6 ms·

Professor who tweeted that he wants white holocaust is still active and spreading its propaganda with very hurtful communist regime symbols https://twitter.com/

Professor who tweeted that he wants white holocaust is still active and spreading its propaganda with very hurtful communist regime symbols https://twitter.com/ciccmaher https://twitter.com/ciccmaher Why is Twitter not doing anything?! They even verified him to him a more legitimate voice.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
Maybe you should consider that he was actually mocking the very idea of "white genocide", which is a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by racist reactionaries, and not actually a real thing. And "very hurtful communist regime symbols". Do you need a trigger warning or something?
- cc81 9y ago
  Tweeting "All I want for Christmas is white genocide" and then defending it with that his academic colleagues would have understood that it was a joke because he does not believe white genocide exists kind of requires that everyone that reads the tweet is in on that joke. I think it is really difficult to draw the line and I do think twitter would be worse off if you drowned every voice that might be controversial. However it does require that you are consistent so if you allow the first tweet then you should allow "All I want for Christmas is black genocide" as well.
  - pron 9y ago
    The problem isn't controversy, but actual harm inflicted by dehumanizing others, as I explained in my other comment. As to your other statement, you seem to be under the impression that laws or rules should exist as a formal system independent of actual empirical reality; in other words, they should be the laws of the world you think we should have (e.g., one where all ideologies are morally equivalent) rather than the world we actually do have. However, jurisprudence (the theory of laws and legal systems) usually sees most laws as normative regulations within an actual living society, as determined by empirical observation (although some laws may be "universal"). So, while no one wants white genocide, some do actually want black genocide, and, moreover, such genocides or similarly horrific crimes have actually occurred. Not only have they occurred in the distant past, but their effects still exist with us today. This is why, while white and black may be equivalent in a tabula rasa world, they are not equivalent in our actual world, and that is the world laws try to address. Therefore, there is no equivalence (as measured in our actual society), between "I want a white genocide" and "I want a black genocide". Likewise, whether a specific reader is "in on the joke" or not doesn't matter, as we're not talking about personal, subjective offense. That black genocide and white genocide (when mentioned in statements) are completely inequivalent in our actual society is an objective, empirical fact. One of them dehumanizes and therefore causes actual harm, while the other does not, and so the laws address the one and not the other. As usual, this is not universal. If, for example, the legal system determines that statements made by a black preacher encourage and promote actual harm, as measured factually, they may well (depending on the legal system) sanction that preacher.
    - cc81 9y ago
      There are people who want a white genocide. Probably not that professor but others might think that way. For example a BLM member that co-funded the BLM Toronto chapter. >A co-founder of Black Lives Matter Toronto argued that white people are “recessive genetic defects” and purportedly mused about how the race could be “wiped out,” according to a post on what appears to be her Facebook page. http://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects/wcm/2748a714-f567-4344-8c08-decfe73d1e52 http://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-found... And while hate crimes are still targeting black people far more according to FBI reports there is a rise of hate crimes against white people. >In 2016, anti-white hate crimes rose 17%, to a reported 720 incidents, accounting for about 20% of all racially motivated hate crimes. >When you consider sheer numbers, anti-black crime is overwhelmingly the most commonly reported type of racially motivated crime. There were 1,739 such reported incidents -- roughly half of the 3,489 racially motivated incidents in 2016. >Accounting for the number of incidents and national population demographics, that means black people are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than white people. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/hate-crimes-muslim-white-fbi-trnd/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/hate-crimes-muslim-whit... I don't think there is some white genocide going on but I do think that using different measuring sticks when it comes to racism and hate is something that will only increase the divide. How can the "alt-right" NOT increase in membership when people tell young white guys that racism is wrong and then excuse others when they say racist shit; often by including some intersectionality theories how only white can be racist.
