Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Elon Musk the greatest visionary or the greatest snake oil salesman of our age?

sealion said:
I don't know why this post has recieved one of these🤣 i pressume it's @NoXions condescending way of saying he doesn't believe me. If so say it and say why instead of acting like a snobbish cunt. Fuck knows why that would make him roll about the floor. I'm being honest.
Click to expand...

You've never heard of any person or group being referred to as "white supremacist"? You're right, I do find that hard to believe. Laughably so, in fact. I don't exactly consider myself politically well-read, but I do know of at at least two definitions of "white supremacy"; firstly as a short-hand for referring to various neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups, and secondly as a way of describing how a society or institution places white people above everyone else. Although black supremacist cranks aren't as common as their white counterparts, they're definitely a thing and I would argue that it's racist in itself to believe that non-white people can't be racist, and that supremacy by default must be a white people thing. It's not just a Western thing either; for example, the effective cultural genocide of the Uighurs currently being carried out by the Chinese state is essentially an act of Han supremacism.
 
NoXion said:
You've never heard of any person or group being referred to as "white supremacist"? You're right, I do find that hard to believe. Laughably so,
Click to expand...
I can't say i have otherwise i wouldn't have said it. I have seen them described as far right supremacists and neo nazi supremacists.. Laugh all you like.
NoXion said:
I would argue that it's racist in itself to believe that non-white people can't be racist, and that supremacy by default must be a white people thing
Click to expand...
Just as well i never said that then isn't it. I said i didn't know there was such a thing as a black supremacist. I didn't say i didn't know there was such a thing as a black racist.
 
Last edited:
Racism is a power thing. Belief that one constructed group is inherently something (eg superior) as compared with another another is prejudice. Racism is prejudice within a power context that allows the prejudice to become embedded as social action. Merely being prejudiced (eg thinking “my group is better than yours”) is not enough to qualify as racism unless you have the power in some way to act on that that belief. And that power remain is a gradient, not a binary. So there is not and cannot be a simple rule of thumb to describe when the gradient of power categorically becomes racism — it’s very contextual.
 
kabbes said:
Racism is a power thing. Belief that one constructed group is inherently something (eg superior) as compared with another another is prejudice. Racism is prejudice within a power context that allows the prejudice to become embedded as social action. Merely being prejudiced (eg thinking “my group is better than yours”) is not enough to qualify as racism unless you have the power in some way to act on that that belief. And that power remain is a gradient, not a binary. So there is not and cannot be a simple rule of thumb to describe when the gradient of power categorically becomes racism — it’s very contextual.
Click to expand...
That separation is all very well in niche left academic circles but it doesn't wash in everyday life. So when a Black neighbour was shouting at an Asian neighbour and calling her a P-ki bitch in the street, I was technically wrong to tell him to pack it in with the racist crap? Fine. But this is exactly the sort of class-dividing idpol crap that pisses off working class people of all colours and gives the far right a way in. When people use another person's 'race' to abuse someone, it's perceived as (the clue is in the word) racism. They don't need a lecture about why, according to some academic circles, it's not actually racism they're doing, as that's just something the white folks do. It's a recipe for disaster.
 
Serge Forward said:
That separation is all very well in niche left academic circles but it doesn't wash in everyday life. So when a Black neighbour was shouting at an Asian neighbour and calling her a P-ki bitch in the street, I was technically wrong to tell him to pack it in with the racist crap?
Click to expand...
No. You were technically correct. Within modern Britain, there are power relations that embed prejudice against Asians as discrimination against Asians. Where that prejudice is being expressed — particularly in a public arena — it is racism.
Serge Forward said:
Fine. But this is exactly the sort of class-dividing idpol crap that pisses off working class people of all colours and gives the far right a way in. When people use another person's 'race' to abuse someone, it's perceived as (the clue is in the word) racism. They don't need a lecture about why, according to some academic circles, it's not actually racism they're doing, as that's just something the white folks do. It's a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
And the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because it is contingent on something that isn’t true.
 
Serge Forward said:
In what way is it no less true than a niche academic theory (that other academics might disagree with)?
Click to expand...
What’s not true is your “I was technically wrong” statement. No, you were not technically wrong. So anything you write predicated on being “technically wrong” is… well… wrong.

Then, there’s no “theory” in anything I wrote. I was just reflecting what racism is — prejudice in action. It’s not a game of conkers to note that prejudice that has no chance of being enacted as any kind of public action is something that is merely contained within the individual. Racism is a systematic and systemic enacting of social dominance that leads to particular reified categories of human being shut out from areas of the public sphere — that’s not a “theory”, it’s just what it is.

Your problem is that you are taking that understanding of racism as a social phenomenon and you’re trying to personalise and individualise it. It’s not remotely about the relative status of two individuals compared with each other, such as in your example. Both those individuals are perfectly capable of enacting racism against each other.
 
teuchter said:
It's your chosen definition though isn't it?

Most dictionary definitions of racism don't include a requirement that it's enacted in the context of certain power relations.
Click to expand...
Really? Not that I’m fond of dictionary definitions — they tend to be oversimplified, out of date and reproduce hierarchy — but I’m surprised you’ve found one that doesn’t acknowledge that racism involves discriminatory actions and practices, which implicitly includes material structures that enable those discriminatory actions. For a start, “racism” must include within it the reification of a group of people as a “race”. You can’t have racism without a social agreement that a particular group comprise a “race”, in some way! And this social categorisation is itself something that exists in a social context — your personal decision to label a group as a “race” is meaningless unless a mass of others agree with you. And that requires some level of institutional, systemic or other social dominant power to make the categorisation stick and be meaningful. That’s why “I’m prejudiced against people called George” is not a racism. It’s also why, and this is where it gets tricky, “I don’t like white people” is not necessarily* racism, depending on the context within which it is said.

