Since black vikings are not part of material history, the model is not reflecting reality.
Calling social-historical ideas 'reality' is the problem with the parent comment. They arent, and it lets the riggers at google off the hook. Colorising people of history isnt a reality corrective, it's merely anti-social-history, not pro-material-reality
I agree with you, and I think you have misunderstood the nuance of the parent comment. He is not letting google "off the hook", but rather being tongue-in-cheek/slightly satirical when he says that the reality is too troubling for google. Which I believe is exactly what you mean when you call it "anti-social-history, not pro-material-reality ".
Maybe I don't understand the culture here on HN, but not every response to a comment has to be a disagreement. Sometimes you're just adding to a point somebody else made.
In this case though the comment starts with a categorical negation of something that was said in a tongue-in-cheek way in the comment being replied to. It suggests a counterpoint is made. Yet it’s not.
mjburgess|2 years ago
ie., social-historical vs. material-historical.
Since black vikings are not part of material history, the model is not reflecting reality.
Calling social-historical ideas 'reality' is the problem with the parent comment. They arent, and it lets the riggers at google off the hook. Colorising people of history isnt a reality corrective, it's merely anti-social-history, not pro-material-reality
manjalyc|2 years ago
carlosjobim|2 years ago
seanw444|2 years ago
Actually you're wrong because <argument on semantics> when in reality the truth is <minor technicality>.
GrumpySloth|2 years ago