Bug 647959 – Add Honest Achmed's root certificate
bugzilla.mozilla.org
bugzilla.mozilla.org
Whilst PKI provides solutions for this [1], they are not really practical in SSL.
In any case, that's not how it works in the real world.
In the real world, Achmed's uncles do trust Achmed, and might well trust him to validate the identity of a business partner.
In essence, that's the logic behind PGP.
What if SSL could be enhanced to allow PGP verification of counterparties? That way anyone could become the equivalent of a root CA, but your value would only be as good as your reputation / integrity.
Trusted entities, like the governments, could vouch for the keys of their agencies - or other governments.
Friends and Family could vouch for each others keys, businesses for their partners... etc etc.
Unlike PKI, PGP would enable counterparties to establish their identiy by having many validating partners (paid and unpaid), as opposed to the one single root CA that is available.
As well as bringing the source of trust closer to the relying party (really, I live in Australia, who the hell is Comodo anyway?), the network of trust that would result could be articulated in the browser in many different ways.
eg: 25 of your friends and 600 businesses agree that this is the identity of Visa.
Twenty years ago this wouldn't have worked. But today, we could use the root CA SSL system to bootstrap a network of trust that becomes independent of the old hierarchy.
I hope all that makes sense.
[1] eg: certificate revocation, or even the user removing the root CA from her own key store.
It becomes a self organising system. Highly trusted individuals / companies might even start selling subscriptions to their trust recommendations.
The big difference is that you gain the right to freedom of choice, as opposed to being beholden to a root CA appointed by other people.
The RFC [1] isn't exactly light reading, but this overview [2] is helpful.
The first time they encounter a site, the software could say "You haven't visited this site before. The following people believe that it is valid: John Doe, Jane Fox, Sam Smith. Do you want to continue to it?" (Where John, Jane, and Sam are members of your social network or at least your addressbook.)
On subsequent visits it could say something (via a non-modal interaction) like "This is the same site you have visited 52 times before, most recently on Tuesday." You could have some additional validation when it looks like the user is in the process of submitting something sensitive, like an SSN or a credit-card or bank account number.
There are a lot of possibilities in that vein and I've seen a lot of proposals to handle trust like this; you don't try to turn trust into some sort of absolute metric, because that's not how trust works in the real world.
The problem with PGP's network of trust is that it tries to boil down very complex relationships into an integer value. It's not just that the interfaces suck, the concept doesn't mesh with how most users think.
That's why maybe interesting to make the current approach symmetric:
Create a "CA assurance" layer, which would consist of a business entities who would sell the CA reputation validation services. The product of their business would be the list of CAs to trust (to be realtime-updated into the browser), they would collect a monthly fee, and would be insuring their users up to amount of $$$ in case one of the CAs on their list screws up (or not, depending on their SLA).
This would create a system with two components - on one side "CA reputation services", on the other hand - "CAs" - watching each other and being vigilant, in an effort to not lose their respective customers.
As soon as there is no monopolies, I think this approach could work - and relieve the browser vendors off making the tough decisions. They can still keep the list of root CAs, but just have them all "off" by default - so that the tech-savvy could make their own decisions, and publish their own lists, if they want to.
The "CA assurance" layer would actively fight the attempts to create the monopoly in the CA side (because then they'd be out of business) - and the CAs should not be able to affect the "CA assurance" segment since the entry barrier there would be quite low.
This approach still does not solve the "CA sunrise" problem - making it more difficult for a new CA to enter the market. (But maybe that is a good thing ?)
EDIT:
however, what this approach would address is the "local trust" issue: the said mom and pop shop can very well be trusted by the locally-significant CA assurance service, and not bother with the worldwide paperwork at all.
comedy gold right there...
and the list of included certificate with their audit "certificate: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/certs/included/ or the pending list: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/certs/pending/
As long as Mr. Honest Achmed is able to provide the appropriate audit certificate...
Give him a root cert, certainly errors won't happen more than once, and anyway it would be an honest slip-up.
