Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 530 posts

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#341

Post by erichocean »

kofejnik wrote: post #308
xaa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. The first thing I thought upon reading this was: would Twitter ban an account with the following description: "dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of African descent in the United States, and around the world." Undoubtedly not. The only difference, of course, is s/African/European/g. I'm a liberal, but I feel that if this election has taught us anything, it should be that suppression of "…

Just stumbled upon exactly this: "Equality Twitter demonstrates the SJW commitment to one of the five fundamental pillars of their social justice ideology. I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you! 1:57 AM 9 Nov 2016 Twitter, in response to a complaint about the above tweet: Thank you for reporting this issue to us. Our goal is to create a safe environment for everyone…

That disconnect is because the definition of racism has changed over the last 8 years in practice, and since the development of privilege theory and systemic racism in academia ~30 years ago.[0]

Racism used to be something you did if you were white; now it's just "who you are".

Since the civil right movement 50 years ago, white Americans have agreed to a racial compact:

- whites are banned from doing anything overtly racist

- whites are banned from engaging in identity politics (that is, favoring white/Western culture and people over others)

- whites will accept a double-standard that allows other groups to engage in both of these behaviors (and not deem them "racist")

In exchange, blacks and others wouldn't call whites racist unless that compact was explicitly broken. When they did, whites agreed to make the charge stick—you'd lose your job, career, etc. A charge of "racism" was very, very difficult to undo.

IMO, this was all a good thing and worked pretty well.

Basically, that's all changed now—at least on the right, now that all whites are "racist" by definition. The alt-right in particular has agreed not to make charges of racism a deal killer, and in particular, is no longer enforcing that compact. Under the old compact, the alt-right is definitely racist.

Apparently, though, so is half the country now because by the old definition, absolutely, Trump is a racist with his comment about the judge's Mexican heritage, and whites should have made the charge "stick". As Speaker Paul Ryan said "textbook racism". Trump's comment should have—and would have—been disqualifying under the old compact.

IMO some whites have dropped the racial compact because of the development of privilege theory and systemic racism and the frankly "original sin"-like notion that all whites are racist. Who wants that?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality)

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#342

Post by eutropia »

throwanem wrote: post #271
StavrosK wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I replied to your linked comment, you're conflating the arguments. If you believe that marriage should be allowed if and only if a couple bears/adopts a child, then make parenthood a prerequsite for marriage, there's no point in instituting complex heuristics to try to guess whether a couple wants kids or not beforehand.

If that were the argument I was making, you'd have a point. But it's not, although I can see how it would be misgathered as such. The essential difference I see isn't one of individual probability of parenthood, but of aggregate. Not all heterosexual couples rear children, true. But the likelihood of a randomly selected example rearing children is vastly higher than that for a randomly selected homosexual couple. Tha…

So instead of changing the tax code to be more specific (change the marriage tax benefits to child-rearing benefits) you're proposing we deny one of humanity's oldest and most important rituals (which means a lot to people intrinsically and symbolically, having just married my wife I know the feeling) to an entire group of people?

Yeah I feel like you're post-rationalizing a gut feeling, because you didn't think too hard about alternative solutions to the incentives/tax burden problem.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#343

Post by throwaway-hn123 »

tnone wrote: post #229
briandon wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a Breitbart reader but, after reading your comment, clicked through your link to see what was what. To claim that it has "basically no source" is not true. The Breitbart piece links to the German-language article on which it is based. I'll link it here again for you: http://kath.net/news/57457 The translator whose statements are featured in both the Brietbart piece and the original German article is allegedly…

Why is it people have so much trouble spelling Breitbart consistently, let alone right?

I guess Brietbart is conditioning us that to see that facts and correctness aren't very important.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#344

Post by throwanem »

scott_s wrote: post #317
throwanem wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the status quo not already include such a right, this would be a meaningful point to raise. As it does, and we are in fact discussing heterosexual vs. homosexual marriage, I don't really see what you're getting at with it.

You're saying you want to not allow X because of Y. When others point out that making Y the criteria allows disallows A, B and C, you argue those points away as not important; you still want to allow A, B and C. That's basically special pleading. My conclusion - and I assume the conclusion of the people arguing with you - is that Y can't be your real reason for disallowing X.

I'm arguing that this change to the status quo (ante), of heterosexual specificity in marriage, was not warranted. To support that argument, I'm explaining why that status quo has value which is reduced, rather than increased, by permitting marriage among homosexual couples as well.

As I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to point out, this isn't the same as arguing that permission to marry should be contingent upon procreative capacity. I can see how it might come across that way, from a starting perspective of weighing one vast change to the status quo vs. another such vast change, and I think I've failed adequately to clarify that I'm approaching the question instead from a perspective of weighing one vast change to the status quo vs. no such vast change. It's a different question.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#345

Post by nailer »

quonn wrote: post #337
nailer wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FGM is illegal, but there has been zero prosecutions, and estimated a few thousand girls mutilated since the laws were passed. One of the reasons FGM goes on in the UK is precisely that people don't want to be seen as judging a culture, even for something which is statistically more likely to happen in a culture: ie, the problem could be addressed with medical inspections in schools but this won't happen for fear of…

So I've checked and I agree that the numbers of mutilations that apparently happen in the UK is quite shocking. But I don't see how medical inspections in schools are the answer to be honest.

