4 ms·

> Epik.com has been for years the go-to domain registrar for websites that other companies refuse to do business with. Sites dedicated to white nationalism, QAn

> Epik.com has been for years the go-to domain registrar for websites that other companies refuse to do business with. Sites dedicated to white nationalism, QAnon conspiracy theories, and harassing transgender people were all welcomed by Epik. As a foreigner, this confuses me. We are told the US is systemically racist and white supremacist, rife with white hetero-patriarchy etc.. but Wired claims white nationalist websites have trouble even finding a registrar to take their business? Something doesn't add up.

treflop 3y ago
Because it's neither. It's like wherever you are from -- there are some diehard racists, a lot of people who are vehemently not racist, but everyone else is just going with the flow.
daveguy 3y ago
The white nationalists are, by definition, ignorant AF. Also, it seems you don't know the difference between systemic racism (baked into institutions) and individual racism or lack thereof -- the individuals making decisions opt against the ignorant AF white nationalists when their racism is pointed out. Apparently there are only enough white nationalists who are not ignorant AF to make up a single registrar.
- jevoten 3y ago
  > you don't know the difference between systemic racism (baked into institutions) and individual racism This does confuse me, yes. How can institutions or the system be systemically racist, yet strive to suppress white nationalism? Isn't that the definition of anti-racism?
  - jfengel 3y ago
    "Systemic racism" is about the quiet, daily, "small" racisms that most people don't notice or pay any attention to. As an example, consider the ban on affirmative action programs, while leaving in place things like legacy admissions. The latter isn't isn't explicitly racist, and yet it tends to benefit the people who come from families admitted at a time when they were explicitly racist. That's just one of countless possibilities. Each one is, potentially, easily dismissed as unimportant. But there are a lot of things that, collectively, add up to serious problems for people who have been historically disadvantaged on the account of their race. It's sometimes called "racism without racists", because it disadvantages some people even without conscious dislike of them. We started talking about anti-racism a decade ago or so, when the swastika-wearing white nationalists were excluded from practically all polite society, but that systemic racism was still causing a lot of problems. It was different from merely being not-racist, but seeking out the hidden causes of disproportionate effects. Since then, just plain white nationalism has had a stronger resurgence. And a lot of people who consider themselves not-racist have a tendency to say, "Well, they've got their right to be racist as long as they're not being violent", ignoring the ways that threats are hard to prosecute but still have consequences. They get to consider themselves non-racist because at least they're not actively wearing white robes and using racist slurs. A lot of people still don't want to do business with explicit racists, and they scream bloody murder about it, even though it's exactly the same kind of free-association that the racists are relying on that somebody will support them. The effect is that we're dealing with both explicit racism and systemic racism at the same time. They're different and sometimes opposed, even though they also bolster each other.
    - jevoten 3y ago
      > As an example, consider the ban on affirmative action programs, while leaving in place things like legacy admissions. The latter isn't isn't explicitly racist, and yet it tends to benefit the people who come from families admitted at a time when they were explicitly racist. Now I'm even more confused. Legacy admissions would seemingly benefit whites the most (I guess it depends how many generations back you look), who are also the most under-represented group in the Ivy league [1]. Did you mis-speak, and meant to use legacy admissions as another example of anti-racism? [1] https://archive.org/details/ivy-league-demographics https://archive.org/details/ivy-league-demographics
      - jfengel 3y ago
        The current admissions to Ivy League schools were influenced by affirmative action policies, which boosted black numbers. Whites are not under-represented because of black students, but because of Asian students, who have a much stronger cultural push to academic achievement. In the future, the number of black students will likely fall. Whites will still likely be under-represented because of over-representation of Asians, but that's a cultural matter. Whites do still benefit from legacy admissions; it's just not sufficient to overcome the cultural push. I'll admit I'm suspicious that you couldn't figure it out for yourself. Surely my point was clear: a program that benefited blacks was canceled, while leaving in place one that benefits non-blacks. It's the conflict between the two that exemplifies the example of systemic racism.
- geodel 3y ago
  By definition? Is there a standards institute that publishes these authorized definitions?
  - daveguy 3y ago
    Here you go, buddy. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20nationalist https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20nationali... Ignorant fuckwits, by definition.
therein 3y ago
It is just something they enjoy saying these days. It fits the narrative.
sixothree 3y ago
Systematic racism manifests in more of a statistical manner. You might not recognize it because the parties involved can interact without much friction. But policies will adversely affect one group of people more than others. But the racism being described here is outright and overt.
anon25783 3y ago
The systemic racism in the public and private economic sectors of American society is of a subtler character than the individual racism promoted by the kinds of people who run explicitly pro-fascist websites. Unlike those people, most US companies and government agencies are deeply concerned with appearing to not be racist, because racism is very unpopular with most American consumers and voters.
- alphabettsy 3y ago
  True, but the person you’re replying to isn’t asking in good faith. Take a look at their submission history for one.
  - anon25783 3y ago
    I'm never surprised when this happens. But I wish it didn't happen so frequently on this website in particular. Oh well.
303uru 3y ago
>systemically racist Yes, it is. You seem to be conflating "literal NAZIs wearing swastikas can't register a website" with "black names are less likely to get an interview with the exact same resume".

