12 ms·

Just stumbled upon exactly this: "Equality Twitter demonstrates the SJW commitment to one of the five fundamental pillars of their social justice ideology. I

Just stumbled upon exactly this: "Equality Twitter demonstrates the SJW commitment to one of the five fundamental pillars of their social justice ideology. I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you! 1:57 AM 9 Nov 2016 Twitter, in response to a complaint about the above tweet: Thank you for reporting this issue to us. Our goal is to create a safe environment for everyone on Twitter to express themselves freely. We reviewed your report carefully and found that there was no violation of Twitter's Rules regarding abusive behavior. I fucking hate black people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Clinton. Fuck you! 4:08 AM 16 Nov 2016 Twitter, in response to a complaint about the above tweet: We've investigated and suspended the account you reported as it was found to be participating in abusive behavior." from http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/11/equality.html?m=1 http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/11/equality.html?m=1

orcdork 10y ago
Behind on of the two tweets, there's a few hundrend years of slavery & oppression, based on race. Context is important. Edit: Why do I even bother. That same blog has the following snippet in another post: The white nations of Europe are, collectively and historically speaking, humanity's golden geese. It is to the long-term benefit of all Mankind to avoid killing them, or even adulterating them, through immigration, invasion, or assimilation. Sigh.
- 67726e 10y ago
  You realize that white Americans were not the only folks to own slaves or oppress a people, right? Ask yourself this, would the results be different if I tweeted that from the Barbary coast were roles were largely reversed? How about from a SLAVic nation?
  - orcdork 10y ago
    And? This isn't a discussion on the slave trade. I was pointing out that the origin of the comment was by a biased source, which changes the context of the text to thinly veiled racism. And by biased source, I mean a racist idiot promoting his shitty ideas.
    - kofejnik 10y ago
      so your only argument is ad hominem, pure and simple
    - 67726e 10y ago
      Every race had been subjugated violently by another. Claiming one deserves special treatment is itself racist. Ask yourself this: Would the situation with the tweets be reversed if someone from the Barbary coast, which has a history of white slavery, reported the two tweets?
pron 10y ago
You're treating this as if blacks and whites are somehow symmetrical in the context of American society. No serious social scientist would treat the two expressed views as equivalent.
- gaius 10y ago
  But if they are not equivalent, it logically follows that equality is not the goal, is that what you intended to say?
  - RileyKyeden 10y ago
    Here you go (the many linked articles with the variations are helpful): https://medium.com/@CRA1G/the-evolution-of-an-accidental-meme-ddc4e139e0e4#.nhrnxn26v https://medium.com/@CRA1G/the-evolution-of-an-accidental-mem...
    - gaius 10y ago
      Nope, sorry, discrimination on basis of skin colour is wrong whoever does it.
      - RileyKyeden 10y ago
        Please find someone who advocated for this and reply to their comment instead of cluttering mine up.
        gaius 10y ago
        Your link says that if a person feels more aggrieved (shorter) they should be allowed to be more racist (get a bigger box). That's not OK.
        RileyKyeden 10y ago
        It's odd that you focus on race when it's not even remotely the focus of the article.
erichocean 10y ago
That disconnect is because the definition of racism has changed over the last 8 years in practice, and since the development of privilege theory and systemic racism in academia ~30 years ago.[0] Racism used to be something you did if you were white; now it's just "who you are". Since the civil right movement 50 years ago, white Americans have agreed to a racial compact: - whites are banned from doing anything overtly racist - whites are banned from engaging in identity politics (that is, favoring white/Western culture and people over others) - whites will accept a double-standard that allows other groups to engage in both of these behaviors (and not deem them "racist") In exchange, blacks and others wouldn't call whites racist unless that compact was explicitly broken. When they did, whites agreed to make the charge stick—you'd lose your job, career, etc. A charge of "racism" was very, very difficult to undo. IMO, this was all a good thing and worked pretty well. Basically, that's all changed now—at least on the right, now that all whites are "racist" by definition. The alt-right in particular has agreed not to make charges of racism a deal killer, and in particular, is no longer enforcing that compact. Under the old compact, the alt-right is definitely racist. Apparently, though, so is half the country now because by the old definition, absolutely, Trump is a racist with his comment about the judge's Mexican heritage, and whites should have made the charge "stick". As Speaker Paul Ryan said "textbook racism". Trump's comment should have—and would have—been disqualifying under the old compact. IMO some whites have dropped the racial compact because of the development of privilege theory and systemic racism and the frankly "original sin"-like notion that all whites are racist. Who wants that? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality)
- pron 10y ago
  > That disconnect is because the definition of racism has changed over the last 8 years in practice, and since the development of "systemic racism" in theory. What you call "systemic racism" has been known simply as "racism" in academic circles for the past few decades. Put succinctly, in research circles, racism is the property of a society that results in grossly unequal distribution of power among social groups viewed as different races; sexism is analogous. There is no assumption of ill intent or negative feelings, as those associated with xenophobia (or misogyny). There are very good reasons why this definition is much more useful to study this phenomenon. The only thing that's changed in recent years is that the public at large has been exposed to those well accepted, well studied academic terms, while misinterpreting them to mean something else. Here's a recent article about this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_people_who_look_at_trump_and_don_t_see_a_racist.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201... It's not that all whites are racist by the academic definition, but that our society is racist, and so people in it who intentionally or not further the racist social dynamics can be said to carry out racism. Those people are both black and white, but as it's mostly whites who have more power in society, it is statistically correct to say that whites are more racist. It's just that "racist" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does.

