6 ms·

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 h

• 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.