Live data from Hacker News

Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

floatingsheep.org

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

#71
post #10

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…

The difference between threats and hate speech is that hate speech is intended to oppress an already marginalized group, as a group. That is, there are two criminal acts (1) threatening the individual (2) oppressing the group, happening as a result of one act of speech. This justifies a special treatment for it in law, differing from mere threats.

Re: Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

#72
post #65
post #27

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.

I have a huge problem with people submitting bug reports because it needlessly creates the perception that the software is buggy. Pointing out racism has nothing to do with "stirring racial divides". This appears to be a reasonably sophisticated analysis, the methodology was clearly explained. It certainly, at least, appears they didn't just make up a bunch of numbers. If you disagree, then find data and make your ca…

He did make his case - 395 racist tweets out of 120 million voters is practically background noise. You should expect all manner of extreme behavior on a sample size that large.

Re: Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

#73
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walter Mondale got 90% of the black vote in '84. Do you know something about him I don't?

Bill Clinton got "surprisingly low" percentages in the lower eighties. Black people vote for Democrats because Republicans fucked them in the past. But no, white people vote for Romney because of the issues, black people vote for Obama because they are racist, Of course!

95% of whites don't vote for Romney. Not even close.

Re: Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

#74
post #48
post #37

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…

Those two things are not equivalent. That's not a symmetrical situation. But I like your straw man.

Also, I named a situation when voting for Obama because he is black is ok and not racist.

Re: Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

#75
post #24
post #10

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…

>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…

Seriously, has anyone made the argument that a death threat is ok?

Arguments made by omission can be just as powerful as those made by commission.

This is the typical response of "look the other side does it to!".

That's entirely my point. That "typical response" is not logically unfounded. It's a rationale for behavior based upon the correct perception of hypocrisy.

This is why intellectual integrity is IMPORTANT. Intellectual integrity eliminates such justifications. Hypocritical approaches to racism will prevent us from ever really putting it in a context that will make it unarguably immoral.

Re: Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

#77
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reluctant to link to them because they were all Drudge Report style aggregators of the type that are frowned upon by HN. Anyone curious can just Google "Romney win riots" and see for themselves. We're talking hundreds or thousands of tweets of this nature. To be honest, I'm not really bothered by either because it really just amounts to verbal graffiti. I don't think any of those tweeting were future black panthe…

There is a reason those are not acceptable sources...

Bah, I read news from as many sources as I can. I find that when people turn up their noses at FoxNews, the Drudge Report, Huffpo, or Salon just because of the source - it's usually because they're insecure about their fragile belief system... scared that they might read something that's true which will force them to re-think their positions.

Re: Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

#78
post #27

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 problem I have with this is that it is needlessly stirring racial divides. The divides exist, pointing that out doesn't make things worse and helps people be more aware of racism in society.

The divides exist, but this map does virtually nothing to shed illumination on the matter. I think everyone here can figure out why the methodology and sampling size would lead to inaccurate results...and at the same time, I think everyone would also agree that this sampling would vastly undercount the actual amount of racism among our citizenry (as frequent Twitter users have a much different demographic than the voting demographic).

Is there a way to see what actual tweets were classified as racist? Or is it just ones that used words commonly accepted to be hate speech? If the latter, then my main issue with this is that this is nothing more than social porn...a way to set the bar for racism so blatantly high that we forget that the most damaging, pernicious kinds of racism are not going to be expressed through explicit language by a few scattered morons.

Re: Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

#79
post #12

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.

>Talk about your sexist, racist , ageist comments!

That really depends on the definitions of those terms. In a pedantic "by the dictionary" sense, yes, those comments are racist, sexist and ageist. But not in a way that can be meaningfully compared to the usual referents of those terms.

You see, these concepts are tied up with the idea of privilege[1]. "Old white guys in the GOP" draws a boundary around a cluster of one of the most privileged groups in the entire world. There are important practical differences between prejudiced and generalized language directed at oppressed groups, and prejudiced and generalized language directed at a group in power.

When we hear someone say "old white guys are the problem with the GOP", we know that we're not talking about the unprivileged outliers in that group. We are talking specifically about one of the most privileged groups in America, and crucially, the problem we are talking about is directly tied to their privilege. The implied claim is not that they're sucking up public resources, or "taking our jobs", etc. It's that they have power and that their privilege prevents them from understanding many of the issues that are important to unprivileged groups like women and minorities. In short, the problem that "old white guys" are accused of causing is something that they have the ability to change.

Now don't get me wrong: this kind of prejudice is not harmless. It still attaches a stigma to those who fall within the extension of the term, but not the intension. But the harm it does cannot be seriously compared to the harm done by prejudice against unprivileged groups.

>Substituting the words "Democratic" and "young" and "of color" sounds pretty silly.

And now we can see what the difference is. "Young black men" draws a boundary around a cluster of one of the least privileged groups in America. Even though you only substituted apparently parallel terms in the sentence, the meaning of the sentence is drastically different. Once you take into consideration the societal context, you can see that "the problem with the Democrats is young black guys" isn't the other side of the coin. The "old white guys" statement is about a group wielding power while blinded by privilege. The "young black guys" statement is about... what? It can't be about power and privilege because power and privilege are outlier properties in that group. So whatever problem is, it's probably not something that the people in question have much control over.

And that is a huge difference.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality)

Re: Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama's Re-election

#80
post #27

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.

One thing to take into account: A lot of racists probably are technologically backward and don't use Twitter.

Another thing: I'm sure that a lot of racist tweets were NOT detected by their methodology.

Still, it's true that racism is mostly in the past, particularly in conservative circles. I have met a couple of older people who were racist. They wouldn't use the n-word, but they would speak in somewhat stiff terms of "electing someone who is Anglo-Saxon" or "electing someone who is like us." The couple I mean were previously members of the John Byrd society, so they were from THAT stream of people.

I would observe the widespread acclaim that Herman Cain received from conservative media as a good indication that racism is a thing of the past for conservatives. Also when you consider that Obama's party, the Democratic Party, was once a southern phenomenon with a vocal racist branch that even split out a "Dixiecrat" party, it's pretty clear we've come a long way.

Post reply on HN