Remix.run Logo
jalapenoj 3 hours ago

Pretty nasty commentary, typical for Bluesky?

miltonlost 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do a nasty job for a nasty administration for nasty people for nefarious purposes, expect a nasty response.

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
zobzu 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

many comments do not seem to target the staffer, but rather, their race - here's one of the top rated comments: https://bsky.app/profile/enuffbs.bsky.social/post/3mguqaeqwi...

"The culture of mediocre white men continues. This is a study in the Dunning-Krueger effect. Too bad these clowns have no subject matter expertise is any area. They don’t even have a fully formed pre-frontal cortex. [...]"

miltonlost 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Where is that "targeting" their race? "The culture of mediocre white men continues" to me isn't targeting his race. It's targeting his mediocrity and society's allowing up mediocre white men to succeed easily. They're not saying he's mediocre BECAUSE he's white (which would be the racist part).

happytoexplain 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Disclaimer: I think the root problem being described by the quote is real, and I think the way DOGE/MAGA/etc interpret "DEI" is absolutely just pure, petty hatred with no semblance of reason, even though there is certainly a rational argument against DEI you can make.

That said,

I think your take is a little disingenuous. The way they've used the person's race in the sentence is really common, and we understand in those cases that it may or may not come from a racist place in the writer's heart, and we really only have cues/heuristics/history to go on.

E.g. if I mention that race X commits more crime, the reason I'm saying it and the context of the surrounding text and my tone and wording all inform you of whether I am saying that from a place of honesty (wanting things to be better for everybody, including race X), or a place of hatred for race X.

Generally when a writer inserts a person's race flippantly like in the parent's quote, it comes from a place of pettiness, at least partially (and yes, you can be racist against your own race). In particular, this is a good example of a common format used when speaking sarcastically or bitterly about, specifically, white people (sounds like "a room full of old white men" or "angry white lady"). It's now particularly obnoxious, since its usage has largely outgrown the legitimate grievances which inspired it.

It's important to be extremely careful about this kind of "reverse racism" - yes, the point is that the target race is privileged in some way, so it feels more harmless than "regular" racism. But "reverse racism" becomes "regular racism" very, very fast, and the cute shine drops off of it like a rock. I think we're well into crossing that big fuzzy line at this point (and for the past decade, in fact). I think emotionally intelligent people and good communicators are wary of using "white people" (or any race) in any sentence where it is accompanied by an implied eye-roll.

pear01 an hour ago | parent [-]

> It's important to be extremely careful about this kind of "reverse racism" - yes, the point is that the target race is privileged in some way, so it feels more harmless than "regular" racism. But "reverse racism" becomes "regular racism" very, very fast, and the cute shine drops off of it like a rock.

Except it doesn't. White people aren't being rounded up by ICE. White people aren't disproportionately represented in prisons. White people have more space to breathe in America - in effect, to be mediocre - than their peers.

Go watch the deposition tapes. This young man soullessly enjoys demolishing anything DEI aka anything that doesn't benefit or identify with his own race, sexuality or gender. And he does this from a position of power.

Reverse racism is not a thing. Racism is not simply an individual's prejudice. There are two words for a reason. Racism is not merely racial prejudice.

When someone in the federal government creates an exclusive program to erase white history, then that would be reverse racism. When only white people fear the cops as much as other minorities do today that would be reverse racism. When the Supreme Court says if a white person is at a home depot and speaks like a white person ICE has reasonable suspicion to detain them while other races get to go about their business that would be reverse racism.

What isn't cute is your equating childish, powerless online comments with what racism is - which is beyond individual or even aggregated racial prejudice. It is the institutionalization of said prejudice. The old American South wasn't racist merely because white people made mean, petty comments. It was because the entire society was weaponized for the exclusive benefit of the white race. The vestiges of that live on today, and clearly some among us want to take us farther back still.

With everything going on your focus on people calling out his white mediocrity, which frankly, is blatantly obvious and not racist at all is suspect. It suggests you think just pointing out someone's race is itself inherently racist. Which again, demeans the actual meaning of the term.

Also I missed this bit:

> It's now particularly obnoxious, since its usage has largely outgrown the legitimate grievances which inspired it.

That says everything I need to know about you. Here's another term for you to consider: white fragility. No need for a definition, I wager you need only consult a mirror.

happytoexplain 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I think this mostly is talking past what I said. Not that your points are not legitimate - just not in the context of what I'm saying. I agree with 90% of your comment.

I can at least clarify one thing:

Yes, "reverse racism" doesn't exist, which is why I put it in quotes. I'm using it as a colloquial shorthand for "racism against traditionally privileged races", i.e. white people.

ratrace 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

taeric 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sadly typical of a lot of online commentary. People are rewarded for the "passion" of the response.

verdverm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not unique to Bluesky, typical of the far too online crowd. There is plenty of good content on Bluesky, where you can actually have more control over it through the open algos and moderation systems (in ATProto writ large)

jeffbee 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"How dare they say mean things about the manner in which I destroyed a nation?"

jalapenoj 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

whimsicalism 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m no big fan of DOGE but our fiscal trajectory is utterly unsustainable, much more nation destroying than the particular cuts being mentioned here. I hate that it is now a republican talking point, but we do need a focus on raising revenue and reducing expense — and there is no easy ‘fraud’ win on expense, most of these are on real things that big coalitions of people want but we cannot afford without a large increase in revenue-as-%-GDP (ie. middle & working class tax increases), inflation (effective middle & working class tax increases), or a technological productivity boom.

text0404 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Ok, then let's address the 52% elephant in the room instead of making cuts to the 3%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...

Reducing defense spending by a fractional amount will have more of an impact than completely eliminating science spending altogether. The Iran tally is up to what, $11b now after a single week?

verdverm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The top 5-6 expenses (SS, Medicare, interest, health, defense, income security)

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

Going to be hard to cut into these, and the middle/working class is shrinking as wealth concentrates and wealth inequality expands. Perhaps if there weren't so many middlemen taking slices w/o providing value...

soco 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But why would be megacorp and billionaire tax increases off the table? You didn't even mention it... And before someone points out that they pay - yes they pay _something_ then get tax cuts or legal loopholes and in the end they don't really pay.

jeffbee 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The fuckwit in the video is personally responsible for crushing the productivity boom. Higher education is, or at least was, one of America's chief export industries.