News Mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand - At least 49 dead

Page 39 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Can you give me an example of something that rises to the bar of enough harm, but that was not designed to be racist?

I can't know if something was designed to be racist or not, but I can name things that cause harm to one group more than another and needs addressing, Stuff like white replacement in culture, where movies replace people of color with white actors. I don't know if they do it because they want to slot one more big name into the lineup, or if they want to appeal to a certain audience, or some other reason, but it creates real harm. Representation is important, and it robs communities of that.

Anything that calling itself 'flesh tone' but is definitely not representational of a large portion of people is a different form of representation deletion.

But if you are wanting something more technological, then I would point you to cameras. Most cameras do not accurately capture black skin. They were designed to accurately capture Caucasian skin tones, and to this day many camera's, especially film cameras, still only really represent Caucasian skin tones accurately and cause dark skin tones to be muddy or bluish.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Can you give me an example of something that rises to the bar of enough harm, but that was not designed to be racist?

The recent 'Windrush scandal' is probably an example. Measures taken by the government over immigraiton without any thought for how they could have a huge impact on entirely legal migrants - the majority of whom happened to be black and asian.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I can't know if something was designed to be racist or not, but I can name things that cause harm to one group more than another and needs addressing, Stuff like white replacement in culture, where movies replace people of color with white actors. I don't know if they do it because they want to slot one more big name into the lineup, or if they want to appeal to a certain audience, or some other reason, but it creates real harm. Representation is important, and it robs communities of that.

Anything that calling itself 'flesh tone' but is definitely not representational of a large portion of people is a different form of representation deletion.

But if you are wanting something more technological, then I would point you to cameras. Most cameras do not accurately capture black skin. They were designed to accurately capture Caucasian skin tones, and to this day many camera's, especially film cameras, still only really represent Caucasian skin tones accurately and cause dark skin tones to be muddy or bluish.

Okay, but cameras were not designed to capture white skin. They were designed to capture light in the visible spectrum. Black skin as it is darker reflects less light in the visible spectrum than pale white skin. That means the sensors are going to have less data to work with.

If you start out by assuming that the reason cameras work better for white people because they were designed for white people, then you will miss what is actually going on with the hardware. That is the same issue with the soap machine.

As for replacing people of color with white people, I also disagree that is harmful. Just as replacing white people with people of color is harmful to white people. At least, inherently its not true. If the goal is to tell a story, that is one thing. If the goal is to make people believe that the person was of a different race, that would be different.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
The recent 'Windrush scandal' is probably an example. Measures taken by the government over immigraiton without any thought for how they could have a huge impact on entirely legal migrants - the majority of whom happened to be black and asian.

As a Yank, I think that the situation is different from what I was talking about before.

We are talking about things like how cameras do not pick up dark skin as well as pale skin. Laser hair removal does not work for dark skin or blond hair.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Okay, but cameras were not designed to capture white skin.

That is not true. They were calibrated specifically to make white skin look good.

As for replacing people of color with white people, I also disagree that is harmful. Just as replacing white people with people of color is harmful to white people. At least, inherently its not true. If the goal is to tell a story, that is one thing. If the goal is to make people believe that the person was of a different race, that would be different.

As I said representation matters. It informs us. How you represent people on a large scale changes how society thinks of those people. If most of the heroes are white and the villains black we start to see black people as villains and white people as heroes. More importantly it informs us on how we view ourselves. I am much more likely to identify and pattern myself on characters that look like me. If all the characters I identify with are thugs, I am much more likely to act like a thug.

It might not matter all that much in one instance, but those instances add up, and there is no way to fight it in mass, you have to fight for it in each instance.

EDIT: this is likely my last post for today, I might be able to sneak a little bit of time in a few hours, but likely it will be tomorrow before I can write any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
That is not true. They were calibrated specifically to make white skin look good.



As I said representation matters. It informs us. How you represent people on a large scale changes how society thinks of those people. If most of the heroes are white and the villains black we start to see black people as villains and white people as heroes. More importantly it informs us on how we view ourselves. I am much more likely to identify and pattern myself on characters that look like me. If all the characters I identify with are thugs, I am much more likely to act like a thug.

It might not matter all that much in one instance, but those instances add up, and there is no way to fight it in mass, you have to fight for it in each instance.

EDIT: this is likely my last post for today, I might be able to sneak a little bit of time in a few hours, but likely it will be tomorrow before I can write any more.

I completely agree - so why is it a necessary to have a token black person, token woman, and token asian woman in every movie? At the same time, if we are all equals - why does "representation" even matter? Or are we going down the stupid alley of white privilege?

If you're in a class that makes up roughly 15% of the population, you can't have expectations to have representation in every group, every movie, every media cast, every corporate board of directors, every CEO, etc... That's just laughable.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,654
26,755
136
Lordy, someone appears to have managed to completely derail a thread about an act of terror by an admitted racist into talking about fucking cameras and the nature of racism.

