Hacker News Reader

Comment by ve55 | Hacker News Reader

Although Twitter obviously has the right to do this, legally, I don't think it is good.

Twitter is esentially a public infrastructure for real-time communication. We have public officials from countries all over the world that use Twitter to communicate to their citizens.

For that (and similar) reasons, I would strongly prefer if Twitter didn't go around policing what types of political opions are okay and aren't. Even if you really hate the people that Twitter bans, imagine if things were the other way around, and they started banning very liberal users.

View on HN

The very liberal users aren't inciting hate speech, racist, misogynistic, and often times anti semitic attacks on other users en masse

You aren't serious are you? The "alt-right" movement has put out several videos in recent days that shows just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXpi3F0E5ro

You really just aren't looking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UofT/comments/4rr3ga/blm_toronto_wh...

That's Facebook but you can find blatantly racist, sexist, etc stuff from people on the left of the political spectrum on every major social network these days.

This is clearly a satirical response to the type of logic used by white supremacists to bolster a concept of genetic superiority over other ethnicities. Imagine just for a moment being black and hearing the inverse of this statement every day online

Have you not heard of the Nation of Islam?

You know that the 7/7 Dallas shooter (Micah Johnson) was inspired by black supremacist hate speech, right?

The nation of Islam is a horribly depressing group also standing on a platform kf misogyny and anti semitism. They are an extremist group that luckily has been waning in recent years. Also, unlike white people, they have never held a monopoly on power, instated discriminatory laws, stopped white people from securing proper jobs or housing, or became police offers that then killed white people with impunity.

Micah Johnson's online history shows he followed dozens of sites that focused on injustices committed on the black community. He visited and liked several websites dedicated to Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panthers, along with the Nation of Islam and the Black Riders Liberation Party, two groups the Southern Poverty Law Center considers hate groups.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/10/us/micah-johnson-dallas-radica...

You are still correct, yes. Im not disputing that these hate groups exist. But being racist against white people doesn't really mean much when they still hold all of the institutional power. It's perfectly valid to feel threatened or upset by these groups that threaten you, but they are a small minority in a country that now has an open white supremacist appointed to a cabinet position in the white house and large, active groups of klans and neonazis. It's on a vastly different scale, and unlike white people, people of color are in danger every day for being who they are. Being attacked or discriminated against for your whutenrss in any meaningful way is very unlikely compared to the experiences a person of color faces in this country. (I am assuming you are in us, but let me know if I'm wrong)

"...being racist against white people doesn't really mean much..."

In case you didn't know: these words incite hate towards a group of people based on their skin color. In other words, you are advocating racism. You've just exposed yourself as a racist.

I believe the parent is a proponent of the theory of racial relations that defines racism as "prejudice + power". I don't think I'm eloquent enough to sum up the idea, so here's a link to a paper that analyzes this proposed meaning among others: http://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/...

Why do the people trying to rearrange the meaning of the term "racism" always seem to also be racist in terms of the traditional meaning, which is discriminating against others based on race.

It's not a useful redefinition. Certainly, degree of power affects the impact of racism, but there is always some power involved in any prejudice, and even prejudice by members of a generally disadvantaged group against members of a generally advantaged group will end up manifesting in contexts where the individuals involved are in different power relationships than the group power dynamics in the broader society would suggest.

In fact, the redefinition is often invoked to justify as not-racist acts that are racist even in terms of the redefinition when the context of the action is considered, because it's usually coupled with a misdirection about power relations in a different, usually broader, context than is relevant to the action in question.

Avoiding the redefinition entirely and talking about racial bigotry and the power relations which magnify it's impacts as distinct and interacting things, rather than trying to set an arbitrary standard of what degree of the latter is necessary for the former to deserve to be called racism is far more productive, if not as convenient for providing certain racists cover.

    racism = prejudice + power

then may still be possible for a local maxima of power to exist.

When a bunch of black power advocates beat a white person because nobody is around to stop them, they clearly show that they are the local maxima of power. Even if "systemic oppression" occurs as a global maxima, there is certainly a lot of variability of who's in power in the rest of the graph.

> They are an extremist group that luckily has been waning in recent years.

That's plainly wrong.

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/hate_group_bre...

NoI and black separatist groups like it have only been growing in number since 2005.

> unlike white people, they have never held a monopoly on power

A monopoly means exclusive control, by one group. Excuse me, do we not have an African-American president? And many other people of color in power everywhere else? Your claim reads as if every white person oppresses every black person, all the time. And that's just offensive.

