|
> The contrast with "we" reclaiming "supremacy" should be clear. Numerically, to the extent that HN is US-centric, and more so to the extent that HN is tech heavy, "we" are white. Here, "supremacy," in its denotative sense, is about a normative schema that holds "us" as being deserving of the top position socially and economically. How much "work" are we going to have to do to "reclaim" this word? And to what end? We're just going to use it, from behind our keyboards, so that...other stupid people on the Internet know that we're the boss of us? It seems hardly worth getting in an uproar over. A few things pop up for me with this: 1. the USA's obsession with race is, I agree, distorting this. In my world, "we" are the non-racists, and "they" are the racists. It doesn't really matter how many of us are what colour, because, well, we're not racist. If we're not able to fight racism because we're the wrong skin colour then that fight is already lost. 2. I think the amount of work is purely "hmm, shall I use this word now, or shall I let the racists have it exclusively for their use? Oh yes, I shall decide to use it in a non-racist manner so the bad people don't win". I think (as TFA proves) that it's actually a lot more work to not use a word because it's not politically acceptable any more. and your final point: yes. That's what we're all working towards. Skin colour being irrelevant to opportunity and quality of life. But I totally fail to see how not using "supremacy" as a word helps with that goal. How, exactly, is saying "quantum spiffiness" (excellent idea btw) instead of "quantum supremacy" doing anything, at all, to help remedy the USA's obsession with race? I suspect that using "quantum spiffiness" is more intended to signal to other people that you are not a racist. This is good, but you could just wear a t-shirt. It might be more productive. |