Vinge is a computer scientist so the whole thing reads very well from a hacker's perspective. Also it won the Hugo & Locus awards in 2007. Am a big fan.
Wikipedia Entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End
Buy it: http://www.amazon.com/Rainbows-End-Vernor-Vinge/dp/081253636...
http://benlog.com/articles/2011/03/30/intelligently-designin...
Brilliant.
edit: There's a reason why it's Achmed, and not "Honest Matthew" or "Honest James".
My is that whether or not that's true is immaterial (and demonstrably false): the person created this fictional Honest Achmed -- a play on the stereotype of Arabs as untrustworthy in business dealings. He further went on to capitalize on a number of other stereotypes about Arabs as he presented his completed app.
If I wrote the same thing, but from the perspective of the fictional Jim I mentioned above, I don't think you would have any question about how racist it was. If I littered my post with a bunch of stereotypes about black Americans, don't you think that would be racist?
pnathan
jessedhillon
Mario
Luigi
Luke
Obiwan
Matt
Maria
Adolf
Billy the Vampire
and the point would be the same: CA process is borked to a hilarious point.
Please, please, please, oh dear people. Try to be a little bit less busy with the showdown maquillage of political correctness and overthinking. Putting variables X, Y, Z instead of any real references in this passage would have made it politically correct, but would sterilize the point away from it.
The stereotypes are useful in being able to predictably and easily recreate a vivid image that can give the backdrop for the core message.
This all has nothing to do with Arabs and everything to do with certificates.
Those particularly concerned are welcome recreate the same scenario using the image of the "new-russian" Ivan, a representative of the Russian Business Investment Network.
It makes it humor based on a racial stereotype.
---
This comment is easy to make when you aren't the one who is painted by the stereotypes. If you have to contend with people's pre-existing impressions of you -- one that is derived from these stereotypes -- you might not be dismissive of them.
Only someone who is not negatively affected by racial stereotypes would have the audacity to claim that complaints over them are merely for show, or political correctness.
Try belonging to a race that is targeted for violence by people who subscribe to these stereotypes. Or try being a decent human and consider that not everyone enjoys the a priori assumption of competence and individuality that you are afforded. Other people have to contend with the a priori assumption of being Achmed.
I am sorry.
The second question even respectable strangers tend to ask me after "where you are from ?" is "you must be really into drinking vodka ?", so the effect of stereotypes on me is mostly amusement. Another example is my wife who is an entrepreneur, and tells plenty of stories of how it is to be a blond woman - because the other party a-priori tends to think of usual "blonde" stereotypes. She also says this lasts for approximately 5 first minutes into the conversation and then she gains more respect than if she'd be a man in a suite, we speculated.
This "positive" view of stereotypes made me skewed, I think, so again - excuse me.
The people who seriously and blindly apply the stereotypes deserve more education than they were able to get. And those who feel the impact of those people taking the stereotypes seriously, do deserve to be in a more intelligent company too - it's unfortunate if they can not rectify that by changing the circle of acquaintances.
This could've easily been say "P-Diddy's Certificate and Ho Emporium", "certificats pour les snobs par francois" or "Jenkins Tea, Crumpets and Certs".
If it wasn't for stereotyping we'd loose a valuable source of comedy all over the world.
The assumption here is that perpetuating English and French stereotypes is morally equivalent to doing the same to black American. Apart from the fact that being known for drinking tea and eating biscuits is not nearly as embarrassing or damaging as being thought of as a pimp or ho, there's another problem here: every non-white person can hold this assumption about French and English people and the French and English will not have a problem getting around in society. The same is not true with your P-Diddy example, if believed by every non-black person.
> If it wasn't for stereotyping we'd loose a valuable source of comedy all over the world.
This is tantamount to saying "I have a right to perpetuate racially-based stereotypes, despite any claimed or real negative effect they have, because my ability to be funny depends on it."
But it is, that is the essence of a stereotype. If we take out the ethnicity factor and go into personalities your argument is the same as saying that it is embarrassing and damaging for Librarians to be labelled as boring and strict, for Managers to be labelled as conniving bastards and idiots, for Artists to be labelled as always high on drugs, for Nerds to be labelled as outcasts and acne ridden.