A black president does not absolve the racist elements of America. Full stop. Do you think having a black president suddenly stops racist governors, judges, or prosecutors from existing?

Do you think having black governors, judges, or prosecutors will suddenly stop racism? I'll remind you that black people can be racist too (indeed, the New Black Panther Party is incredibly antisemitic)

I'll repeat a few sentences from my above comment:

> And many other people of color in power everywhere else? Your claim reads as if every white person oppresses every black person, all the time. And that's just offensive.

I didn't just say "yeah we have a black president, job's done", and I acknowledge that we face racial issues today in America. That being said, there is not a wholesale monopoly on power where all black people are always oppressed by all white people.

As of 2015, (just as a random and tiny example, off the top of my head) our Congress has been as diverse as it has ever been: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/12/114th-congre....

And what else do you suggest we do to combat racism? I am honestly open to discussion.

And I just don't think you have read up or understand the vastness of privilige and power structures in the country that perpetuate racism every day. Just because black people can be racist doesn't mean they have the institutional power to oppress others with it. It's often kept in these fringe extremist groups.

Combatting racism is a huge task. The first, most effective, and most difficult order has been in the front of progressive's agendas for a while now is actually in line with what a lot of HN is into. Deeply reforming the prison system. Walking back on the drug war. other items include more minority voices in the national conversation. White people dominate media, and this sends a message that the national narrative is white. It's very disheartening to turn on the tv everday and only see yourself as a token character on a show written completely without your cultural perspective. 5his is the unpopular one around here, start taking hate speech seriously. On all sides, regardless of race. Finally, many intellectuals argue that a firm financial base for all and ensuring that every citizen has social mobility will assuage most racial tension. Giving everybody equal chances at training, education, income, and housing. I.e. if a coal worker is offered state retraining to a new career when their plant shuts down and they are still able to put food on the table, they are less likely to lash out against a perceived other. This view is a little too reductionist and patronizing for my tastes, but it's a start.

You and I have very different definitions of racism. I'm using it as a synonym for "acts of racial discrimination" and not a system of oppression. I don't believe whether one racially discriminates or not is based on their race, is the argument I was making.

But considering your definition, do you believe this statement: "Our institutional and cultural processes are so arranged as to automatically benefit whites, just because they are white." If you do, how does your view contrast with the concept of affirmative action?

> reforming prisons, walking back the war on drugs

Agreed.

> White people dominate media, and this sends a message that the national narrative is white.

You've completely lost me.

> only see yourself as a token character on a show written completely without your cultural perspective

I am certain there are shows that exist as a counterpoint to that. It's difficult to do stuff like that, though, considering people would have to cater to a smaller market. Many shows today avoid focusing directly on traditional white or black life and instead pick some sort of fantasy or otherwise fast-and-loose setting in order to expand their total addressable market, so it's not unimaginable you'd see very little of your culture represented. But then again, mine is similarly unrepresented. That's why I watch streaming Polish TV sometimes.

> start taking hate speech seriously

That depends on your definition of "hate speech". Our definitions have differed before... so I'd agree with banning harassing, threatening, or libelous/slanderous speech. But as far as I know, those are all already banned, no? So I then assume that your definition of "hate speech" is "speech that is disrespectful to people based on the people's characteristics." And I'd disagree with banning that, because no one should go to jail for simply being disrespectful.

> giving everybody equal chances at training, education, income, and housing

If you can scratch together the funds to do so, can't you do any of those things? I come from a family of Polish emigrants (having been born there myself), and having immigrated to the US, we had very very little. But my mom started out cleaning rich people's houses day and night (with me in tow) and my dad applied his knowledge from Poland in a CNC shop. Now my mom is a dental hygienist, having studied at a community college, and now makes above the median pay for her field. My dad is far along in his career as a CNC machinist. We live well now, and I go to a university. I have lived the American dream and believe that "equal chances" are already given, for the most part.

And I agree that your view of the poor is extremely patronizing and reductionist. But perhaps state-funded training might be helpful in the coming years, considering Trump said he's bringing back manufacturing jobs, and most of those jobs now require technical expertise and programming/engineering/applied math knowledge.

If you actually remove "Nation of Islam" and replace it with "Islam" and look globally, your comment will make sense.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say for certain that his visiting of these sites is what inspired him to the shooting.

Is it inconceivable that the thousands of police shootings over the past couple years, increasingly public, took a toll on this person who eventually could have become consumed by hate, prior to seeking out groups of others who can relate? That the seeking out of hate groups could be the symptom, rather than the disease?

