[ergothus]

> Nobody had it easy in the past.

Clearly everyone has had it equally difficult and there is no grouping of peoples that get systemic mistreatment, evidence and statistics be damned.

Yes, people can have it hard. And people can have it hard out of proportion with their peers. This doesn't alter provable facts about sweeping populations.

> The reality is that there are plenty of people from all races that have made it to the top of society.

And just like your grandmother disproves any systemic problem by difficulty, any success by any individual does the same, proving that they cannot be an exception to the rule.

> while being broadcast on the very media they claim to have no representation in

I think if you dig a bit you'll find a lot of things you aren't seeing. And surely just one case will prove the whole, right?

[dang]

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Also, would you please not post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong or provocative another comment is? It only leads further into hell.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[davesmith1983]

> Clearly everyone has had it equally difficult and there is no grouping of peoples that get systemic mistreatment, evidence and statistics be damned.

Never claimed that.

> Yes, people can have it hard. And people can have it hard out of proportion with their peers. This doesn't alter provable facts about sweeping populations.

I didn't claim it disproved anything. I was pointing out that life wasn't fair and there was poverty that you and I can't possibly fathom and it affected everyone no matter what the colour of their skin.

> And just like your grandmother disproves any systemic problem by difficulty, any success by any individual does the same, proving that they cannot be an exception to the rule.

Never claimed that.

It is really astounding that someone can spend so much time logic chopping and fail to understand what I was actually saying.

This lie of people having to be represented by someone of their own skin in a nonsense that is sold by activists to students to make them feel bad because of the colour of their skin. The person I was replying to had bought this nonsense.

The fact is unfortunately that racists (both white and black ones) will use this to further racially divide people about what happened in the past.

[ergothus]

> It is really astounding that someone can spend so much time logic chopping and fail to understand what I was actually saying.

Perhaps because I was interpreting it in the context of the comment you were replying to (mine).

Poverty is devastating. True...and not related at all to what I said. I didn't mention economics or finances AT ALL save to mention that my comments were true regardless of my financial background. So if your comment wasn't in relation to what I said...but it was. There's an implied connection that I gave a rebuttal to, and in the face of that rebuttal, you deny the connection. That implodes my rebuttal...but leaves your comment without contextual purpose.

> I was pointing out that life wasn't fair and there was poverty that you and I can't possibly fathom and it affected everyone no matter what the colour of their skin.

Another true statement. And also unrelated to what you were replying to, unless you were trying put in the implied connection.

> This lie of people having to be represented by someone of their own skin in a nonsense that is sold by activists to students to make them feel bad because of the colour of their skin

Citation needed - at this point you're denying misrepresentation of minorities in popular media, which is such a well-documented problem and so obviously observable that your unsupported assertions would be laughable if the issue wasn't related to tragedy. Also - I don't feel bad for the color of my skin. At all. (Except when I get a sunburn) I _do_ feel bad for supporting a system that is systemically unfair, but the solution to that is not to deny the problem, nor to assume a vast burden of guilt that you assume I (and others) have taken on. The solution is to improve the system. To modify my support.

[davesmith1983]

> Citation needed - at this point you're denying misrepresentation of minorities in popular media, which is such a well-documented problem and so obviously observable that your unsupported assertions would be laughable if the issue wasn't related to tragedy.

Sorry I don't see it. All through my life (I am almost 40 years old) there has been plenty of black people on the television and in films and most of the time it has been everything from Gangstars to Action Heroes.

> I _do_ feel bad for supporting a system that is systemically unfair, but the solution to that is not to deny the problem, nor to assume a vast burden of guilt that you assume I (and others) have taken on. The solution is to improve the system. To modify my support.

It isn't systemically unfair. You keep on asserting it is.

We live in a society that only really cares about your ability to make money i.e. produce. That is capitalism.

In the UK we had a black rapper head up the largest outdoor festival in England.

[rhcom2]

It's not hard to find actual numbers on representation of minorities in the media. Our anecdotes have more to do with our own blind spots than actual real life and don't prove anything.

"In the UK we had a black rapper head up the largest outdoor festival in England."

Again, anecdotes don't prove anything.