I consider your argument flawed in that stereotyping will always have an element of "there's some truth in your fiction and some fiction in your truth".
Fiction and Fact are two completely different things. It's a good thing many people appreciate fact.
> This is tantamount to saying "I have a right to perpetuate racially-based stereotypes, despite any claimed or real negative effect they have, because my ability to be funny depends on it."
Not just my ability but also that of the Film Industry, TV Productions, Stage Plays, Books, Music, which all continue to use any form of stereotyping for good or bad.
Your final statement is not even a rebuttal, it's merely an appeal to popularity.
Pretty much is man, it's just a label. That's all it is regardless of race, sex, color, religion, profession. For better or for worse. The root of the problem is people clinging to this fiction as fact. Time and understanding will fix that.
Given my origin and the situations that come with it at times this philosophy is what works out best for me and those who are willing to listen, if not it's high time to find a more receptive audience.
Foremost we're all individuals. And you know if you can't laugh at yourself... :)
> Perhaps you think that some people are made librarians from birth and have no choice about the matter.
I think that given certain genetic dispositions and the environment where a child grows up that is quite possible.
> Your final statement is not even a rebuttal, it's merely an appeal to popularity.
Turn on any source of information, labels on everyone everywhere. All neatly grouped and organised. Not pandering to popularity, Just stating fact.
If that’s the case, programming must be a hellish experience for you, since it mostly consists of labeling things well.
Hardly, Compilers make sense, Humans do not at times.
Let's apply your declaration of labels as meaningless is arbitrary to another situation:
Surely you don't spend your time convincing women that the difference between consensual and forcible sex is a void label? That the concept of consent is a futile attempt to manifest an utter and complete abstraction with no inherent value or meaning.
Would you insist that it doesn't matter if a woman -- clinging to the delusion that consent matters -- might be offended when you act on your conviction that consent is an illusion. Circumstances and context are irrelevant, after all!
No. You would be a sociopath or worse, for pretending that a meaningful abstract act -- consent -- is meaningless because you can't understand it or are inconvenienced by it.
Your entire argument is flawed by fallacious and/or bad reasoning. Based on what you've written, it's obvious that you've never been significantly hurt or impacted by racial discrimination. Consider, then, that you are greatly unqualified to be dictating to anyone the nature of such experiences. The authority with which you deign to define racism -- or dismiss it as non-existent -- is astounding.
Stereotyping would have happened way before the act of intercourse as 2 adults check off all the boxes on their mental wish lists of what they look for in a mate.
After that, it's up to proper courtship and etiquette. A completely different matter.
> Your entire argument is flawed by fallacious and/or bad reasoning. Based on what you've written, it's obvious that you've never been significantly hurt or impacted by racial discrimination.
A bold claim, you assume that just because I have not shared a "woe is me" chronology that I have not suffered the impact of trauma, severe depression, isolation and been thru my share of misfortune. I would almost dare to say that you are discriminating me in this instance because you cannot apply your regular check list for what you would deem a victim of racism.
But I can understand why. I will agree that perhaps my reasoning could be better and I may not deal with matters in the most conventional way but permit me to share what I have learned on my journey so far. Perhaps it will bring clarity.
I concluded that by removing layers and layers of abstraction, applying for the most part pure logic and what I've learned from human behaviour, that a lot of events become predictable and in its essence very understandable. Applying the method of abstraction to stereotyping, and your particular argument of racism, the end outcome is that one is left with the pure individual. Which to me matters most.
Humans are still very much like animals, we fear that which we don't know and understand. Until people understand empathy and ego, judging an individual on a feature set isn't going away anytime soon.
With that said, I give it a high probability that you will still say I am breaking all the rules.
Breaking all the rules made me a more functioning person.
You are another person on this thread who knows absolutely nothing about the impacts of racism. There is nothing bold about this claim. You don't show any level of understanding of the issue. The convenience with which you dismiss the application of your logic to another abstraction merely reveals how arbitrary you are. That you think it's such an enlightened view of the world demonstrates how disconnected your approach is.