Personally, I don't find it surprising that out of the millions of black people that have been (and still are) oppressed by the police, that a few of them will be inspired to do something like this by their reality alone, without the need for outside influence.

No, they are posting anti-white bigotry and threats to kill the President.

Twitters "cultural background training" for its new mods surely contains the progressive stance that you can't be racist against white people.

How can you be racist against the ruling, privileged class? Sure, white people can have it bad too, but we still have all the privilige and automatic perks. It isn't bigotry as much as self defense against how many white people are still deeply entrenched in racism. As a whole, white people are still oppressors.

if you blame "white males" for everything and shoot down any counter-argument with "privilege" then yes, you're being racist, because you're stereotyping an entire race.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

> a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Nothing in there about privilege. You can't just redefine a word because you say thats what it should mean.

Every race can be racist.

The current axiom is that yes, anybody can have prejudiced views about anybody else. Sure, and it's perfectly fine and normal to feel hurt when you are getting the hit from it. But the way progressives talk about racism today is that racism is prejudice + power structures. You can be hated all day long for being a white person, but until people of color are pulling all the invisible power structures, it doesn't really go farther than that. This doesn't invalidate that people hurled terrible insults at you, but there are not any vast structures in place to systemically keep you down as a result of these prejudices.

Then pick a different word. That one already has a meaning and it is not what you just described.

What you just described is actual racism. It's determining what someone may or may not have experienced based on their race. No matter their economical situation, family situation, etc. That line of thinking needs to die off.

Even thinking of "whites" as "privileged" is racism. In reality, different people are different (shocker, I know). Obama's family (half-black) is much more privileged than many white straight men that are homeless. If instead of race you focused on circumstances that actually matter (bad family background, poverty, uneducated, jobless), you'd achieve much more.

Please read this: http://occupywallstreet.net/story/explaining-white-privilege...

First example from your article:

"I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented."

Someone being the same color as me doesn't mean they "represent" me in any way. The main criticism of the mass media over the last year and a half was how they breathlessly promoted Clinton. Yet white people turned up in droves to not vote for her. Many of those same white people voted for Obama twice. Yet he isn't white. The white privilege narrative from the perspective of your article is simple-minded and reductionist in the extreme.

Please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrxZRuL65wQ

Everyone is privileged in some ways. But just because you find one way in which a person is privileged, it doesn't mean that that fact trumps all other person's circumstances. Yes, in the US, a white homeless person might be better off that a black homeless person. But to speak of "white privilege" in general is to disregard or deny all other circumstances, except race.

Racial conflict in America is something that occurs and has modern repercussions. Race matters to a lot of people and should be recognized as having an axiom of privilege not unlike class (which you broght up), gender identity, and sexuality. If you don't believe that different skin colors are treated differently in America I beg you to speak with myself or another person of color of how they have been outsided or treated in uncomfortable and unpleasant ways for no other reason than their skin color. Alternatively, we can examine why black people are jailed for lesser offenses than whites, regardless of class.

You're twisting my words beyond reason. Just because being white results in additional privilege, that doesn't mean that white people are "privileged" (i.e. better off that non-whites) in general. Even if you reduce the multidimensional spectrum of different advantages a person might have compared to others into a single dimension (and call it "privilege"), by far the most important privilege is class (wealth), others just barely tip the scale in one or the other direction.

Do you have a source that class privilege is greater than all other privileges, including race? I don't believe the common racial bias papers such as applying to schools with a "black" name would change if you could also tick a box that read "I'm rich"?

Poor people can't go to university. Rich people don't need to.

> Race matters to a lot of people and should be recognized as having an axiom of privilege not unlike class (which you broght[sic] up), gender identity, and sexuality.

The narrative of "white privilege" leaves out the fact that no two people's experiences are ever alike. Social privilege is a combination of many things: socioeconomic status of their parents, educational attainment, criminal history, cultural experiences, etc. To try to encapsulate it into a trite meme like "white privilege" is a fallacy and that is part of what sent people to the polls for Trump.

I thought Trump was supported by economic and not name calling or racial issues. Did people vote for trump because they felt belittled by name calling? That's kind of petty. I was under the impresssion it was due to unheard serious economic strife in the rust belt.

> I thought Trump was supported by economic and not name calling or racial issues.

What I actually said (emphasis mine):

>> part of what sent people to the polls for Trump

The conversation from some quarters has been to group people into neat little boxes that they don't actually fit in. People voted Trump for many reasons. It is a fallacy to hypostatize them all into a singular perspective. When you see the world is more than this, you may begin to understand how Trump happened.

