51–60 of 106 posts
The problem I have with this is that it is needlessly stirring racial divides. 395 tweets out of ~120 million voters? Come on, do something positive for our country like mapping out the tweets of people still needing help from Sandy.
The divides exist, pointing that out doesn't make things worse and helps people be more aware of racism in society.
Well, on the flip side: I heard multiple "The problem with Republicans is old white guys" comments on NPR and CNN. From respected "pundits" no less. Talk about your sexist, racist , ageist comments! Substituting the words "Democratic" and "young" and "of color" sounds pretty silly. I'm all for free speech, though. There will always be a noise component in political discourse and we Americans have pretty good filters.
The problem: winning national elections.
Republicans: the subject.
Old white guys: the primary supporting demographic of the GOP.
This is not a racist statement because it makes no claims to racial superiority. It is simply observing demographic shifts in the population. So long as the GOP focuses almost exclusively on that demographic they will continue to lose elections.
This is statistics, not racism.
Racism is deplorable, but weren't the threats to kill Romney if he won the election equally deplorable? http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-supporters-on-twitter-... What is any less hateful about them? "I'll personally f*****g kill Romney if he try's some dumb nazi s**t f**k that (sic)," I looked through floatingsheep's other recent blogs and they didn't cover that one. The problem I have with the lack of objectiv…
Caring about threats to Romney's life doesn't even make sense in that context. Caring about threats to Obama's life doesn't even make sense in that context, unless they called him a monkey nigger while doing it.
Please stop dividing the world into things that are for or against your football team.
>Raising the alarm about one type of racism while turning a blind eye to other types of irrational hate smacks of hypocrisy.
Are you seriously trying to say that paying attention to anti-black discrimination as a subject separate from anti-Kurd discrimination is hypocritical? I bet you wouldn't be saying that if the OP was about the distribution of anti-Kurd tweets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the people who voted for Romney because he is white? What kind of question is that even? Suddenly when it's a black guy THAT'S the issue. How brain dead. Wanting your kid to have positive black role models is not racist, no. That's a not very sophisticated but very valid and certainly not racist reason for voting for Obama that's entirely based on race.
What about the people who voted for Romney because he is white? Those people are also racists, and frequently called racists. The double standard is issue here. White guy votes for a white guy because he's white means he's a racists. Black guy votes for a black guy because he's black means he's supporting change. Worse yet, is that since I think Obama has done a horrible job and wouldn't vote for him, his supporters…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What is any less hateful about them? Has anyone suggested otherwise? Seriously, has anyone made the argument that a death threat is ok? This is the typical response of "look the other side does it to!". On top of it, the tweet you linked to has nothing to do with racism, just stupid partisanship. If you're so concerned about that, write your own blog post. >The problem I have with the lack of objectivity on racism i…
Nobody calls a death threat "hate speech." That is implicitly suggesting that the people who use the term "hate speech" don't consider it hateful. Now if you queried someone directly, they would of course say it's hateful (I would think). So what that ends up suggesting is the term "hate speech" is really just a short-hand for racially derogatory statements. AKA racist comments. People have decided the term racist an…
This isn't why the term hate speech came about. The term hate speech came about in order to have a word applies not only to racism, but also to sexism, anti-semitism, homophobic language, etc. It is an umbrella term that refers to speech that is directed towards people solely based on the (usually immutable) group to which they belong.
It is not a synonym for hateful speech. Hateful is its own term. E.g. "I going to kill white people because I hate them so much" == hate speech (and also hateful). "I'm going to kill that guy because I hate him so much" == hateful (but not hate speech).
For the record, I come down firmly on the side that both are wrong. But bringing up one when the conversation was originally about the other tends to lead to derailment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What is any less hateful about them? Has anyone suggested otherwise? Seriously, has anyone made the argument that a death threat is ok? This is the typical response of "look the other side does it to!". On top of it, the tweet you linked to has nothing to do with racism, just stupid partisanship. If you're so concerned about that, write your own blog post. >The problem I have with the lack of objectivity on racism i…
Nobody calls a death threat "hate speech." That is implicitly suggesting that the people who use the term "hate speech" don't consider it hateful. Now if you queried someone directly, they would of course say it's hateful (I would think). So what that ends up suggesting is the term "hate speech" is really just a short-hand for racially derogatory statements. AKA racist comments. People have decided the term racist an…
"Hate Speech" was a term cooked up to bundle homophobic, racist, and anti-religious speech together. It means whatever the people who came up with it and publicized it want it to mean, and pretending that one doesn't know in order to have a strawman debate for you is a waste of everyone's time.
(Not that I don't find the term distasteful. I find the idea of criminalizing both internal states and speech pretty vile.)
The problem I have with this is that it is needlessly stirring racial divides. 395 tweets out of ~120 million voters? Come on, do something positive for our country like mapping out the tweets of people still needing help from Sandy.
1) There are about 35 to 40 million Americans on Twitter, (15% of the 78.1% of online Americans).
2) Does the percentage of twitter users per state factor into this, it seems not.
3) "A score of 1.0 indicates that a state has relatively the same number of hate speech tweets as its total number of tweets. Scores above 1.0 indicate that hate speech is more prevalent than all tweets". This makes no sense to me, unless a single tweet somehow counts multiple times, e.g. "obama monkey monkey monkey monkey". There are more racists tweets than tweets? How is that possible?
4) Is every instance of "monkey" racist? Is it racist to call George Bush a monkey?
5) Was context applied, or is simply using certain word combinations racist? Go to twitter and do the search yourself, many of the tweets are responses to racist tweets or not racist at all.
I'm sure there are many racists in America, but this graphic is painting a very misleading picture.
The problem I have with this is that it is needlessly stirring racial divides. 395 tweets out of ~120 million voters? Come on, do something positive for our country like mapping out the tweets of people still needing help from Sandy.
395 tweets out of It's 395 geocoded tweets, not 395 tweets total across Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here are quite a few examples... http://twitchy.com/2012/11/06/death-threats-against-mitt-rom...
That doesn't address the OP, though. Nor are they racist in nature.
I think that's exactly the point: why limit the analysis to racist speech (when the idiocy hurled on one side will be racist) and not equally bad - or worse - speech (when that other type of speech is on the other side).
It's sort of like tracking all the cases of food poisoning from pizza and ignoring the food poisoning from fish.
"Hey, I've got data that says that people get poisoned from other foods too."
"Shut up. That other food isn't pizza!"