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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

That paragraph is preceded by two other paragraphs of the author largely quoting and paraphrasing a particular academic. The author has chosen to accept that academic's thesis in order to buttress the overall argument advanced by the essay. Why is it necessary for the author to refute or dispute the academic? Especially compared to any other expert, narrative, or paragraph cited by the essay as evidence for its position? Your obsession with this paragraph, again, is bewildering. This is not an article about hipster cafes in South Africa, that is simply an example that was advanced. If you have an issue with it, do your own research and debunk it yourself. Read the source material and find real holes in it, not just comment thread theorizing. Find yourself actual counter-narratives and analysis that proves such. To do otherwise seems like unnecessary quibbling.

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.

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.

For what it's worth, there's a stark difference between the phrases, "I read the author's uncritical acceptance of a loaded quote as an indication that she is an ideologue," and the way you phrased your first post. One comes off more reasonable, the other comes off, well... here we are lol. Just my $.02. But you're probably tired of hearing from me (and I oughta stop flogging a dead horse) so I'll fuck off. Have a good one!

Edit: And sorry about all the edits - bad habit!

I mean, I'm a pretty reasonable character and I imagine you are too in real life. It's tough to be pithy and come across the way we want at the same time. In any case, have a good rest of your day, honestly wishing you all the best.

I share the same sentiment, wish ya all the best as well!

The author is a man.

Well spotted and my mistake.

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.

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

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.