Live data from Hacker News

You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

freddiedeboer.substack.com

571–580 of 863 posts

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Five minutes of digging and I found out that this news article is actually just reporting on a tweet[1] by #DrKarlynB[2] which I found out is an organizational psychologists who hates critical race theory. Of her retweets she primarily retweets republicans, and the comment section of her tweets often contains pro-trump rhetoric. For all I know the slides she presents from Robin DiAngelo’s lecture were taken out of co…

The coco-cola incident made national news, I imagine there are better articles out there; I simply grabbed the first one on google - I should have sought out a better one to link to. However, from the article, you can see several of the slides that are presented. I find it hard to believe that there's some other context than race being referred to in these slides. Do you have reason to believe that the "white" in the…

One (of many) plausible scenarios:

Robin DiAngelo is talking about empathy. She asks people to put them self in the sues of a minority, knowing how boring it is, she puts the words “Try to be less white” on the slide in an attempt to humor.

Another possibility:

She has been working up the argument that whiteness is a social construct, and in this context, “being white” is the same as “being socially constructed to perceive your self as superior”. In that context asking people “to be less white” is not a judgement on the color of the skin.

It may be something entirely different though, point is it is not hard to come up with a context where these slides are not criticizing the color of people’s skin.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they ha…

> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules. If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

that all depends on who makes the rules and how they distinguish "bad and not tolerated" from "slightly bad but tolerated".

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is neutrality in this scenario? BLM is about protesting anti-black racial injustice in the criminal justice system. Is neutral ground that there is no injustice? That it doesn't matter? Yes, there was violence at a small fraction of protests, and it's fair to have pushback on that. That seems a separate issue than rejecting BLM on the face of it with an expression like ALM.

Neutral ground is that injustice is wrong, no matter who it happens to . It's wrong when it happens to blacks, it's wrong when it happens to Asians, it's wrong when it happens to Hispanics, and it's wrong when it happens to whites. That's neutral. From there, you look around and you see that blacks and Hispanics seem to have injustice happening to them in ways that don't often happen to whites. (Not sure about Asians…

I see your example of a neutral stance, and it’s true, and racially neutral. It’s also not relevant to the conversation around BLM, which focuses on anti-black injustice. I take issue with that ALM is used to subvert BLM; why else would the phrase exist and popularize at this time and context? Therefore, ALM is not an assertion of the neutral stance you propose, but instead a rejection of the reality or importance of race-specific injustice.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unironically, which one is that then? Because as far as I can tell, both are armed and battering each other.

> right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...

[deleted]

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unironically, which one is that then? Because as far as I can tell, both are armed and battering each other.

> right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#576
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The racists on the right know they're racists. They admit it. Not necessarily. Even Richard Spencer, proud Hitler-saluting Neo-Nazi, essentially the founder of the "alt-right", denies being racist. People know that racism is bad, but a lot of racists will deny being racist while very explicitly saying they don't want to live next to a black person or will call the police just because they saw a black man walking th…

That's not really true. He's definitely claimed to be some flavor of racist on that documentary on Netflix.

I don't remember where I saw it, and I'm struggling to find it now, but there was some interview where he explicitly claims to not be racist and claims to not hate black people, and even claims to not be a white supremacist, but that he merely believes that the races shouldn't mix and that America should be a white ethno-state.

He knows that racism is not socially acceptable, so he makes bad faith claims of not being racist while expressing obviously racist views. And the problem is, it works. It doesn't take much searching to find racists that don't think they're racist. The fact that people don't think Donald Trump is racist, despite a long list of racist remarks and actions [0], is proof of that.

And of course, later, Milo Yiannopoulos later released an audio recording of an explicitly racist rant. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

[1] https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/4/20947833/richard-sp...

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people explicitly saying that no, it's not OK to be white - that if you're white you are automatically racist, and automatically guilty for what happened in the past. White Fragility is an example. "It's OK to be white" isn't just a dogwhistle. (It may be that, but it isn't just that.) It's an explicit rejection of that kind of "all whites are guilty racists" baloney.

That's what makes it such an effective troll. If it was simply obviously bad from all conceivable contexts it wouldn't work. But, you are still being trolled. And, you are playing right into their game. They are getting you to sing their slogan and laughing at you the whole time. Yes, there are some people out there in social media who have taken to hating white people for being white. That's not OK. Call it out. But…

I thought we were talking about the people who have taken to hating white people for being white?

But you said they were trolls? And we should call it out? Isn't that what the poster above you was doing?

Talking in circles, in circles...

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What!? I say that? Are you pointing to the fact that I refer to sibling comments in how the equivalence is wrong? And that is somehow me implying that “discrimination against white people somehow better”? Please, get over your self.

> the equivalence is wrong That is saying that racism against whites is somehow different from other racism, with the implication that it is not as bad.

The equivalence is wrong because generally people on the far left are not racists towards any race.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Siege mentality is real. I'm not sure I see the connection in this case to the racial issues. "All Lives Matter" is clearly a reaction to "Black Lives Matter."

Respectfully, it seems clear because you're living under a siege mentality. "All Lives Matter" is a short phrase composed of common English words - some people do use it as a slogan to oppose the BLM movement, but others use it as a compact expression of the idea that every human's life has value. When Jennifer Lopez tweeted "#AllLivesMatter #LoveMakeTheWorldGoRound" over a picture of herself holding hands with Lin-M…

You don’t believe that recent popular usage of ALM is related to BLM?

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unironically, which one is that then? Because as far as I can tell, both are armed and battering each other.

> right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_David_Dorn
Post reply on HN