5 ms·

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

• 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.
  • cc81 9y ago
    If we want to be objective and look at the legal system in the US then as far as I know neither of the statements would be illegal, right? There is no objective reality and the excuses you make for the BLM speakers is subjective based on your world view and ideas. The white supremacist see the world differently and they view different power structures than you do. They post images like this on forums: https://imgur.com/a/UVyHM https://imgur.com/a/UVyHM I have not checked the validity of the numbers presented I just know it is very commonly shared. So while you might focus on one type of power structure they focus on another. So in their mind they belong to a group under attack and they point at the relationship in the picture to prove it. I think that generally is a bullshit generalization but it is the same type of bullshit that comes from that BLM representative and that you are making excuses for. In a way that has always felt racist to me: A black person cannot really think white people are subhuman, because white people are obviously not... Just feels like an odd argument.
    • pron 9y ago
      > The white supremacist see the world differently and they view different power structures than you do. And evolution deniers may view the world differently, too, but as the law must address a certain social reality, it aspires to be based on empirical observation, rather than on personal views. After those observations have been made, the law is, of course, based on personal values. For example, it is an empirical fact that blacks have been marginalized from American society, but it is a question of personal values (as well as empirical questions of expected efficacy) whether or not affirmative action should be made. > So while you might focus on one type of power structure they focus on another. No, they simply do not know what power structure is. As far as I know, there is little empirical scholarship by white supremacists. > In a way that has always felt racist to me: A black person cannot really think white people are subhuman, because white people are obviously not... Again, you are shifting the discussion to subjective thought, while the law is mostly concerned with objective effects. I don't know what some person may or may not think, neither do I care (as a legislator). I do care about the effect actions have, and because of the existing power structure in society, actions by different people have different effects. BTW, there is a very interesting debate in legal theory -- which also has to do with studies about the different values on the left and on the right -- precisely about that. Some claim that conservatives are more concerned with actions, while liberals are more concerned with effects. This is not just a matter of values, but also of consequences (where applying the first system has conservative consequences, i.e., it turns to preserve the current social structure). Most legal systems vary on this matter from one law to another, and even judgment practices may change over time. One can most certainly claim that legal systems, including Twitter's rules, should be based on actions more than on effect, but I think that in recent decades, the West has shifted more towards to effect-oriented view, where an action is judged based on its context and its harm.