I do hope you mean the general "you" in this language, otherwise I will have to ask for clarification if you mean to imply that I am unable to view the world into more than hyposanitization of a singular perspective.

I'm merely confused why white privilege shouldn't be something that is recognized as existing on its own, alongside with class privilege, able-bodied privilege, and all other things that kind of interact and intersect. A black rich woman is in some ways better off than a white poor man, but being black still affects her, bring a woman still affects her. For example, maybe she cannot find a bra that fits her skin color, or she cannot find makeup to fit her skin color but society demands she wear makeup. Similarly, a white deaf man will not have to deal with makeup or bras, but he'll have to deal with the difficulties of being deaf, including the exclusion of the deaf community and the difficulty/on-going discussion in discerning deaf culture as an illness that needs to be cured or a community that should be fostered.

There is a comment on this article by me with a link to a video addressing "white privilege". I'm in class right now so I cannot go at length on its contents. If you want further enlightenment, watch the video.

It's extremely convenient when the major labels that you use to demonize your political opponents cannot apply to you, even when you do the exact same behavior, based on definitions that your side made up. Extremely convenient.

Who said they don't apply to everyone?

> Who said they don't apply to everyone?

>> How can you be racist against the ruling, privileged class?

The first quote is what I am replying to, the second is your comment to someone else from up thread. The fact that you are so conflicted regarding your own views suggests you need to think about them more carefully.

Just to give an example of how this would sound if it were reversed:

Liberals are inciting violence using paid operatives(probably including the recent riots), have shot Trump supporters, use powerful institutions(Twitter, universities, etc.) to shut down speech they disagree with, and their most recent presidential candidate has historically been opposed to gay marriage and took foreign money from a country that executes gays. Liberals are also very racist, using zoning laws to exclude minorities from their gated communities in California.

Rattling off a bunch of hate every time you think of the other side is how you get angry people.

These are all true, and I'm not a liberal so I'm cool with this. There are things I don't like, such as your complaint about Twitter overstepping it's bounds. Hell, I'll even do you one better. Liberals love pipelining more people to prison, they love unnecessary voter registration beuracracy, and they love supporting institutions that keep the poor poorer and the rich richer. Racism is a bipartisan issue it's just that the alt right has been more vocal about their racism online recently while the left tends to hide it away while still quietly supporting it. Check out a trend dubbed "white feminism," it talks all about this

"History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes"

Mark my words, racist is the new communist. They didn't even bother to change the colors around, I guess that will save on printing up new propaganda. "You aren't a dirty red are you?"

Hate exists on both sides. If you want to ban the hate from one side, why not ban the hate from all sides?

Both sides have a lot of racism (and other forms of hate in general), but they likely look and feel quite different to very partisan observers. Once you start banning users for whichever type of hate you happen to dislike more than the others, things can go downhill quite quickly.

Increasing the transparency around this subject would improve the situation. If twitter wants to ban people due to their speech, users should at least be informed why those users were banned, so that they can decide for themselves if they agree or not.

I have been hanging around here on HN after the election and there was one group that IMO tried to portrait everyone but themselves as dumb half-humans.

And it wasn't the republicans. It wasn't people from flyover country laughing about their victory.

Edit: 2 down, no comments. And I have a weird feelings it isn't the republicans who are out to get me. ;-)

I have enough points so feel free to illustrate my point.

They're not getting banned for opinions, they're getting banned for their actions on Twitter.

Eh? Can you please explain the difference... it's 140 characters of text FFS.

Someone can say they hate The Jews on Twitter. What they can't do is say they hate a particular Jewish person, and link to that person's account, and encourage their tens of thousands of followers to post anti Semitic hate to that person.

a source for [Parent] is the Milo Yiannopoulos and Leslie Jones fiasco.

> What they can't do is say they hate a particular Jewish person, and link to that person's account, and encourage their tens of thousands of followers to post anti Semitic hate to that person.

Like, let's say, kill DT because [insert victim group du jour here]ism?

Or I'll kill you because u so white, and kill all white people? #noracist

An opinion sits in your head. Twitter cannot observe an opinion on its own.

An opinion translated to action, though -- here in the form of Tweets -- is not merely an opinion.

Twitter has a thing called "The Twitter Rules" which includes a section on "Abusive Behavior". https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311

Here's some of Twitter's relevant rules:

Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. Some of the factors that we may consider when evaluating abusive behavior include:

- if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;

- if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;

- if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and

- if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com