Perhaps because your mind is your most developed tool, to the neglect of your emotional intelligence, you think that sophistry and intellectual gymnastics can reframe the situation in a way that denies the claims of other people and doesn't require you to seriously contend with the fact that you might have racist attitudes. There's nothing new about that and you are hardly unique for it.
Your "woe is me" comment is telling, and perhaps the only glimpse of the truth you've given here. You obviously don't think that people who claim to be impacted by racism are honest or competent, preferring instead to believe that they are allowing themselves to be victimized by attachment to illusory labels.
Congratulations Siddhartha; you could have saved a lot of typing by initially stating that you don't think racism is a real phenomenon, despite having no first hand experience with it, and you therefore insist on your right to make racially-derived stereotypes. And, in the interest of preserving your assumptions and avoid having them challenge, you should have initially declared your refusal to listen to people who claim to have been impacted by racism, preferring to dismiss their experiences as delusional.
Nobody would have responded to you if you had simply been this honest up front.
I find it worrying that you continue to use your measurement stick to say "you must be this hurt" to understand racism. I've outlined that we will continue to have stereotypes and that's it's not correct to use fiction as established fact. That a label can be true or false. That racism comes down to labelling an individual for perceived inadequacies. That racism will continue to be an ongoing issue given human nature. Been there and still there.
I don't doubt a persons integrity in any fashion, what I do find alarming is that those victimised start accepting a label as a fact and thereby continuing this negative themselves. Hence if a label no longer has the emotional attachment nor the emotional impact that is intended by those with ill will how can this not be a good thing ? Certainly it will not heal scars of the past but it will make for a better future.
If it was up to you it would for example mean I couldn't write childrens books such as "Fei-Long the fisherman from China", "Jenkins from England buys a top-hat", "Ela from India goes to the Temple". By that token I stand by my opinion that a stereotype is permissable in an entertainment context for good and bad. I can entertain the thought, and then discard it for what it is, a piece of fiction. Since not all Chinese are fishermen, not all English people wear top-hats, not all from India have the same belief and for good measure not all Black people are Gangsters. List goes on.
If I didn't want to listen or gain insight into another persons viewpoint we wouldn't be here in this instance. What disappoints me is that despite my best efforts to understand and communicate, it would appear I have failed in this.
I've stated how I've become who I am today and still you claim that I have no experience with the matter, well I'm sorry if your measurement stick doesn't work on me. By that token it would mean that only your personal experience is what defines racism and how only you can decree what it's definition is in it's experience, speech, thought and writing on the matter.
I've been honest the entire journey, yet you responded at each passage.
For this I love you and thank you friend, it's been informative.
You certainly don't need to be hurt to understand racism, but if you have been hurt you will understand it. And if you haven't, you won't understand it until you acknowledge that your initial perceptions of racism are not founded in experience.
Tim Wise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wise) is one such person, who is not discriminated or attacked because of his race -- nor does he belong to a race that is frequently attacked or stereotyped negatively, at least not in the US -- and nonetheless has an excellent understanding.
What you've put on display here is well-intentioned talk about transcending labels, or equating "wears top-hats" with "dishonest cheater" as if the difference between the two -- which any simpleton can grasp -- doesn't exist. Your demonstrated understanding of racism has nothing to do with the experiences of real people, which seem to mean less to you than intellectual abstractions.
You think that because it's possible to quit being a librarian, that negative stereotypes about librarians are okay?
To both I say yes, everything has balance.
Without this balance we wouldn't have contextual discussion.
1) race is a significant biological fact, whereas most sociologists agree that it is entirely a political fact
2) racism only exists where people specifically intend to be racist, i.e. that it is entirely a manifestation of individual belief, and
3) that racism is a natural and unavoidable result of the human condition.
You can see the manifestations of this theory on this thread, especially points 2 and 3. Consider the responses here to the effect that because there was a greater point about certificate authorities being made (and thus no specific racist intent exists) no racism is present.
