4 ms·

I apologize. I see that I've made wrong assumptions here. You're right, racial stereotyping of any kind is bad; I was wrong to argue otherwise. I got on my pat

I apologize. I see that I've made wrong assumptions here. You're right, racial stereotyping of any kind is bad; I was wrong to argue otherwise. I got on my paternalistic white-knighting horse because I made the (racist?) assumption that you were white, and I'm inclined to argue against other white people accusing others of racism. I guess it comes from my own toxic white guilt. But is it a completely wrongheaded impulse, to try to police other white people who are trying to argue that American racism goes equally both ways? That's what the Breitbart article is implying, that Jones was being just as toxic as Milo, isn't it? My argument that anti-white racism is definitionally impossible may be overly radical, but don't you have to somewhere take account of the fact that anti-white racism doesn't have nearly the same material impact on it's targets and isn't really a structural part of political and economic systems in America?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
No, what the article is implying is that Twitter doesn't actually follow their stated principle of banning people who incite harassment. Instead, Twitter just uses that as a cheap excuse to ban people they don't like while ignoring it when people they do like engage in the same behavior. I.e., twitter isn't against harassment, they are just against Milo and vague hints of harassment are a convenient excuse.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> But is it a completely wrongheaded impulse, to try to police other white people who are trying to argue that American racism goes equally both ways? It is not wrongheaded to attempt to counter arguments that the harms from being targeted by racism [0] in America are equally distributed among racial groups, I would agree. > My argument that anti-white racism is definitionally impossible may be overly radical, but don't you have to somewhere take account of the fact that anti-white racism doesn't have nearly the same material impact on it's targets and isn't really a structural part of political and economic systems in America? Sure, but I think that there is both a problem with any concept of "racism" that goes so far as to say it is not racism (as I discuss more in my response to your post discussing your use of such a definition) and, more tactically, that simply calling anti-white racism "not racism" does more to obscure, rather than effectively addresses, why and how there are significant differences, in the present circumstances that exist in the US, in the impacts of anti-white vs. anti-black racism (which I think you identify quite well.) [0] I was going to say "harms from racism", but given that there are many ways in which (among other non-blacks) poor whites are harmed by anti-black racism manipulated by elites, the harms from racism are probably at least more equally distributed than the direct harms from being targeted by racism are, and the latter is, really, I think the issue of concern here.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

No, what the article is implying is that Twitter doesn't actually follow their stated principle of banning people who incite harassment. Instead, Twitter just uses that as a cheap excuse to ban people they don't like while ignoring it when people they do like engage in the same behavior. I.e., twitter isn't against harassment, they are just against Milo and vague hints of harassment are a convenient excuse.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 10y ago

> But is it a completely wrongheaded impulse, to try to police other white people who are trying to argue that American racism goes equally both ways? It is not wrongheaded to attempt to counter arguments that the harms from being targeted by racism [0] in America are equally distributed among racial groups, I would agree. > My argument that anti-white racism is definitionally impossible may be overly radical, but don't you have to somewhere take account of the fact that anti-white racism doesn't have nearly the same material impact on it's targets and isn't really a structural part of political and economic systems in America? Sure, but I think that there is both a problem with any concept of "racism" that goes so far as to say it is not racism (as I discuss more in my response to your post discussing your use of such a definition) and, more tactically, that simply calling anti-white racism "not racism" does more to obscure, rather than effectively addresses, why and how there are significant differences, in the present circumstances that exist in the US, in the impacts of anti-white vs. anti-black racism (which I think you identify quite well.) [0] I was going to say "harms from racism", but given that there are many ways in which (among other non-blacks) poor whites are harmed by anti-black racism manipulated by elites, the harms from racism are probably at least more equally distributed than the direct harms from being targeted by racism are, and the latter is, really, I think the issue of concern here.