      - pron 9y ago
        > There are people who want a white genocide. By "no one", I didn't mean not a single person on the planet ever, but that the desire for some sort of ethnic cleansing against whites simply does not exist as any non-negligible social phenomenon. But I also disagree with your assessment of the statements made by that activist. A legal system does not call for a mechanical application of the law, but always for an exercise of judgment to determine context (e.g., criminal intent is a very important element of many crimes), which is why all legal enforcement requires judges. The way I read it, that speaker is simply co-opting white supremacist language as a defensive act. That may well still be an infringement of some law or rule, but it's not the same kind of infringement. > I do think that using different measuring sticks when it comes to racism and hate is something that will only increase the divide The problem isn't the different measuring sticks, but the different reality. The actual position of blacks and whites in Western society is not equal. As the law addresses the actual situation rather than some ideal, it must take those differences into account. For example, employees slacking on the job and thus stealing from their employers are treated differently by the legal system than employers refusing to pay their employees. The factual difference in power justifies different treatment by a legal system made for the real world rather than for some ideal world and takes such considerations into account. As to whether or not this increases the divide, your opinion is legitimate, but the question is an empirical one, and should therefore be settled by an empirical study.
- cisanti 9y ago
  I don't need a trigger warning but if you haven't lived under a communist regime you should hold your mouth shut. If you're privileged enough to live in a free society, leave the communist symbols home or invent new ones.
pron 9y ago
1. No one wants a white holocaust. 2. You may find some communist emblems personally hurtful for ideological and historical reasons, but when people talk about hurtful/offense speech/symbols, they're not talking about personal, subjective offense, but about objective harm. For example, suppose I'm a respected professor, and in one of my packed lectures I tell everyone I know you to be a total idiot. Even though you may not have been in the room or even heard about my statement and so never took personal offense, actual harm has been done to you because your dignity has been diminished in the eyes of those who were in the room, as well as others they may have told what happened to. Now, a swastika or other white-supremacist emblems are similarly degrading[1], but communist ones are not[2], regardless of whatever crimes have been done by communists or how strongly you personally object to communist ideology. For example, few crimes have been nearly as horrendous and catastrophic as the genocides performed under the Spanish flag (or previous, but similar versions thereof), but while some may find the Spanish flag personally objectionable for those reasons or others (say, the Spanish treatment of Catalonia), no one would claim that the flag when presented today dehumanizes anyone or is objectively harmful and so should be banned; on the other hand, presenting the Confederacy flag today (in circumstances that are not for historical discourse) is objectively dehumanizing and harmful. [1]: As the dehumanization of others is part of their core ideology. [2]: As the dehumanization of others is not part of the ideology (despite its condemnation of certain practices).
- cisanti 9y ago
  Would you say the same about swastika/nazi flag? My family was a victim of a communist regime, it's incredibly stupid to use those symbols. You can never compare that to Catalonia and Spain, this comparison is absurd.
  - pron 9y ago
    Spain has caused far more death and harm than communism, and yet no one sees that flag as dehumanizing, because death and harm are not currently the values that flag represent. Similarly, while communism has caused death and harm, they were never the cause of that movement or the values its symbols represent. They are, however, exactly what Nazi flags represent.

