That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize.

It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here?

>That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize.

I literally wrote "Majority of Black Americans...who come in many different pigments"

> It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here?

This is why I wrote "Majority" but you should also consult a Nigerian-American

Let's try it this way:

"A lot of hispanic countries have problems with drug cartels, crime and corruption"

vs.

"A lot of black communities have problems with drugs, violence and poor educational outcomes"

It's pretty easy to accuse the latter statement of being racist isn't it? Not so much the former though huh? Why do you think that is?

> It's pretty easy to accuse the latter statement of being racist isn't it? Not so much the former though huh? Why do you think that is?

I'm not sure that it's easy; it depends on the context. As we know well, many racists use conceivably non-racist criticism to find ways to denigrate African-Americans, so it's important to be careful and sensitive to that.

But the big difference is the vulnerability of the groups. If I post on HN 'software developers are morons' or 'SV billionaires are morons', it really doesn't matter. Devs and billionaires aren't in danger of losing their jobs, being subject to hatred, etc. But if I post that '(vulnerable minority) are morons', that's a very different matter - they are in danger.

> As we know well, many racists use conceivably non-racist criticism to find ways to denigrate African-Americans, so it's important to be careful and sensitive to that.

This, of course, deeply depends on your definition of racist/racism. If I criticize some behavior that happens to be more prevalent among black americans than other americans, to some people that simple fact makes that critique, and thus me, a racist. That's the problem with the modern definition of racism. It's an ex-post-facto evaluation and it's way too easy to slap that on to pretty much whatever you want.

> But if I post that '(vulnerable minority) are morons', that's a very different matter - they are in danger.

No, they're not. I don't know a single reasonable human that would read that comment and go immediately fire '(vulnerable minority)'. Come on..

> If I criticize some behavior that happens to be more prevalent among black americans than other americans, to some people that simple fact makes that critique, and thus me, a racist.

You'll have to talk to those people, whoever they are. What I'm saying is that actual racist behavior often uses arguably non-racist arguments to attack African-Americans. It's an obvious and well-used tactic.

> No, they're not.

Hate speech spreads and promotes hate, of course, and that is dangerous to vulnerable minorities. And yes, people lose their jobs because they are minorities.

You think some boss reads a forum comment and then goes and fires their minority workers the next day because “hate speech”? I’d say that bigoted boss is the problem. Seems like a stretch to me..

It's a stretch that people are fired (or not hired) because of their race, and that racism is not spread through speech? How else do ideas and influence spread, if not through speech?

Because Black communities aren't countries.

OK, replace "countries" with "communities" - my point stands.

No, it doesn't; if you replace countries with communities, the other statement becomes immediately and obviously problematic.

Really? Would you care to elaborate as to why? Why are larger groups (countries) criticizable and smaller groups are not?

Maybe, if we keep parsing for the rest of the day, we can solve all of racism on a message board thread. But because it's unlikely to happen, and because this isn't the purpose of this thread, I decline to try.

Here, it clearly denotes American Black culture.

I'm not sure "Netflix for Black People" clearly denotes anything at all.

You didn't have to guess; you could have just read the detailed post instead of jumping to comment after partially metabolizing the title.

I'd say the very fact that you have to read into the detailed post to understand which "black" is indicated in the title supports my claim that the term is problematically overloaded.

You are expected to read the posts on HN before commenting. It's one of the norms of the site. This isn't a newspaper article; it's a post they wrote specifically for us, in our norms. You should not feel good about trying to litigate this at their expense.

We're here to talk about the startup they're launching, not about this. Again, I don't think you should feel good about trying to score points like this.