[carefulobserver]

I stopped reading when the author started to lean into how this must be a representation of "whiteness." No, how about it's an artifact of Internet enabled oligarchic capitalist technocracy like you started with? Ironically, the author's performative racism is part of the same trend.

[graemep]

Well, it is The Guardian.

[klyrs]

> Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.

[the_third_wave]

That works as long as there is not a pervasive trend to push the 'provocative thing', also as long as the 'provocative thing' is not something that would be totally off-limits if applied to a different group or category. Imagine an article which complained about thing X being a representation of blackness in a negative context and decide for yourself whether you would consider it in the same light.

[klyrs]

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

In this case, please eschew racebait.

[l3mure]

> Internet enabled oligarchic capitalist technocracy

Well let's see, American capitalist oligarchy has a deep root in the defeat of Reconstruction, specifically the fact that the planter class was not liquidated and its land was not redistributed - because of the continued insistence on white superiority and political domination.

Technocracy is similar, it's a manifestation of the fear of radical democracy and the notion that people are incapable of self-government, typically expressed in racialized (white man's burden, etc) form. It's very easy to see that line worming through the past few hundred years of history if you actually try.

[bazoom42]

I stopped reading your comment after “I stopped reading when…”

[jjulius]

It's unfortunate that you stopped reading in the one paragraph that touched on whiteness when there's so much of the article left to be read after that. Had you continued, you'd see that they don't stay on that subject. In fact, a CTRL+F for "white" shows that the instance of "whiteness" in that paragraph is the last time that "white" shows up at all - and every time "white" shows up before that paragraph, it's about colors in a coffee shop. They touch on it because someone that they interviewed mentioned it, and then they move right back to how it's "an artifact of Internet enabled oligarchic capitalist technocracy" in the very next paragraph.

I don't know why people so willingly bury their heads in the sand sometimes...

[carefulobserver]

I have the same response to people randomly mentioning how the solution to everything is accepting Jesus into my heart. Whether secular or non secular, this kind of thing is a tell for low quality content because it is indicative of the uncritical acceptance of nonsense. I'm aware of what they're peddling, and I don't have time for people who think like this, which is different from burying my head in the sand, I suspect.

[jjulius]

You came into this thread and said that you threw your hands up and walked away from the article when someone that they interviewed mentioned "whiteness". It was then pointed out to you that that was the only time in the article that race was discussed, and that everything you didn't read was actually about the subject you hoped it would've been about.

You proceeded, just now, to double-down and refuse to hear any more of it. In point of fact, you're not "aware of what they're peddling" because you're demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the article to those of us who actually read it, and you seem proud to do so after you've been called out for it.

That's the definition of burying your head in the sand. Hell, your reaction to my comment is basically you trying to wiggle all the way down so that you're buried up to the waist. But hey, you do you. Ignorance is bliss, and such.

[carefulobserver]

Would it be fair to observe at this point that reading a sarcastic and contemptuous paragraph about how I should be more open minded about casual racism in my sociological fluff pieces is creating a bit of cognitive dissonance for me?

For anyone wondering, the paragraph in question is: "It wasn’t just the spaces that were homogenous, but also the customers, Gonzalez observed: “If you go into the cafes, they’re predominantly white. But [Kloof Street] is historically a neighbourhood for people of colour.” Only certain types of people were encouraged to feel comfortable in the zone of AirSpace, and others were actively filtered out. It required money and a certain fluency for someone to be comfortable with the characteristic act of plunking down a laptop on one of the generic cafes’ broad tables and sitting there for hours, akin to learning the unspoken etiquette of a cocktail bar in a luxury hotel. The AirSpace cafes 'are oppressive, in the sense that they are exclusive and expensive', Gonzalez said. When whiteness and wealth are posed as the norm, a kind of force field of aesthetics and ideology keeps out anyone who does not fit the template." No support is given for any of the gross generalizations made, and they go unchallenged by the journalist. Does this lend credence to the rest of the article?

[Apocryphon]

The point is that those cafes are a symbol of gentrification, as they were created and decorated by wealthy people alien to that neighborhood. Certainly a lot of well-to-do establishments are not exactly friendly environments to those who fall out of their target demographics, even if the people might be local residents. You fixate upon race when the disparity in wealth is just as important in this line of critique.

[carefulobserver]

I understand the point, and I'm suggesting that the author's uncritical acceptance of all the assumptions in the quote makes it difficult for me to take the author as a credible objective observer. For example, is there any actual analysis done to support the idea that these cafes are not owned by locals? In the earlier part of the piece, she mentions that even "local" folks converged on the same aesthetic. Is it a good notion that a neighborhood be "for people of color?" Why are racially segregated neighborhoods good, again?

[jjulius]

I would acquiesce that the tone of the last three sentences in my most recent response can possibly be off-putting, but I don't think it really changes or negates the overall point I clearly made in a non-sarcastic tone during the rest of the comment and the one before it. Nor is it fair to say that I'm telling you to "be more open minded about casual racism", which is a clear misinterpretation of what I have been saying here.

Edit: On that last point - by all means, disagree with the point the person they're interviewing is making regarding race, but don't ignorantly assume that the rest of the piece, and the whole point of the article, is now entirely about race and refuse to hear anything else about it. It's not fair to gripe about it not talking about how "it's an artifact of Internet enabled oligarchic capitalist technocracy" when you put the thing down right before it spent a lot of time doing just that. You don't walk out of a movie theater right before the climax and then complain about how the film didn't resolve anything, do you?

Edit 2: It's interesting to go back and read the rest of the comments here now that this post has been up for a while. Most people on HN seem to be discussing points around the concept you wanted discussed, but your comment is the only one griping about race.

[carefulobserver]

You've made tons of edits, so it is perhaps more challenging to respond than it might be. Everyone uses a thresholding approach for their consumption of media. I read the author's uncritical acceptance of a loaded quote as an indication that she is an ideologue, and it made me distrust her opinion. You don't like that, and that's fine, but I have a right to my opinion and a right to express that as an assessment around the quality of the piece. It's cool that HN is having an interesting discussion; they probably thought we covered the racial element here.

[MeImCounting]

Its odd to me how normal it has become for some white folks to through up their hands in outrage and disgust, crying racism and discrimination at the slightest mention of anything relating to race or culture.

Not saying I agree with the article or anyone in this thread,(though after reading the excerpt the parent is upset about I think I do agree with the the article) just that this has become rather common and predictable. Is this what people mean when they talk about white fragility? I dont know.

[merman]

On the contrary, the struggle is to not see it. The article's point is "color/diversity" is better than sameness.

Look again for other keywords, "sameness", "homegen"-suffixes.

E.g. The summary > coffee shops are physical filtering algorithms, too: they sort people based on their preferences, quietly attracting a particular crowd and repelling others

[mixmastamyk]

Timely:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.