As pointed out by ApochPiQ, don’t read too deeply into a Twitter post. Instead of understanding that he is racist, you should understand that he seems to think everyone on Twitter knows him as well as his real-life friends and that they will get the joke. That is what he botched.[/quote]

Agreed. There are things you talk about with close friends because you can be frank and candid with them as well as hyperbolic and sarcastic on subjects and they'll understand what you're talking about. Then there is twitter... where nobody truly knows you, your personality, your mannerisms, or your humor. This is why its best to avoid subjects like these in public -at all costs-.

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I think the usage of the word "black" isn't helping. If we were to stop simply calling people "black", "caucasian", or whatever other ethnicity, wouldn't that help get rid of the problem?

Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Blink" makes some interesting points about how we judge things - including people. If we hear "oh, some black kid got shot" we will certainly think different things if we were to hear "oh, some kid got shot".

We live in the 21st century. I thought we were beyond calling people by their ethnic backgrounds. I guess I am wrong.

Just to be clear, I don't really empathize with the writer. I just don't appreciate people jumping to things being offensive. The statistics and conclusions made from them are upsetting, perhaps even tragic, but that is not the same as being offensive. I have a general distaste for people that expect you to tread so lightly you are not able to walk.

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I think the usage of the word "black" isn't helping. If we were to stop simply calling people "black", "caucasian", or whatever other ethnicity, wouldn't that help get rid of the problem?

Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Blink" makes some interesting points about how we judge things - including people. If we hear "oh, some black kid got shot" we will certainly think different things if we were to hear "oh, some kid got shot".

We live in the 21st century. I thought we were beyond calling people by their ethnic backgrounds. I guess I am wrong.

I agree with this guy, the more we come up with labels and names to seperate our selves from one another based on colors or beliefs the more seperated we actually become.

Except for green and purple people, like mitch hedberg said, you have to draw the line somewhere! lol

I don't think I'm failing for anything, but it's sure I couldn't make myself understood. I only tried to say to be cautious with anybody.
I did raise my eyebrow on Obama, but saying I will be more cautious about voting for him than voting for a white man is stupid. Not being cautious because no black man is involved is ignorant and stupid. Since the article was so about blacks it came across just like that to me.
Maybe I should give up...

Whoa, that article is crazy! At the start I thought that it was odd that a "talk" was needed, but the first 5 points seemed more or less not-crazy. But then it got progressively more bizarre. In general I understand that there can be racial tension, but (not being from America) I find the level of black/white tension quite alien. Here the "black" population is so small that there's really no grounds for stereotyping. To my knowledge there isn't even a general term in common use, it's just "he's from Nigeria" or "she's from Ghana". There are people from the Pacific Islands etc who try to co-opt the black label, but it seems ridiculous given how few points of similarity there are in ancestry or history. From when I visited the states I can understand someone walking through an area and feeling out of place - I did once or twice - but I never felt any sense of menace. They were just people doing regular stuff, e.g. mowing the lawn, washing their cars, etc. Perhaps it's different in poorer areas, but I view that as an inequality problem more than a racial issue.

My personal views aside, some years back I had a nasty reminder than those you idolise are just people, flawed as anybody else. I'm a big fan of the writings of Orson Scott Card, and my blindspot was assuming he agreed with me on everything. As it turns out, he's homophobic and a very enthusiastic Mormon. That's... not me. But I still enjoy the side he shows in his books. Similarly I never really could believe Michael Jackson's protestations of innocence, but I still listen to his music on occasion. I don't know what John Carmack's true thoughts are on the issue, there could be misquoting or misunderstanding involved. But either way I still admire his work with BSP and 3D engines. My view is celebrate people's achievements, tell them when you think they're being an ass, and don't expect that everyone you admire will be someone you want to have a beer with.

Give John Carmack some rest, you people make me ashamed to be a part of this community.

A bit off-topic, but it seems to me that statistics has not been a successful decision making tool for people in general. Witness the success of gambling, lottery tickets, or the http://en.wikipedia....iki/Sally_Clark case. Statistics even lead researchers astray (problem of cause-effect).

Anyone using statistics as a basis for this kind of argument should also be advising against driving in a vehicle, eating fatty foods, eating smoked or grilled foods, being in the sun, using stairs, smoking, drinking alcohol (or just the right amount, depending on which research study statistics you are using), living in certain locales (dependant on death rates within you demographic), excersing too little, excersing too much (depending on inherited risk of heart attack), etc.

In the end, the human mind will inflate, cherry pick and warp it all to fit their own personal view of reality anyway, which makes this sort of analysis meaningless (even if well-intended, which I personally doubt.)

As a general rule, I don’t think very highly of people that go out of their way to take grievous offense in other people’s names. The comments sections in the meta-articles about the actual article are filled with a great many people whose company I would not enjoy.

I am a little bit tempted to try to write a thoughtful position statement, but I know that anything that strayed from orthodox political correctness would generate lots of little tempests in a teapot, and I am too busy working to argue.

So you settle for no statement at all on your position? That's pretty weak. I don't think you've given anyone the impression of being shy to give your opinion on other topics in the past. You're an influential member of this community -- one looked up to by countless game developers, to be sure, myself included. I won't go as far as saying "You owe it to us", because I don't think you as a private citizen owe us anything in particular, but it seems the right thing to do to set the record straight.

"Too busy to argue" seems like an excuse. In the time you took to set the record straight about which racist article was being referred to, you could have written a one-liner to reassure the black members of this community (or your black employees, for that matter) that you don't think they are less likely to be productive non-violent members of society because of the color of their skin. And setting the record straight doesn't imply staying around to argue about it.

Regarding the article you actually were referring to, it's just as ignorant, if not as blatantly racist.

White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with.

There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.[/quote]
This is an unfortunately selective and simplistic reading of history. How long have white Europeans been running "fair and stable societies"? For how many thousands of years were the Ottomans, the Persians, or the Han the paramount of civilization during their times? Where were the origins of civilization, and what were white Europeans doing at the time? Might a dominant civilization at any of these times throughout the millenna not have suggested they'd done a "better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group"?

It's ignorant to mistake correlation for causation, and it's lazy and convenient to attribute race as the cause. The "logic" employed by Mr. Derbyshire could just as easily be used to assert "Male Supremacy", "Christian Supremacy", "Straight Supremacy", and "American Supremacy". I wonder how you feel about the section entitled "The Case Against Female Suffrage" in that very book you're reading, Carmack. I wonder whether you'd scrutinize a black programmer applying to id more than you'd scrutinize a white one.

I hope this isn't the last we hear from you on the topic. I don't give a shit about political correctness, but ignorance, myopia, elitism, and prejudice all rub me the wrong way.

What is the point of this post? What do you hope to accomplish?

Let's go out on a limb and, for the sake of argument, say that he is racist. I've been following him for a while and I don't get that impression, but let's just say that he is. Then what? You're going to wag your finger at him?

All you've done is attempt to damage the reputation of another in a public forum.