arel

Not true. All historical white supremacy movements have been built on the narrative of genetic superiority. Skull shapes, race theory etc.

Although cultural superiority is entwined in this its only recently this became centre stage as a means to still advance the same old tired bigotry but with a mainstream friendly face.

This a (frankly lazy) narrative often used to dismiss demands for equality.

You might be able to point to isolated incidents but to view group advocacy as a whole as malicious power grab is simply not true and a gross misrepresentation.

A better question is probably do you think certain groups are wrong in their perception that they are unfairly treated?

If yes then you are not acknowledging a vast amount of very clearly expressed life experience and if no why be against them advocating for themselves as a group?

What you're missing here is in reality, your life experience, outcomes and how you are treated in society can be very much a consequence of your "identity".

All groups are advocating for is equality of treatment from institutions and from society at large.

Is that too much to ask?

Once we get to that place there's nothing more marginalised groups would love to do then to stop being defined by race.

The cargo culting and contrarian smugness on HN can be very annoying.

Not very representative of the entire real world of development.

There are options to target them specifically.

For example we could progressively make them sterile.

Serious question - Why can't we put our minds to it and kill them all?

Why can't we banish this mass killer and cause of immense suffering to humans and animals alike.

I haven't seen any compelling evidence that they form any vital component of ecosystems apart from obviously spreading disease and applying some adapation pressure - which we could eliminate like we have done with lots of other killers.

A serious investigation based on actual real verified events.

The series of secret meetings, lies and changing narrative from so many in the admin that were later exposed as false tells its own story.

Whether it could be proved as collusion, conspiring or is another issue. There is plenty of 'there' there.

Globalisation has many problems but _causes_ racism?

I would argue it's demagogues who take advantage of societal breakdown to inflame inherent racism.

More generally we also have a choice regardless of circumstances to not be racist. I can see how as a species we're not there yet though.

> All of the clips cut out all of the context

Categorically false

There are hundreds of videos showing the police brutalising peaceful protest. Watch them.

Single example - How about peaceful protestors at the Whitehouse being tear gassed, batoned and charged to make way for the president's photo op?

> With this idea in mind, I personally can't picture myself being able to remain calm and not overstep my boundaries sooner or later.

It's their job to remain calm and lawful under all circumstances.

They have the full force of state sanctioned violence at their disposal.

Watch some of the hundreds of videos on Twitter now and see if you can't see a rotten and brutal culture in US policing.

There's a painful cognitive dissonance that people seem to have about this disease - there isn't an option (unless you don't care about lots of people dying) where the economy doesn't take a big hit in order to contain the exponential phase.

It's not clear what the alternatives are?

I assume you're not advocating a no measures approach.

No lockdown even with social distancing still does huge economic damage and even then you would not get herd immunity - 60% infection rate is required.

The point is avoiding mass death. They care about their families lives too and not just economics.

It's not a 'political' choice or about 'optics'.

It's also not just 'old' people who are dying. It affects 50+ year olds in not insignificant numbers.

It depends whether you prioritise health or economics.

You can balance health and economics and choose to prioritise one _before_ the other.

It does however requires the political will to support the economy (and the poorest) whilst health care is prioritised to buy time during the exponential phase.

> for example the UK or Belgium

It depends when each country locked down relative to the number of cases and deaths at the time.

The UK is widely acknowledged (here anyway) to have acted too late in its lockdown as the were trying to pursue herd immunity.