*but it may be
 
kabbes said:
Really? Not that I’m fond of dictionary definitions — they tend to be oversimplified, out of date and reproduce hierarchy — but I’m surprised you’ve found one that doesn’t acknowledge that racism involves discriminatory actions and practices, which implicitly includes material structures that enable those discriminatory actions. For a start, “racism” must include within it the reification of a group of people as a “race”. You can’t have racism without a social agreement that a particular group comprise a “race”, in some way! And this social categorisation is itself something that exists in a social context — your personal decision to label a group as a “race” is meaningless unless a mass of others agree with you. And that requires some level of institutional, systemic or other social dominant power to make the categorisation stick and be meaningful. That’s why “I’m prejudiced against people called George” is not a racism. It’s also why, and this is where it gets tricky, “I don’t like white people” is not necessarily* racism, depending on the context within which it is said.

*but it may be
Click to expand...
Dictionary definitions seem to acknowledge that it has to take place in some kind of social context or structure yes (although I'd say that's just a kind of circular definition), but they don't necessarily say anything about the power relations bit.

dictionary.cambridge.org

racism

1. policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair…
dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary.cambridge.org

So if someone, in the context of current UK society, says or does something harmful or unfair to me that's based on me being white, then I think I can call it racist according to the Cambridge dictionary but not according to yours.
 
teuchter said:
Dictionary definitions seem to acknowledge that it has to take place in some kind of social context or structure yes (although I'd say that's just a kind of circular definition), but they don't necessarily say anything about the power relations bit.

dictionary.cambridge.org

racism

1. policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair…
dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary.cambridge.org

So if someone, in the context of current UK society, says or does something harmful or unfair to me that's based on me being white, then I think I can call it racist according to the Cambridge dictionary but not according to yours.
Click to expand...
If they have the power to do something harmful to you (or indirectly cause it to happen to you) because you are white then it does meet my definition.

The power relations are implied in that dictionary definition, by the way. The ability to cause a categorisation to become reified is in itself a power relation.
 
kabbes said:
If they have the power to do something harmful to you (or indirectly cause it to happen to you) because you are white then it does meet my definition.

The power relations are implied in that dictionary definition, by the way. The ability to cause a categorisation to become reified is in itself a power relation.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this just end up as an argument that if the subject of an action thinks that action is racist then it's racist?

Because if someone does something to me on the basis of my race, and I decide I don't like it, then you seem to be saying that they have power to do something to me that I don't like, therefore a power relation is in play therefore it's racism.
 
teuchter said:
Doesn't this just end up as an argument that if the subject of an action thinks that action is racist then it's racist?

Because if someone does something to me on the basis of my race, and I decide I don't like it, then you seem to be saying that they have power to do something to me that I don't like, therefore a power relation is in play therefore it's racism.
Click to expand...
No, I’d draw a distinction between something that harms you and something you don’t like. Harm involves some kind of material reality (including harm caused by talk), it’s not just hurt feelings. The relevance to that for the notion of racism is that the harm arrives as a result of social agreement that a category exists as a concrete “thing” that matters.

To use my earlier example, saying “I don’t like people called George” is a prejudice and it may hurt the feelings of any nearby Georges but it is not racism, because there is no social agreement that a meaningful category exists of ‘people called George’. There is no social expectation that people called George have particular attributes and characteristics. There is no institutional locking out of people called George from benefits or hierarchies. If these things start to exist — which would be a power relation — then a racism known as ‘Georgism’ would start to exist. It’s the power to construct meaningful categories and then act on those categories that turns prejudice into racism.
 
kabbes said:
No, I’d draw a distinction between something that harms you and something you don’t like. Harm involves some kind of material reality (including harm caused by talk), it’s not just hurt feelings. The relevance to that for the notion of racism is that the harm arrives as a result of social agreement that a category exists as a concrete “thing” that matters.

To use my earlier example, saying “I don’t like people called George” is a prejudice and it may hurt the feelings of any nearby Georges but it is not racism, because there is no social agreement that a meaningful category exists of ‘people called George’. There is no social expectation that people called George have particular attributes and characteristics. There is no institutional locking out of people called George from benefits or hierarchies. If these things start to exist — which would be a power relation — then a racism known as ‘Georgism’ would start to exist. It’s the power to construct meaningful categories and then act on those categories that turns prejudice into racism.
Click to expand...
"White" is a socially agreed category though.

I don't think I see why "hurt feelings" shouldn't count as "harm". What do you mean by "material reality" exactly?
 
"Musk said Grok, which is in early testing and not available to the general public, would ultimately be released to subscribers to X’s top-tier subscription service, Premium+."

Let me translate that for you.

Grok doesn't exist as a product and never will be released to Twitter/X subscribers.
 
What does it even mean to say that it is modelled after HHG? The AIs in HHG are just jokes, not models of how an AI actually works. It’s the kind of statement that Musk excels at — it sounds good but there’s no actual meaning to it
 
Last edited:
kabbes said:
What does it even mean to say that it is modelled after HHG? The AIs in HHG are just jokes, not models of how an AI actually works. It’s the kind of statement that Musk excels at — it sounds good but there’s no actual meaning to it
Click to expand...
I imagine he means Marvin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Is Trump's personality a result of self-loathing?
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
4K
two sheds
two sheds
Serene
Will Hurricane Milton be a dud or will it be paradise lost?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
233
Views
6K
petee
petee
krtek a houby
JD Vance's time is up
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
166
Views
8K
two sheds
two sheds
Sweet FA
Hopefully Sean 'Diddy' Combs' time is up
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
ID47
I
Pickman's model
George v's time is up
Replies
3
Views
649
tim
tim
Back
Top Bottom