And also consider the responses to the effect that stereotypes are a necessary part of humor, without which apparently no effective communication would be possible. It's practically a claim to the right to stereotype other races. In another response, a commenter points out that there also exist stereotypes of English and French people, as though all stereotypes are morally equivalent.
Anyone who says "Achmed" is probably saying something racist, because "Achmed" isn’t even an Arabic name. "Ahmad" is.
I've noticed that getting offended about stereotypes and word choice is a very American thing to do – and also shared with other cosmopolitan English-speaking areas. For most groups X, "X-Americans" are more likely to take offense than plain X. So you may see foreigners speaking about stereotypes – those applying to their own groups or others, in jest or debate – with a level of frankness that triggers the 'racist! must! object!' reaction in acculturated Americans/anglophones. Of course, YMMV.
Well then, I can't possibly see how that's different from a proportionally small group of Arabs in English-speaking countries being generalized about, made fun of, or being reduced to caricatures by the much larger non-Arab population -- who then accept and act upon those stereotypes when they interact with Arabs (or people resembling).
Sir, have you documented your observations? The world of sociology will surely be shaken by this!
I've noticed this most strongly where X is drawn from {Spanish-speaking countries, anywhere in Asia, Russia}. I don't have enough data points to be sure how still-native Arabs treat stereotypes and non-politically-correct word choices. (I have a hunch they are relatively thick-skinned, plain-speaking, and don't have the same stereotyping/language taboos as Americans/anglophones have, but I could be wrong.)
Yes, having experienced discrimination as a minority immigrant community in the English-speaking world would be one plausible explanation for greater sensitivity among X-Americans than native-X. As would now being in a culture that assigns greater deference to those expressing 'group offense'. It's overdetermined!
It would make an interesting sociological study!
There are lots of reasons why someone might call himself or herself a hyphenated American. I called myself an Arab-American to establish bona fides for my confident statement that Achmed is not a name, nothing more. You don’t actually know anything about me because I said I’m an Arab-American. That might mean I’m culturally American, culturally Arab, some mix of varying degrees of the two, or even fully both. I may simultaneously consider myself fully Arab and better at being American than most 10th-generation Americans. Who are you to say different?
What is the point, anyway? So what if my opinion of this speech is determined by where I grew up? The tasteless racist caricature I’m criticizing is what it is and would be that whether I even existed or not.
If that wasn't clear from the generic wording of my first comment, it should have been clear from the second, where I clarified this is an observation over many nationalities (unrelated to you and your declared identity), and that one contributor to this "offense gradient" could be that it is a reasonable reaction to discrimination faced as a minority.
The point is that I find it interesting how much the tendency to take offense over racial/national stereotypes varies by culture/language, and that the American/anglophone culture seems most likely to take (or worry about giving) offense. This is an observation independent of any judgement about the right level of offense.
(And while it would be interesting to further understand these cultural differences, my quip about a study was a mock-serious response to the parent's sarcasm.)
Your post pleasantly caused me to discover that a suitably strong internet meme can completely wipe out racial stereotype associations.
In context, together with this sentence, looks definitely way more stupid.
"Honest Achmed's Used Cars and Certificates"
I think the joke about "honest" comes from the used car salesman bit and the "Achmed" comes from the Iran hack.
It is perhaps unfortunate that they came together in a way that sounds like a stereotype about dishonest Arabs (I hadn't heard of this stereotype before reading the thread).
At last here, more than half of car sales man are of arab origin.
Hence that made me laugh and I do not feel like I'm a racist.
In Turkish there is a very fitting proverb which loosely translates to "Whoever has a scar will take offense" meaning if you say something, and someone overreacts to it, it's not your fault and probably just because they have some hidden problem or feeling of inadequacy (the "scar").
If everyone can take themselves a little less seriously, we'd all be a little less pissed. Thank you for listening. </rant>
Edit: Okay, here comes Pandora's Box again. The way I see it, what is so offensive about racist speech (or any generalization for that matter) is the presumption that all members of that group are equally <insert derogatory adjective here>. Once you realize how absurd, dumb and wrong that is, I don't see how anyone could possibly take racism seriously and be offended by it. At most, you should conclude that the person who is making the remarks is probably not intelligent, and not worth your time.