Medical inspection would provide clear indication to parents that the government is actually checking for FGM and prosecuting accordingly.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#346

Post by 67726e »

orcdork wrote: post #334
kofejnik wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stumbled upon exactly this: "Equality Twitter demonstrates the SJW commitment to one of the five fundamental pillars of their social justice ideology. I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you! 1:57 AM 9 Nov 2016 Twitter, in response to a complaint about the above tweet: Thank you for reporting this issue to us. Our goal is to create a safe environment for everyone…

Behind on of the two tweets, there's a few hundrend years of slavery & oppression, based on race. Context is important. Edit: Why do I even bother. That same blog has the following snippet in another post: The white nations of Europe are, collectively and historically speaking, humanity's golden geese. It is to the long-term benefit of all Mankind to avoid killing them, or even adulterating them, through immigration,…

You realize that white Americans were not the only folks to own slaves or oppress a people, right? Ask yourself this, would the results be different if I tweeted that from the Barbary coast were roles were largely reversed? How about from a SLAVic nation?

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#347

Post by pron »

erichocean wrote: post #341
kofejnik wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stumbled upon exactly this: "Equality Twitter demonstrates the SJW commitment to one of the five fundamental pillars of their social justice ideology. I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you! 1:57 AM 9 Nov 2016 Twitter, in response to a complaint about the above tweet: Thank you for reporting this issue to us. Our goal is to create a safe environment for everyone…

That disconnect is because the definition of racism has changed over the last 8 years in practice, and since the development of privilege theory and systemic racism in academia ~30 years ago.[0] Racism used to be something you did if you were white; now it's just "who you are". Since the civil right movement 50 years ago, white Americans have agreed to a racial compact: - whites are banned from doing anything overtly…

> That disconnect is because the definition of racism has changed over the last 8 years in practice, and since the development of "systemic racism" in theory.

What you call "systemic racism" has been known simply as "racism" in academic circles for the past few decades. Put succinctly, in research circles, racism is the property of a society that results in grossly unequal distribution of power among social groups viewed as different races; sexism is analogous. There is no assumption of ill intent or negative feelings, as those associated with xenophobia (or misogyny). There are very good reasons why this definition is much more useful to study this phenomenon.

The only thing that's changed in recent years is that the public at large has been exposed to those well accepted, well studied academic terms, while misinterpreting them to mean something else. Here's a recent article about this: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

It's not that all whites are racist by the academic definition, but that our society is racist, and so people in it who intentionally or not further the racist social dynamics can be said to carry out racism. Those people are both black and white, but as it's mostly whites who have more power in society, it is statistically correct to say that whites are more racist. It's just that "racist" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#348

Post by nailer »

quonn wrote: post #315
nailer wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is a Google search. That is a stellar observation. Using a search engine would have been less characters than asking me. For example, you could click: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Venezuela#2000... and read up this from Amnesty https://web.archive.org/web/20070922230635/http://web.amnest... : > The security forces have reportedly used excessive force, and detained large numbers of opposition…

For this thread I'm focusing on the claim that "Chavez tortured most of his opponents" and that he is supposedly comparable to Pot Pol (again a guy probably killed 1.6 human beings). These claims are ridiculous. Reports about occasional police violence (can even happen in the US) and single cases of torture (not from a reputable source) are not enough for such a broad claim.

Again: I'm simply grouping well known violent leaders, I am not comparing the scale of their violence. Pol Pot is also very different from Mao: again, that doesn't change the point about far-left leaders using violence existing or that most mainstream left folk wouldn't support this.

Are you saying that Chavez isn't a torturer or that the BBC isn't a reliable source? If so I think I'll end this conversation here.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#349

Post by throwanem »

StavrosK wrote: post #296
throwanem wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were the argument I was making, you'd have a point. But it's not, although I can see how it would be misgathered as such. The essential difference I see isn't one of individual probability of parenthood, but of aggregate. Not all heterosexual couples rear children, true. But the likelihood of a randomly selected example rearing children is vastly higher than that for a randomly selected homosexual couple. Tha…

> But the likelihood of a randomly selected example rearing children is vastly higher than that for a randomly selected homosexual couple. Okay, but why guess? We already register children and parents, so only issue marriage licenses when a couple has a child. That takes the guessing out of it. > but to do so in practice not only massively increases the bureaucracy and cost involved and brings in creepy edge cases, b…

What about postmenopausal women, a point raised elsewhere in this discussion? What about men and women who simply aren't fertile, for whatever reason? What about families in places where births aren't registered? Such places still exist. What about the death of a couple's only child? Is the marriage thereby annulled? What effect has all this on divorce? "Creepy edge cases." And I can't see how maintaining all this additional information on which married status is now contingent (unless it's not!) could be achieved without a massive increase of bureaucracy, with its concomitant cost.

As I've just mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think a lot of this has origin in my failure to make clear that I'm not arguing one vast change in the status quo versus another, but rather arguing one vast change in the status quo versus no such change. (Status quo ante at this point, of course, but let's not get hung up on that point, when we've spent the entire conversation to date assuming that this is still a question meriting discussion.) Making marriage contingent on procreative capacity would be a vast change to the status quo. Permitting homosexual couples to marry, exactly as heterosexual couples do, is also a vast change to the status quo. There are cases in which vast changes to the status quo are not merely justifiable but utterly necessary. This does not seem to me to be such a case.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#350

Post by olau »

StavrosK wrote: post #296
throwanem wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were the argument I was making, you'd have a point. But it's not, although I can see how it would be misgathered as such. The essential difference I see isn't one of individual probability of parenthood, but of aggregate. Not all heterosexual couples rear children, true. But the likelihood of a randomly selected example rearing children is vastly higher than that for a randomly selected homosexual couple. Tha…

> But the likelihood of a randomly selected example rearing children is vastly higher than that for a randomly selected homosexual couple. Okay, but why guess? We already register children and parents, so only issue marriage licenses when a couple has a child. That takes the guessing out of it. > but to do so in practice not only massively increases the bureaucracy and cost involved and brings in creepy edge cases, b…

Or issue marriage licenses, but take away any economic benefits and let the money follow the children instead.
Post reply on HN