The very liberal users aren't inciting hate speech, racist, misogynistic, and often times anti semitic attacks on other users en masse
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.
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.
You know that the 7/7 Dallas shooter (Micah Johnson) was inspired by black supremacist hate speech, right?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/10/us/micah-johnson-dallas-radica...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Twitters "cultural background training" for its new mods surely contains the progressive stance that you can't be racist against white people.
> 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.
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.
"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
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.
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'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.
>> 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.
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.
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?"
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.