Quibbles and quibbles.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
That is not true. They were calibrated specifically to make white skin look good.



As I said representation matters. It informs us. How you represent people on a large scale changes how society thinks of those people. If most of the heroes are white and the villains black we start to see black people as villains and white people as heroes. More importantly it informs us on how we view ourselves. I am much more likely to identify and pattern myself on characters that look like me. If all the characters I identify with are thugs, I am much more likely to act like a thug.

It might not matter all that much in one instance, but those instances add up, and there is no way to fight it in mass, you have to fight for it in each instance.

EDIT: this is likely my last post for today, I might be able to sneak a little bit of time in a few hours, but likely it will be tomorrow before I can write any more.

But that is still wrong. The issue there was that if you calibrate them for pale skin (white) you under expose dark skin (black). If you calibrate for the reverse, you overexpose pale skin. That is a limitation of the technology that required further development. It was digital photography that changed things, as post processing could digitally change the photos.

But, as I said before, dark skin reflects less light (data) so it requires more exposure. If you set it up for longer exposure, you have a problem with bright light sources and or pale skin. That is not racism.

Did they not test on dark skin people, yes. Was part of it that Black people were less important, very very very likely. But, I also think the limitation of the technology also in a big way drove how they did things. Simply put, back then you had a trade off. If you were going to have surfaces that had large contrasts, skin or otherwise, then you were going to have a problem.

And, a lack of a response by you will not be seen as anything. Not everyone has the time and or desire to go as deep into things as I do.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Lordy, someone appears to have managed to completely derail a thread about an act of terror by an admitted racist into talking about fucking cameras and the nature of racism.

Quibbles and quibbles.

The topic is still firmly about racism. Are you unable to see how racism is connected to this thread? Would you like someone to explain it to you?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
As I have already said that I don't think that hair removal technology creates a big enough discrimination to even deal with. It causes almost no harm, and I have said that goal is to help those harmed not hurt those harming. So, if it harms none, do as you will.

Actually on a total medical research favors whites and white males specifically. So its a valid point that some medical things dont work for people who arent that.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/why-are-health-studies-so-white/487046/
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
What specifically do you think is the problem there? Is it the genetic conditions, or the funding for research?

The lack of consideration of the need for different groups to be represented when testing drugs. As it makes that point quite explicitly in the article I don't quite see why you need to ask.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Actually on a total medical research favors whites and white males specifically. So its a valid point that some medical things dont work for people who arent that.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/why-are-health-studies-so-white/487046/

Yeah, damn those medical schools for have a white person checkpoint at the door.

Even the fact that we immigrate tons of asian-based doctors.... somehow... that's racist in favor of the whites.

Evil white racism!
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
As a Yank, I think that the situation is different from what I was talking about before.

We are talking about things like how cameras do not pick up dark skin as well as pale skin. Laser hair removal does not work for dark skin or blond hair.

Um, the thread was about a massacre and your question was about racist effects without explicit racist intent. Not sure why you declare we are talking about cameras as that is not either of those things.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
realbrad isnt a yank. He would be a conscripted slave owner getting owned in the civil war.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Lordy, someone appears to have managed to completely derail a thread about an act of terror by an admitted racist into talking about fucking cameras and the nature of racism.

Quibbles and quibbles.


I'm not that bothered by 'derailing', because I'm honestly not sure what these discussions accomplish anyway. I don't even know why I post in them, other than as distraction from doing things I find more boring.

But I am puzzled by Realibrad's relentless delving into seemingly pointless quibbles of ever-narrower focus. I now suspect Perknose's rant on another thread somewhere is in fact accurate, if harsh. Indeed, if it's accurate it's unfair to be too harsh about it. Probably should just take it as illustrating the pointlessness of these discussions in general.


Yeah, damn those medical schools for have a white person checkpoint at the door.

Even the fact that we immigrate tons of asian-based doctors.... somehow... that's racist in favor of the whites.

Evil white racism!

Yeah, all races have always had equal access to medical schools. Of course. There's never been any imbalance or racial inequality in the US, no economic or cultural disadvantages, no racism has ever existed or if it did it suddenly vanished at some point in the...60s 70s?. Whateever, it disappeared and all its effects vanished in a puff of affirmative action, and from that point on all previous drug tests were re-run with perfectly representative samples and with full consideration given for all genetic variation. Is that what you are claiming?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Jack, if you want to know things about me, and why I contribute what I do, then PM me. We don't need to bog down this thread with this now do we?

Said without a hint of irony. Or maybe it's just "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty!"
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,695
4,204
136
But that is still wrong. The issue there was that if you calibrate them for pale skin (white) you under expose dark skin (black). If you calibrate for the reverse, you overexpose pale skin. That is a limitation of the technology that required further development. It was digital photography that changed things, as post processing could digitally change the photos.