orcdork 10y ago

Behind on of the two tweets, there's a few hundrend years of slavery & oppression, based on race. Context is important. Edit: Why do I even bother. That same blog has the following snippet in another post: The white nations of Europe are, collectively and historically speaking, humanity's golden geese. It is to the long-term benefit of all Mankind to avoid killing them, or even adulterating them, through immigration, invasion, or assimilation. Sigh.

67726e 10y ago
You realize that white Americans were not the only folks to own slaves or oppress a people, right? Ask yourself this, would the results be different if I tweeted that from the Barbary coast were roles were largely reversed? How about from a SLAVic nation?
- orcdork 10y ago
  And? This isn't a discussion on the slave trade. I was pointing out that the origin of the comment was by a biased source, which changes the context of the text to thinly veiled racism. And by biased source, I mean a racist idiot promoting his shitty ideas.
  - kofejnik 10y ago
    so your only argument is ad hominem, pure and simple
  - 67726e 10y ago
    Every race had been subjugated violently by another. Claiming one deserves special treatment is itself racist. Ask yourself this: Would the situation with the tweets be reversed if someone from the Barbary coast, which has a history of white slavery, reported the two tweets?

pron 10y ago

You're treating this as if blacks and whites are somehow symmetrical in the context of American society. No serious social scientist would treat the two expressed views as equivalent.

gaius 10y ago
But if they are not equivalent, it logically follows that equality is not the goal, is that what you intended to say?
- RileyKyeden 10y ago
  Here you go (the many linked articles with the variations are helpful): https://medium.com/@CRA1G/the-evolution-of-an-accidental-meme-ddc4e139e0e4#.nhrnxn26v https://medium.com/@CRA1G/the-evolution-of-an-accidental-mem...
  - gaius 10y ago
    Nope, sorry, discrimination on basis of skin colour is wrong whoever does it.
    - RileyKyeden 10y ago
      Please find someone who advocated for this and reply to their comment instead of cluttering mine up.
      - gaius 10y ago
        Your link says that if a person feels more aggrieved (shorter) they should be allowed to be more racist (get a bigger box). That's not OK.
        RileyKyeden 10y ago
        It's odd that you focus on race when it's not even remotely the focus of the article.

erichocean 10y ago

That disconnect is because the definition of racism has changed over the last 8 years in practice, and since the development of privilege theory and systemic racism in academia ~30 years ago.[0] Racism used to be something you did if you were white; now it's just "who you are". Since the civil right movement 50 years ago, white Americans have agreed to a racial compact: - whites are banned from doing anything overtly racist - whites are banned from engaging in identity politics (that is, favoring white/Western culture and people over others) - whites will accept a double-standard that allows other groups to engage in both of these behaviors (and not deem them "racist") In exchange, blacks and others wouldn't call whites racist unless that compact was explicitly broken. When they did, whites agreed to make the charge stick—you'd lose your job, career, etc. A charge of "racism" was very, very difficult to undo. IMO, this was all a good thing and worked pretty well. Basically, that's all changed now—at least on the right, now that all whites are "racist" by definition. The alt-right in particular has agreed not to make charges of racism a deal killer, and in particular, is no longer enforcing that compact. Under the old compact, the alt-right is definitely racist. Apparently, though, so is half the country now because by the old definition, absolutely, Trump is a racist with his comment about the judge's Mexican heritage, and whites should have made the charge "stick". As Speaker Paul Ryan said "textbook racism". Trump's comment should have—and would have—been disqualifying under the old compact. IMO some whites have dropped the racial compact because of the development of privilege theory and systemic racism and the frankly "original sin"-like notion that all whites are racist. Who wants that? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality)

pron 10y ago
> That disconnect is because the definition of racism has changed over the last 8 years in practice, and since the development of "systemic racism" in theory. What you call "systemic racism" has been known simply as "racism" in academic circles for the past few decades. Put succinctly, in research circles, racism is the property of a society that results in grossly unequal distribution of power among social groups viewed as different races; sexism is analogous. There is no assumption of ill intent or negative feelings, as those associated with xenophobia (or misogyny). There are very good reasons why this definition is much more useful to study this phenomenon. The only thing that's changed in recent years is that the public at large has been exposed to those well accepted, well studied academic terms, while misinterpreting them to mean something else. Here's a recent article about this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_people_who_look_at_trump_and_don_t_see_a_racist.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201... It's not that all whites are racist by the academic definition, but that our society is racist, and so people in it who intentionally or not further the racist social dynamics can be said to carry out racism. Those people are both black and white, but as it's mostly whites who have more power in society, it is statistically correct to say that whites are more racist. It's just that "racist" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does.