4 ms·
Who is “people”? Do Black people miss the days when you could pick up the paper and read people arguing for Jim Crow? My life would definitely not be improved i
by jakelazaroff 3y ago
Who is “people”? Do Black people miss the days when you could pick up the paper and read people arguing for Jim Crow? My life would definitely not be improved if I had to listen to people telling me how Jews control the banks.
- c_crank 3y agoPeople like Musk who self identify as classical liberals, or whatever the faddish term for that happens to be. Going by surveys, a lot of black people are against increasing immigration. Openly crossing that line is often justification for dropping the internet hammer. One gets the sense that, at some point, the hammer was used with more restraint.
- ethanbond 3y agoOr it was just used against other people. You know, exiling gay kids from their families and friends has been a longtime tradition. Is that not “the hammer?”
- c_crank 3y agoIt's not the same hammer I'm discussing. The equivalent would be censorship of pleas made in favor of homosexual causes, which the US is not particularly known for.
- ethanbond 3y agoWhat? You don’t think women/homosexuals/minorities were barred from holding certain cultural megaphones?
- c_crank 3y agoFredick Douglass owned and published a newspaper that was not censored - when you look at abolitionist articles or early drafts from the Seneca Falls Convention, you are not likely to find a bunch of scribble marks or other equivalents to the [deleted] tag that litters the internet today.
- ethanbond 3y ago“X group wasn’t censored because I can find an instance of X that wasn’t censored” is quite the argument. You know you can find plenty of racist and sexist scribbles all over the internet, not [deleted]. According to your logic: proof that they are not censored!
- c_crank 3y agoWhen you want to track censorship in those days, you'd typically look for lawsuits. The US had blasphemy laws in local areas for a long time, but those were rarely enforced or taken to court, for example.
- ethanbond 3y agoThis is a total non-sequitur and ends up being a self-defeating argument anyway. You’d look for people who couldn’t get business loans, couldn’t rent a storefront, couldn’t find a lawyer who would work for them to file lawsuits around their censorship, couldn’t leave their captor’s estate, couldn’t look at someone the wrong way without getting beaten to death, etc etc. I actually struggle to imagine a worse way to track censorship than looking for lawsuits lol.
- c_crank 3y agoThe NAACP and other organizations existed at the same time as Jim Crow. The reality was that the extent of the racial oppression varied considerably based on geography. Many find the idea of current censorship more intimidating because it exists everywhere within the US and many places outside of it, so there would be no good way of escaping it - while many blacks instead had the option of fleeing northward.
- ethanbond 3y agoGot it. Social media sites moderating content is at least as bad as Jim Crow. Truly striking argument, though probably in the opposite way as intended.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoI mean, people were blacklisted in the 50s for allegedly being communists, right? People were actually killed for opposing Jim Crow. We had codes about what you were allowed to show in movies and comics. I don’t get the sense that the hammer was ever used with more restraint. Rather, I get the sense that the people complaining didn’t care about the hammer when it was only wielded against others, and have decided to speak up now that it’s finally being used against them.
- archagon 3y agoI’ve never seen anyone ”censored” on Twitter for opposing immigration.