But, as I said before, dark skin reflects less light (data) so it requires more exposure. If you set it up for longer exposure, you have a problem with bright light sources and or pale skin. That is not racism.

Did they not test on dark skin people, yes. Was part of it that Black people were less important, very very very likely. But, I also think the limitation of the technology also in a big way drove how they did things. Simply put, back then you had a trade off. If you were going to have surfaces that had large contrasts, skin or otherwise, then you were going to have a problem.

And, a lack of a response by you will not be seen as anything. Not everyone has the time and or desire to go as deep into things as I do.

I have'nt read this thread in awhile, but i went to the last page and saw this. I'm obviously missing context or something, but i feel we are nearing the i want to marry my toaster phase.
 

Anarchist Mae

Member
Apr 4, 2017
142
157
96
mae.codes
You might be, I am not.

Ok, fair enough.

My discussion you inserted yourself into to began with what happens after Trump. With Trumpism and its voters. And how Democrats can and should rise to power again. Through outreach to voters. By appealing to people. By not neglecting the working class that feels abandoned after the 1990s retreat. Some of them might relate to and/or have voted Republican before, probably even for Trump. THOSE people are not mass murderers. And you would damn us all if you treat them that way. If you do not allow them the opportunity to change and vote Democrat.

Accusing people of racism or supporting racism isn't the same thing as calling them evil. I recognise that there's more nuance to it than that, but just getting people to recognise that supporting racism is condoning racism is hard enough as it is. People should be criticised for voting for Trump, that isn't "condemning" them to anything, its pointing out a mistake.

And before you ask to stay on topic, you could have always read our posts instead of just assuming. Defeating both Trump and Trumpism is quite topical to moving America past this turmoil and to begin building for a better future. So long as Trumpism is rooted into American politics, we will not be safe from the extremism behind it. Democrats cannot always hold power in our government, and when Republicans hold power they should look nothing like they do today. Today's Republican Party needs to be buried for what it is.

That means separating voters from Trumpism. And that does not happen if we do not reach out and ask them to join us in a more civilized America.

You're attributing to Trump what is the failings of neo-liberalism. He didn't just come out of nowhere, years and years of apathy and fear mongering led to this situation, you might get a Democrat in next term, but the system won't change because there's no reason for them to suddenly start looking out for the lower class over the capitalist class.

At the very least you need systematic reform, at least preferential voting so that you can have more than two these same neo-liberal parties.

People are born into both religion and local politics. Other times people might be fooled into adopting a new group identity. And last I checked, religion has many millions of deaths on its hands. Sure, they could simply not identify as Republican, or Muslim for that matter. But that is not important, what IS important is that not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Republicans are Nazis. They are human beings who deserve to be judged on the content of their character. Not by what someone else did.

Everyone who voted for Trump supported a racist. Which is my point. Vote for someone who promises to do racist things then you support racism, it doesn't matter how you internally justify voting this way, it's still supporting racism, it's still going to cause harm to others.

When I ask for voter outreach, why would you generalize and stereotype people in this way? To tell us how evil they all are. As if they fully choose their associations from birth, You would presume to speak for them and tell us the evil meaning their associations have? As if they are responsible for the shooter and need to be held to account. Is this your idea of collective punishment? You appear to be fulfilling some primitive need for vengeance. Against your "other". The shooter did the same thing. He knew whose fault it was, he knew who was on the side of murderers. He told them off in his own way. He had a final solution for his hatred, what's yours?

What part of "support racist = support racism" do you have a problem with? These people have been coddled by an ideology that says "it's ok to hate others because of their race," maybe not in such explicit words until recently but through policy and media reporting.

You can have outreach and still understand this, I'm not calling anyone evil, I'm explaining that supporting a racist system leads to racism being done on your behalf, this is hardly difficult to understand.

Me? I recognize that you do not solve hatred by becoming the hater. My solution is less final and more hard work. It requires empathy, and the tolerance necessary to find the humanity in the "other", but most importantly in myself. To work to understand them, and look through the partisanship. To know the fears and insecurities that drive them. To reach out and offer to help balm their wounds. So that perhaps one day I might mend my own.

I've barely scratched the surface on solving these problems, you've just assumed that I had nothing else to say, but in truth didn't see the point in bringing it up when posters here cannot even accept the most basic of propositions.

You tell me I am on the side of a mass murderer, because I will not pick up your rage and go storming into a church full of innocent people. You tell me they're guilty. I tell you they are human. You tell me to fuck off, but I see that you fucked off a long time ago. I feel sorry for you. I temper my wrath in one hand, with an olive branch in the other. Where is your humanity?

The fuck?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I have'nt read this thread in awhile, but i went to the last page and saw this. I'm obviously missing context or something, but i feel we are nearing the i want to marry my toaster phase.

It's ultimately about perceived racism and understanding the underlying parts to racism. It's relevant here as clearly racism played a role in the shooting.