so learn it and understand why you shouldn't do it. Which country doesn't have bad shit in their past, present, or future?

It is in the history books, but are these 350 years of American history taught at school?

What do I expect people to? I do not expect them to do anything; I am just an observer.

 

[maginnovision]

They were taught, yes. As of now? I wouldn't know because I'm not a child but with all of the SJW garbage happening if it still is it may not be soon.

[coppice]

Why would you expect people to be killed in proportion to their number in a fair society? Some groups have far more interactions with the police. The number of black and white people killed by the police in the US is roughly in line with the number of interactions their group has with the police. The interesting question is why black people have far more interactions with the police in the US.

To answer your last question, maybe this is the resultant of 250 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of constitutional segregation that only officially ended in the '50s and inequality that continued long after...

These American people had a very difficult life for a long time (350 years), and this could play a part in the rebellious attitude of some individuals.

If I was in their shoes, I would probably have a rebellious attitude.

 

I wonder if for many Americans a focus on black vs white is a way of diverting their minds from just how gruesome the history of America has been. Just focus on one area of injustice, and ignore all the rest. What about the genecide of indigenous Americans? What about the waves of Chinese tricked into going to the western side of America with the promise of good jobs? What they found were indentured servitude conditions building the railroads, or working in mines in Arizona that would have made the actual slaves think "man, those people REALLY have it tough". What about the workers in northern industrial towns who couldn't be motivated to fight slavery, because they though the slaves had better conditions than they did? When there was a downturn the factory workers starved on the streets, while a slave owner needed to keep his assets in good shape for the next upturn.

It seems that the way you see it, slaves (with no rights, and not considered citizen) were in a better position than "normal" workers.

 

I clearly said (apart from mistyping thought) that the northern workers said this. Not me. You can find these types of objection to taking action documented in American history books.

[Striker]

The whole cancel culture thing is deeply worrying, and I'm sure it will not be long before it is eating their own.

There are already countless examples of that happening. J.K.Rowling is but one high profile example. She was the darling of the identity politics crowd, and then the next day, canceled.

Although J.K. Rowling's books are well liked in those circles I'd say she herself has been pretty heavily disliked in them for a long time. She kept going back and saying "Look this character is actually 'x', I'm so relevant" and that was heavily look down upon as massive pandering instead of anything substantive. I have a fair number of friends in those circles and the only times she's come up for years has been negatively.

[maginnovision]

They're ALL pandering, J.K. Rowling is only hated because she says trans women aren't women.

[SkyMaster]

They were taught, yes. As of now? I wouldn't know because I'm not a child but with all of the SJW garbage happening if it still is it may not be soon.

SJW, this is for a cord rated at 300 volts and that is water-resistant, right?

 

[james_s]

When you look at that latest video, it seems like the motivation was to make a show of him being a drug junkie. They probably thought it was very funny when he cried for his momma, but kinda unluckily this time he kicked the bucket while under one officer's knee and now a 2nd degree murder charge, oopsie.

That's not just "targeting" criminals, it's a deep kind of hatred for the pathological society he probably grew up in and total disregard for those who lack the strength and/or motivation to raise above the filth. It happens.

You're referring to ONE specific case where I've yet to hear ANYONE defending what that police officer did. That was not what most police are doing, there are tens of thousands of police interactions with the community every day, you can't just pick out the one incident and use that as an example that all police are targeting people by race. Even that one incident you refer to, we don't know that the guy was targeted because of his race, at least I don't know, maybe there is information out there that I haven't seen. Regardless of why he did it, clearly it was wrong.