Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

Post by bee_rider » Sat, Apr 02, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

_-david-_ wrote: post #374

bee_rider wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are just pranks made by 4chan and their ilk. The circle of life on this sort of thing, I think, goes something like: Come up with a contrived reason milk could be considered racist, film a video or whatever about chugging milk while making a racist screed, get criticized for being a weirdo, and then some reactionary clickbait site can have the headline "Internet user called 'racist' for drinking milk." It is du…

Didn't 4chan also create the OK hand sign racist as well? Now there are people who genuinely believe the OK sign is racist.

Post by evocatus » Sat, Apr 02, 2022, 9:11 PM UTC

endominus wrote: post #418

evocatus wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't be racist if you have no power [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

This is just blatantly untrue. Some piss-poor unemployed KKK member yelling racial slurs at the TV during the 2012 election is still a racist, despite having infinitesmal power - especially institutional power! - compared to the person he is being racist towards. I doubt there's a single person who would doubt that. Would you?

    White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and in-
    sulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protec-
    tion builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering
    the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility.
    White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress be-
    comes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include
    the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such
    as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behav-
    iors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.

Post by endominus » Sat, Apr 02, 2022, 10:36 PM UTC

evocatus wrote: post #423

endominus wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just blatantly untrue. Some piss-poor unemployed KKK member yelling racial slurs at the TV during the 2012 election is still a racist, despite having infinitesmal power - especially institutional power! - compared to the person he is being racist towards. I doubt there's a single person who would doubt that. Would you?

Sounds like something a white would say. Perhaps you suffer from the "white fragility" cited by the wikipedia article [1]? [1] https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116 White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and in- sulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protec- tion builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time…

Post by kube-system » Sat, Apr 02, 2022, 11:54 PM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #376

kube-system wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marriage equality is generally implied (if not expressly stated) that it is about humans. Functionally speaking, there's no evidence to show that people who like people of the same sex might move on to toasters. The movement was always about people. The lack of specificity was because the context was obvious, not because it was nebulous.

The next point along the slippery slope would more likely be forcing states to accept polygamous marriages of more than 2 people. Another point on the slope might be allowing siblings to marry (especially if they are the same sex so there is no danger of inbreeding). Perhaps the reason why marrying toasters is unlikely to be anywhere on the slope is that, from the government's perspective, a marriage is a legal contr…

Post by vba616 » Sun, Apr 03, 2022, 3:48 AM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #428

kube-system wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not down the slope though, because nothing about being LGBT is "closer" to polygamy than existing marriage. They're not related in practice, function, or advocacy. A slippery slope exists when there is a functional reason why one would cause the other. It's a fallacy when they're simply related by irrelevant association (in this case, their prohibition). Legalizing one thing for a good reason does not cause peop…

> nothing about being LGBT is "closer" to polygamy than existing marriage. Well, except that a polygamous marriage necessarily requires that 2 people of the same sex are married to each other. If the law still said that a man can only marry a woman, and a woman can only marry a man, then polygamy would be impossible without defining the number of people in a marriage. (I suppose that technically marriage could be def…