Heck, perhaps I have some sort of emotional deficiency or something, but I don't even see how people can get so angry about words. For example, I have seen people taunting each other with stuff like "your mother was amazing in bed last night", and the other person getting gradually angrier up to the point that they start physically fighting. I think it's a very curious thing about the human psyche that I can make up something absurd, blabber about it, and get another human to the point of total lack of self control. I think it's all just a dumb made up social convention that we're better off without.
Everyone deserves a presumption of respect and dignity. I don’t make bigoted caricatures at the expense of others just to make some point about trust and certificates, and I don’t expect other people to enjoy and defend it when someone is ignorant enough to resort to racist caricature.
It’s the whole Ruby sexism debate all over again, I guess.
link for Ruby sexism debate reference: http://www.ultrasaurus.com/sarahblog/2009/04/gender-and-sex-...
I must've missed that one. Sounds like a barrel of laughs.
"Whoever has the fly gets flied."
"Since I know that you are all racist/sexist/homophobes and think that Straight White American Males are superior to all other beings, I am going to use one as the person in this narrative who commits a negative act in order to avoid further reinforcing your beliefs!"
Since you are from the middle east and do not believe that Straight White American Males are superior to all other beings, the political correctness seems ridiculous, as it does to most people from non white-majority countries. In fact, it seems that the white people who have the strongest underlying beliefs that they are superior to other races and that they should constantly remind themselves to feel guilty about it are the strongest advocates of political correctness.
The dumb thing is, if you point out how racist this is you're the evil racist one.
(* let's forget the word "offensive" because this is not the same territory as yo' momma jokes and curse words - racism affects the real world)
Racism is a dangerous toy to play with. Just because you’re a good person who didn’t become a racist after reading that doesn’t mean it’s a mistake to cry foul against racist caricature. The caricature is still wrong. It communicated nothing but the writer’s lazy prejudice.
The (general, de-stupidified) point being made by the caricaturist can be correct, and the racist caricature foul and despicable...all at the same time!
Throwing around false accusations of racism is also wrong. Of course, not all accusations are false, but most are these days.
And then there's the whole "cry wolf" thing.
Take a look at my hypothetical scenario.
If I'm a Foo and Foo's have always owned, sold and even killed Baz's on a whim. And their whole history, culture and law reinforces and even encourages them to do so.
And now someone tells me that my progenitors were assholes to do so. Do I have right to be legitimately offended? And if so - does this make racism ok?
There is also a certain point where combating racism transforms into fighting with ghosts.
From the original story - the Achmed and his extended family kinda fit - since people from general area of mediterran and middle east tend to pay more attention to their relatives - and so this story could also work with Giuseppe from Sicily or Zorbas the Greek, Jovo from Serbia or someone else. It's main point is hardly that muslims are scoundrels who prey on every opportunity to shaft their fellow human. You could argue that it is racist by proxy (He picked an Arab name - so it has to be racist). To me it is the same case of native American woman trying to ban Brave new World since some people in the book whose race isn't even mentioned, live in low tech reservations.
The way I see it it is a caricature. A mild one at that.
And yet, we have people crying racism where none exists. Heck, we have people worrying about being exposed to racism in fictional worlds.
See Is HBO's Game of Thrones racist? http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2011/04/20...
"They are, in short, barbarians of the most stereotypical, un-PC sort. As I watched, I kept thinking, 'Are they still allowed to do that?'"
and
"... if it was 'possible to be racist toward a race that does not actually exist.'"
Because I look at the "offense".
> Who are you to determine whether someone is legitimately offended?
In this case, the "offended" party was offended on behalf of someone else. When a supposed "victim" of this "racism" spoke up, he was belittled because he didn't play along.
You want to be offended, fine, but don't claim to be doing so on someone else's behalf.