KozmoNau7 9y ago

Maybe you should consider that he was actually mocking the very idea of "white genocide", which is a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by racist reactionaries, and not actually a real thing. And "very hurtful communist regime symbols". Do you need a trigger warning or something?

cc81 9y ago
Tweeting "All I want for Christmas is white genocide" and then defending it with that his academic colleagues would have understood that it was a joke because he does not believe white genocide exists kind of requires that everyone that reads the tweet is in on that joke. I think it is really difficult to draw the line and I do think twitter would be worse off if you drowned every voice that might be controversial. However it does require that you are consistent so if you allow the first tweet then you should allow "All I want for Christmas is black genocide" as well.
- pron 9y ago
  The problem isn't controversy, but actual harm inflicted by dehumanizing others, as I explained in my other comment. As to your other statement, you seem to be under the impression that laws or rules should exist as a formal system independent of actual empirical reality; in other words, they should be the laws of the world you think we should have (e.g., one where all ideologies are morally equivalent) rather than the world we actually do have. However, jurisprudence (the theory of laws and legal systems) usually sees most laws as normative regulations within an actual living society, as determined by empirical observation (although some laws may be "universal"). So, while no one wants white genocide, some do actually want black genocide, and, moreover, such genocides or similarly horrific crimes have actually occurred. Not only have they occurred in the distant past, but their effects still exist with us today. This is why, while white and black may be equivalent in a tabula rasa world, they are not equivalent in our actual world, and that is the world laws try to address. Therefore, there is no equivalence (as measured in our actual society), between "I want a white genocide" and "I want a black genocide". Likewise, whether a specific reader is "in on the joke" or not doesn't matter, as we're not talking about personal, subjective offense. That black genocide and white genocide (when mentioned in statements) are completely inequivalent in our actual society is an objective, empirical fact. One of them dehumanizes and therefore causes actual harm, while the other does not, and so the laws address the one and not the other. As usual, this is not universal. If, for example, the legal system determines that statements made by a black preacher encourage and promote actual harm, as measured factually, they may well (depending on the legal system) sanction that preacher.
  - cc81 9y ago
    There are people who want a white genocide. Probably not that professor but others might think that way. For example a BLM member that co-funded the BLM Toronto chapter. >A co-founder of Black Lives Matter Toronto argued that white people are “recessive genetic defects” and purportedly mused about how the race could be “wiped out,” according to a post on what appears to be her Facebook page. http://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects/wcm/2748a714-f567-4344-8c08-decfe73d1e52 http://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-found... And while hate crimes are still targeting black people far more according to FBI reports there is a rise of hate crimes against white people. >In 2016, anti-white hate crimes rose 17%, to a reported 720 incidents, accounting for about 20% of all racially motivated hate crimes. >When you consider sheer numbers, anti-black crime is overwhelmingly the most commonly reported type of racially motivated crime. There were 1,739 such reported incidents -- roughly half of the 3,489 racially motivated incidents in 2016. >Accounting for the number of incidents and national population demographics, that means black people are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than white people. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/hate-crimes-muslim-white-fbi-trnd/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/hate-crimes-muslim-whit... I don't think there is some white genocide going on but I do think that using different measuring sticks when it comes to racism and hate is something that will only increase the divide. How can the "alt-right" NOT increase in membership when people tell young white guys that racism is wrong and then excuse others when they say racist shit; often by including some intersectionality theories how only white can be racist.
    - pron 9y ago
      > There are people who want a white genocide. By "no one", I didn't mean not a single person on the planet ever, but that the desire for some sort of ethnic cleansing against whites simply does not exist as any non-negligible social phenomenon. But I also disagree with your assessment of the statements made by that activist. A legal system does not call for a mechanical application of the law, but always for an exercise of judgment to determine context (e.g., criminal intent is a very important element of many crimes), which is why all legal enforcement requires judges. The way I read it, that speaker is simply co-opting white supremacist language as a defensive act. That may well still be an infringement of some law or rule, but it's not the same kind of infringement. > I do think that using different measuring sticks when it comes to racism and hate is something that will only increase the divide The problem isn't the different measuring sticks, but the different reality. The actual position of blacks and whites in Western society is not equal. As the law addresses the actual situation rather than some ideal, it must take those differences into account. For example, employees slacking on the job and thus stealing from their employers are treated differently by the legal system than employers refusing to pay their employees. The factual difference in power justifies different treatment by a legal system made for the real world rather than for some ideal world and takes such considerations into account. As to whether or not this increases the divide, your opinion is legitimate, but the question is an empirical one, and should therefore be settled by an empirical study.
cisanti 9y ago
I don't need a trigger warning but if you haven't lived under a communist regime you should hold your mouth shut. If you're privileged enough to live in a free society, leave the communist symbols home or invent new ones.

pron 9y ago

1. No one wants a white holocaust. 2. You may find some communist emblems personally hurtful for ideological and historical reasons, but when people talk about hurtful/offense speech/symbols, they're not talking about personal, subjective offense, but about objective harm. For example, suppose I'm a respected professor, and in one of my packed lectures I tell everyone I know you to be a total idiot. Even though you may not have been in the room or even heard about my statement and so never took personal offense, actual harm has been done to you because your dignity has been diminished in the eyes of those who were in the room, as well as others they may have told what happened to. Now, a swastika or other white-supremacist emblems are similarly degrading[1], but communist ones are not[2], regardless of whatever crimes have been done by communists or how strongly you personally object to communist ideology. For example, few crimes have been nearly as horrendous and catastrophic as the genocides performed under the Spanish flag (or previous, but similar versions thereof), but while some may find the Spanish flag personally objectionable for those reasons or others (say, the Spanish treatment of Catalonia), no one would claim that the flag when presented today dehumanizes anyone or is objectively harmful and so should be banned; on the other hand, presenting the Confederacy flag today (in circumstances that are not for historical discourse) is objectively dehumanizing and harmful. [1]: As the dehumanization of others is part of their core ideology. [2]: As the dehumanization of others is not part of the ideology (despite its condemnation of certain practices).

cisanti 9y ago
Would you say the same about swastika/nazi flag? My family was a victim of a communist regime, it's incredibly stupid to use those symbols. You can never compare that to Catalonia and Spain, this comparison is absurd.
- pron 9y ago
  Spain has caused far more death and harm than communism, and yet no one sees that flag as dehumanizing, because death and harm are not currently the values that flag represent. Similarly, while communism has caused death and harm, they were never the cause of that movement or the values its symbols represent. They are, however, exactly what Nazi flags represent.