treflop 3y ago

Because it's neither. It's like wherever you are from -- there are some diehard racists, a lot of people who are vehemently not racist, but everyone else is just going with the flow.

daveguy 3y ago

The white nationalists are, by definition, ignorant AF. Also, it seems you don't know the difference between systemic racism (baked into institutions) and individual racism or lack thereof -- the individuals making decisions opt against the ignorant AF white nationalists when their racism is pointed out. Apparently there are only enough white nationalists who are not ignorant AF to make up a single registrar.

jevoten 3y ago
> you don't know the difference between systemic racism (baked into institutions) and individual racism This does confuse me, yes. How can institutions or the system be systemically racist, yet strive to suppress white nationalism? Isn't that the definition of anti-racism?
- jfengel 3y ago
  "Systemic racism" is about the quiet, daily, "small" racisms that most people don't notice or pay any attention to. As an example, consider the ban on affirmative action programs, while leaving in place things like legacy admissions. The latter isn't isn't explicitly racist, and yet it tends to benefit the people who come from families admitted at a time when they were explicitly racist. That's just one of countless possibilities. Each one is, potentially, easily dismissed as unimportant. But there are a lot of things that, collectively, add up to serious problems for people who have been historically disadvantaged on the account of their race. It's sometimes called "racism without racists", because it disadvantages some people even without conscious dislike of them. We started talking about anti-racism a decade ago or so, when the swastika-wearing white nationalists were excluded from practically all polite society, but that systemic racism was still causing a lot of problems. It was different from merely being not-racist, but seeking out the hidden causes of disproportionate effects. Since then, just plain white nationalism has had a stronger resurgence. And a lot of people who consider themselves not-racist have a tendency to say, "Well, they've got their right to be racist as long as they're not being violent", ignoring the ways that threats are hard to prosecute but still have consequences. They get to consider themselves non-racist because at least they're not actively wearing white robes and using racist slurs. A lot of people still don't want to do business with explicit racists, and they scream bloody murder about it, even though it's exactly the same kind of free-association that the racists are relying on that somebody will support them. The effect is that we're dealing with both explicit racism and systemic racism at the same time. They're different and sometimes opposed, even though they also bolster each other.
  - jevoten 3y ago
    > As an example, consider the ban on affirmative action programs, while leaving in place things like legacy admissions. The latter isn't isn't explicitly racist, and yet it tends to benefit the people who come from families admitted at a time when they were explicitly racist. Now I'm even more confused. Legacy admissions would seemingly benefit whites the most (I guess it depends how many generations back you look), who are also the most under-represented group in the Ivy league [1]. Did you mis-speak, and meant to use legacy admissions as another example of anti-racism? [1] https://archive.org/details/ivy-league-demographics https://archive.org/details/ivy-league-demographics
    - jfengel 3y ago
      The current admissions to Ivy League schools were influenced by affirmative action policies, which boosted black numbers. Whites are not under-represented because of black students, but because of Asian students, who have a much stronger cultural push to academic achievement. In the future, the number of black students will likely fall. Whites will still likely be under-represented because of over-representation of Asians, but that's a cultural matter. Whites do still benefit from legacy admissions; it's just not sufficient to overcome the cultural push. I'll admit I'm suspicious that you couldn't figure it out for yourself. Surely my point was clear: a program that benefited blacks was canceled, while leaving in place one that benefits non-blacks. It's the conflict between the two that exemplifies the example of systemic racism.
geodel 3y ago
By definition? Is there a standards institute that publishes these authorized definitions?
- daveguy 3y ago
  Here you go, buddy. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20nationalist https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20nationali... Ignorant fuckwits, by definition.

therein 3y ago

It is just something they enjoy saying these days. It fits the narrative.

sixothree 3y ago

Systematic racism manifests in more of a statistical manner. You might not recognize it because the parties involved can interact without much friction. But policies will adversely affect one group of people more than others. But the racism being described here is outright and overt.

anon25783 3y ago

The systemic racism in the public and private economic sectors of American society is of a subtler character than the individual racism promoted by the kinds of people who run explicitly pro-fascist websites. Unlike those people, most US companies and government agencies are deeply concerned with appearing to not be racist, because racism is very unpopular with most American consumers and voters.

alphabettsy 3y ago
True, but the person you’re replying to isn’t asking in good faith. Take a look at their submission history for one.
- anon25783 3y ago
  I'm never surprised when this happens. But I wish it didn't happen so frequently on this website in particular. Oh well.

303uru 3y ago

>systemically racist Yes, it is. You seem to be conflating "literal NAZIs wearing swastikas can't register a website" with "black names are less likely to get an interview with the exact same resume".