raclage

Can you give an example? I’m assuming you’re not referring to this Netflix competitor as an example of something equivalent to making it illegal for non-whites to eat at certain restaurants.

Are you being serious when you say America has a relatively monolithic culture? Relative to whom?

> In short- the best way to help Black people in America isn't to perpetuate our separate identity, but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.

And you think the source of this power and significance is...media streaming companies?

I didn't really see anything in the design I saw as exclusionary!

> because we appreciate the HN community taking time to hear our story, for a short period of time, we’re making some of our original black TV shows available for free on our site

Like thousands of business before them they're marketing to an audience but it seems like they're more than happy to build a broader audience.

"divisiveness inherent in the title" seems wildly overblown to me. Isn't identifying an underserved audience and marketing to them like a cornerstone of business? Do you feel that hair products marketed toward Black people are divisive? Subscription boxes for millennials? Shoes for moms?

> It’s not the “melting pot” idea of America that I was raised with, where everyone contributes their own unique culture to a unified American whole.

Then I don't understand why your response to someone trying to create a platform to express their culture strikes you as "Fracturing."

Sufficiently advanced robots would leave a lot more of value behind than a nuke which makes deploying them much less costly to the person that wants to actually control the territory.

I think this is a good analysis and I think too few people consider it this way. I'm not convinced that changes in culture are driving this as much as changes in how information is shared and spread and I'm disappointed how few people, even on Hacker News, seem interested in this angle.

Consider that maybe people agree that being confronted with challenging ideas and perspectives is valuable but they don't find the same value in Jerry Seinfeld's comedy as they do in, say, a lecture by someone with radical beliefs.

I don't understand why Damore is the hill people are always trying to die on. He didn't publish that in the marketplace of ideas. He sent it to his coworkers, using company resources, on company time. Your workplace has never been a free speech bastion.

Any person may or may not like that but it's been true forever so I'm not sure how it indicates that free speech is now in some sort of novel danger.

I haven't really followed this since the initial blowup. Did more information come out about her conduct there?

> I'm not sure which outcome is better for Canada, the USA, or the world. I'm pretty sure neither Obama, Trump, not Biden had any accurate idea either.

> Or because you think any of those politicians actually have a solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons, that's why they came out on different sides of the issue based on party lines.

Or maybe Obama, Trump, and Biden had different ideas about what "better for the USA" meant that led to them making reasonably rational but different decisions? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not sure your assumption that all three of those presidents have a worse understanding of this issue than you do is justified.

I think you're mostly right, but his writing never says or really even directly implies that it's relevant specifically to founders. That would be very easy to do, but by not doing so he lends an air or universality and depth to the whole thing that makes it feel more insightful to people. The examples about startups are interpreted not as specifics but as examples of universal truths when as you point out they almost certainly are not.

> If the purpose of writing is to be read and to provoke thought and action

There's a LOT more to good writing than that, and in any event it's not that big of an insult to say someone isn't as good a writer as Bertrand Russell.

Why, because bias and prejudice wouldn't exist in such a world?