507
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
507 points (99.8% liked)
Technology
59648 readers
1483 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's what I'm trying to say: it IS about both, so it behoves us to focus on both rather than completely ignore the racial aspects in favor of a less comprehensive strategy of only mentioning the aspects that are least likely to garner headlines and wide public support.
I'm no fan of demagoguery, but when the TRUTH is an effective argument bound to illicit the kind of emotional reaction necessary to make any headway in a broken media and political system, you don't just discard the most effective argument.
I don't think your argument comes off that way, but i guess that's subjective.
The original article outlines how they're pushing a bill to stop discriminatory pricing. That lower income areas and areas with fewer white people tend to have less tech / higher price. It then goes on with multiple quotes about race. And how people of color don't have the same access.
The original comment says they don't think it's just race, that it's a larger class issue.
You then start talking about how it IS race and is racist.
We know. The original article posed that angle. The comment you responded to said it was a broader problem. Youre coming back around to the race thing again, which sounds a lot like you're saying the race thing is a bigger deal or something.
Again, the article outlined both and hammered on race. The commentor says it's also a class issue. You then come back "disagreeing" which doesn't sound like you think it's both. Like I said, it sounds like you're trying to re-narrow the argument.
TL;DR: Intersectionality is a thing and forcing the separation of intertwined issues is counterproductive as well as unjust.
I have consistently said that it's both from the start. In fact, the original statement I took issue with was this:
My argument was and still is that it's both and that ignoring the race component by pretending that it's ONLY a class issue is both misleading and bad strategy.
Such bad strategy, in fact, that it was probably the biggest reason within the campaign's control that Bernie Sanders didn't become president in stead of Trump. His economic policies would have helped everyone except for billionaires and abusive anti-labor corporations, but he and the rest of the campaign didn't make it clear enough to the black and brown voters in the South that economic justice is racial justice and vice versa.
Yeah, okay, enough of this pedantic bullshit. We're all aware. You're not dropping some grand unknown knowledge. You keep making sweeping arguments about some general scheme, instead of you know, the conversation at hand.
Yeah. That's definitely it. There's definitely not a whole slew of other things here.
You've clearly made the only real point you had here, and have gone off the deep end. This isn't really productive anymore. Nor has it been because of a staunch refusal to read what's going on.
No, I'm responding to first someone who claimed that it wasn't about race at all and now you misrepresenting that as me saying that it's ONLY about race.
I'm not widening the perspective to be histrionic, I'm putting it into a general context to make it easier for you to understand what I'm ACTUALLY saying.
Good job ignoring qualifiers. Saying that it was the biggest problem with the campaign within its own control is in NO WAY the same thing as saying it was the only one, or even the only one within the control of the campaign itself.
I'm not being a pedant, I'm correcting your bad faith/lack of reading comprehension interpretation of what I'm saying.
If you don't understand by now, after I've been very clear over many more paragraphs than should have been necessary or than I wanted to, you never will and we might as well stop here.