Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The problem isn't controversy, but actual harm inflicted by dehumanizing others, as I explained in my other comment.

As to your other statement, you seem to be under the impression that laws or rules should exist as a formal system independent of actual empirical reality; in other words, they should be the laws of the world you think we should have (e.g., one where all ideologies are morally equivalent) rather than the world we actually do have. However, jurisprudence (the theory of laws and legal systems) usually sees most laws as normative regulations within an actual living society, as determined by empirical observation (although some laws may be "universal").

So, while no one wants white genocide, some do actually want black genocide, and, moreover, such genocides or similarly horrific crimes have actually occurred. Not only have they occurred in the distant past, but their effects still exist with us today. This is why, while white and black may be equivalent in a tabula rasa world, they are not equivalent in our actual world, and that is the world laws try to address. Therefore, there is no equivalence (as measured in our actual society), between "I want a white genocide" and "I want a black genocide".

Likewise, whether a specific reader is "in on the joke" or not doesn't matter, as we're not talking about personal, subjective offense. That black genocide and white genocide (when mentioned in statements) are completely inequivalent in our actual society is an objective, empirical fact. One of them dehumanizes and therefore causes actual harm, while the other does not, and so the laws address the one and not the other. As usual, this is not universal. If, for example, the legal system determines that statements made by a black preacher encourage and promote actual harm, as measured factually, they may well (depending on the legal system) sanction that preacher.

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 chapter.

>A co-founder of Black Lives Matter Toronto argued that white people are “recessive genetic defects” and purportedly mused about how the race could be “wiped out,” according to a post on what appears to be her Facebook page.

http://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-found...

And while hate crimes are still targeting black people far more according to FBI reports there is a rise of hate crimes against white people.

>In 2016, anti-white hate crimes rose 17%, to a reported 720 incidents, accounting for about 20% of all racially motivated hate crimes. >When you consider sheer numbers, anti-black crime is overwhelmingly the most commonly reported type of racially motivated crime. There were 1,739 such reported incidents -- roughly half of the 3,489 racially motivated incidents in 2016. >Accounting for the number of incidents and national population demographics, that means black people are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than white people.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/hate-crimes-muslim-whit...

I don't think there is some white genocide going on but I do think that using different measuring sticks when it comes to racism and hate is something that will only increase the divide. How can the "alt-right" NOT increase in membership when people tell young white guys that racism is wrong and then excuse others when they say racist shit; often by including some intersectionality theories how only white can be racist.

> 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.

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

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.

> 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.

I think it is a mistake to think rules like Twitters and similar are based on research and observation. They are based on the zeitgeist and are always changed to make as many users as happy as possible to make the company look good.

It would be enough with one guy saying a wants a white genocide and then killing a white person with the media picking up on the connection for twitter to enforce it heavily in the future. Even though nothing had really changed.

Is it not an empirical fact that hate crimes against white have risen sharply in the US and that blacks are using violence at a much larger degree against whites than the opposite? So you could probably infer that divisive speech from the black communities has the same effect as divisive speech from white communities? It will increase violence.

There are probably no studies but then again there is most likely no studies on the fact that white hate speech on twitter increase violence either, right?

> They are based on the zeitgeist and are always changed to make as many users as happy as possible to make the company look good.

What you call the zeitgeist, I call the current political climate gained after decades of struggle. Of course any political decision represents some value in a certain historical context. But would you rather Twitter's values represented some foreign climate?

> Is it not an empirical fact that hate crimes against white have risen sharply in the US and that blacks are using violence at a much larger degree against whites than the opposite?

It is an empirical fact that women's complaints against male harassers and the ensuing consequences are rising, but women are still, factually, by far the more marginalized group. Blacks are still by far the marginalized group, and I am not aware of violence by blacks being met with any leniency whatsoever. In fact, it seems to me that it receives a harsher response from law enforcement.

> there is most likely no studies on the fact that white hate speech on twitter increase violence either, right?

Violence is not the only thing we care about. There are certainly many studies about racist speech increasing the marginalization of minorities.

> The problem isn't controversy, but actual harm inflicted by dehumanizing others, as I explained in my other comment.

No, the problem is controversy. Spewing bullshit on Twitter and gloating at "idiots", isn't going to solve anything. The person that talked about "white genocide" is a professor I believe, so he is supposed to be a bit smarter than the ones who he likes to call "idiots" yet falls into the same trap as them, with his excessive, divisive rhetoric that gets him brownie point on Twitter, but that's about it.

What you don't get is that you're not going to build bridges and inform people on these various subjects if the first thing you do is antagonize them. He is absolutely part of the problem. He didn't need to say that, it's genuinely offensive and gratuitous. You can talk about context all you want, don't expect context on social media, there is none, his comment was heard by the entire planet, and in European countries that suffered greatly from genocidal attempts like Bosnia,Ukraine and others. Go tell an Bosnian 'your genocide is less important than what happened to black people'.

There is a huge difference between divisive rhetoric (employed by, say, Donald Trump), which shouldn't be banned, and dehumanizing, degrading rhetoric, which should be.

> it's genuinely offensive and gratuitous

Perhaps, but the goal isn't to ban speech that offends you personally, nor is it to solve problems, but to ban speech that harms your standing in society, as in my example.

> Go tell an Bosnian 'your genocide is less important than what happened to black people'.

No one says that. In the context of our society, talk of "white genocide" means (by default, although it should be judged on a case-by-case basis) co-opting white racial speech, and presenting it in a manner that demonstrates its harmfulness. This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society. If someone unfamiliar with the realities of our society takes a subjective offence, then that's their prerogative, but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.

> No one says that. In the context of our society, talk of "white genocide" means (by default, although it should be judged on a case-by-case basis) co-opting white racial speech, and presenting it in a manner that demonstrates its harmfulness. This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society. If someone unfamiliar with the realities of our society takes a subjective offence, then that's their prerogative, but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.

And in the context of this thread, we are effectively talking about Twitter, which is a global website and the fact that Tweets are always interpreted without any context to begin with, because that's the nature of Twitter, it is not a forum with structured threads. It's a place where people literally shout things, that's why it is called Twitter. It's a mess not designed to convey any context whatsoever.

My point is absolutely relevant.

> This is not about nuance, but about what such a statement normally means in our actual society

Well, there is absolutely no nuance in a Tweet verbatim "All I want for Christmas is a white genocide", it's perfectly acceptable to interpret it without whatever understanding you think as "objective", especially for a global audience.

> but the law must take into account the ordinary reality, rather than people who may be unfamiliar with it for some reason.

What law? we're talking about controversial speech on Twitter.

> Perhaps, but the goal isn't to ban speech that offends you personally, nor is it to solve problems, but to ban speech that harms your standing in society, as in my example.

And this kind of extreme, offensive and divise speech doesn't harm the US society? then by all means...

> it's perfectly acceptable to interpret it without whatever understanding you think as "objective"

Not really, which is precisely the meaning of objective. But in any event, it is acceptable for Twitter to decide that this crosses a line, as they want to be on the safe side.

> What law?

I'm talking about any system of law in general, and Twitter rules are a kind of laws.

> And this kind of extreme, offensive and divise speech doesn't harm the US society?

That's a fair point, but again, no matter what you do you need to draw the line somewhere. I think that drawing the line at dehumanizing speech but not at divisive speech is more-or-less in tow with current standards of organizations in Western democracies, which is a reasonable standard for Twitter as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com