You seem offended that I think that most "anti-racism" is a sham. I was being nice. We could get into how most anti-racists are quite tolerant of horrific acts so long as they're performed by the correct people.
That pretty much proves that most "anti-racism" is not humanitarian but just crude political posturing.
Have a nice day.
Most people would call that ignorance.
Not at all. I said that I looked at incidents of supposed racism such as the above. My observations drove my opinion of "anti-racists".
Is there racism - yes. My point is that the anti-racists aren't pointing it out, that they're engaged in political posturing.
BTW - I'm familiar with many of the so-called "direct" measurements. The vast majority don't measure racism so they're useful only to identify folks who either can't do science or don't bother in this case. Which category do you find virtuous? (You do know that "he meant well" is an insult, right?)
All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias. You're presenting an argument based on biased assimilation of evidence -- accepting only the evidence which supports your positive opinion of yourself and your prior understanding of racism.
You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.
Good for you. I took notes while doing my observation - are you going to come over to read them? (I'm not typing them in for you.)
> All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias.
Actually, you are. You're assuming things about my observations without any supporting evidence.
> You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.
Pot, kettle, black.
Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?
For someone to say "my observations drove my opinions of anti-racists" is ill-conceived on so many levels. To use only your own observations as a meaningful source of knowledge about an entire group of people is the quintessential definition of prejudice. What are your controls? How are you countering for known psychological biases when making these determinations? That you expect other people to accept these conclusions simply because you claim to have had certain observations (not even presenting what those observations are), without qualification, is astounding.
On the other hand, people are presenting claims of taking offense at certain statements. They are only making claims about their own internal state. It's you who claims to have some special knowledge about the interior emotional states of other people. What you're presenting, without any kind of evidence, is essentially "I know when people are and aren't offended, and therefore I have a right to say XYZ because I know who is genuinely hurt."
I would guess, with a standard like this, that nobody can be genuinely, unjustly hurt by anything you say. They're all crying wolf. Or, perhaps most stupidly, people who claim to be hurt by Achmed stereotypes are faking, unless you personally observe them holding signs at next weekend's rally against some cause that you think is "actual" racism.
> Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?
Because I have been a victim of racism.
Pot, kettle, black. Or, if you prefer, double standards much?
> On the other hand, people are presenting claims of taking offense at certain statements.
You're not paying attention. They claimed to be offended because the statements were supposedly offensive to other people.
While they're entitled to be offended by anything they please, surely it's relevant whether said other people are actually offended by said statements.
>> Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?
> Because I have been a victim of racism.
How, exactly, has someone saying "that's offensive to others" helped you? If that whinge hasn't helped you, why is defending such people important to you?
Note the specificity. I'm not asking about other people who helped you.
> Good for you. I took notes while doing my observation - are you going to come over to read them?
Yeah, it is good for me. I understand the basic principle of science, as well as how to use a dictionary. I wouldn't go around waving a notebook full of my scribblings and conclude from this that the vast majority of claims about racism are overblown.
I'm neither ignorant nor arrogant enough to assume that my own observations are sufficiently broad or relevant, that they support generalized statements about people I've never met.
Oh really? I claim to have observations. That's pretty much how scientific theories are tested.
You claim that my obervations are flawed, but have yet to provide any supporting evidence for your claim.
Yes, it's possible that the folks that I run into are non-representative. It's also possible that my sampling wasn't good. However, you don't get to claim such things without actual evidence.
I remember watching the Flyboys - and contemplating if the same movie could be made about any other WW1 squadron where there were no black pilots.
I think it may make use of stereotypes that arabs are always willing to make a buck, don't care all that much whether there are hoops to jump through, and frequently involve their family in small business dealings. Dear lord, he's trying to personalize his straw men and did not choose to use American rednecks! String him up!
But it's also "ironic racism". Whilst this is problematic from a minority rights campaigner point of view, when in a group of friends who understand that it's "ironic racism" it serves to bind the group and to stand up against racism, in it's own ironic little way.
TL;DR: Just because you laughed doesn't make you a bad person :P