Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

And the 235K thing? I could've said a million, or a billion and you'd just spit out the same cop-out answer that "it's not enough". You've created an argument that carries no weight, requires no evidence or actual numbers. You just keep handwaving and yelling "what about all those terrorist accounts", all whilst only clinging to your single, knowingly flawed example. Never mind the fact that this is all still a distraction to cover up how wrong you were at the outset of this conversation.

And of course you've moved the goal posts even further by again inventing yet another evidence-less claim that Twitter is somehow bogged down with "feminists' feelings". You didn't even try to qualify that assertion. You just made up some new bullshit claim to try and throw out there and see if it sticks without any support whatsoever.

Besides, if you think Twitter is unable to handle any other abuse because they're bogged down with "feminist's feelings"... I don't even know what to say other than are you freaking kidding me? One, I see dozens of posts saying far more disgusting things aimed at women than 'kill yourself' every week on Twitter. Two, Twitter can do more than one thing at one time and continutes to take down new accounts linked to terror groups constantly.

And of course you're the type of person to classify mob harassment of women, death threats and sexual harassment as "feminist's feeling" because you're a jerk with an agenda who doesn't care about reality, facts, or discourse.

It's also painfully obvious that you skirted my explicit questions from the last post because they exemplify how completely nonsensical your characterization of Twitter is.

It's like I'm talking to a delusional, angry GamerGater who pulls "feminism" out of nowhere as some sort of wildcard to distract from the absurd claims in this thread.

I look forward to your next post where you again ignore everything I wrote, repeat your unsubstantiated nonsense again and probably move the goal posts for a third time.

I still disagree with your second assertion. The Tea Party forcing the Republicans to the right happened outside Washington and didn't seem directly related to anything Obama or the Democrats had done.

About the Boehner-Obama moment: while (if I recall correctly) it ultimately led to another budget, in the thick of their negotiations, they would have changed tax law as well. [1] I agree that there are fewer easily memorable moments of bipartisanship after 2010 but I do not agree that the Democratic supermajority (which really only lasted a year, due to Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts) played an important role in promoting obstructionism.

Rather, the Tea Party and the ACA fight provided cover for the Republican leadership to do what they had already been planning (see the Washington Post link from above for an unattributed source who claims the same).

   1. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/07/11/137760498/grand-bargain-budget-deal-elusive

I was incorrect about the reason the Boehner-Obama negotiations began - it was the federal borrowing limit [2]. Reports at the time, and since, suggested that this fight was totally unnecessary, as the all expenditures accounted for by the borrowing limit would already have been approved by Congress.

    2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/debt-reduction-talks-in-limbo-as-clock-ticks-toward-aug-2-deadline/2011/07/10/gIQAOeXt7H_story.html

The ACA is not "health care." It's an insurance regulation. The conflating of the two is a useful narrative but it is not accurate in any way.

Why not? If we silence them on few webpages, you think they simply will disappear? Trump as a president should be the wakeup call for everyone that forced, artificial politeness and political correctness won't make problems disappear.

But it does. The definition has become more refined in order to be more useful. This is commonly done in science.

> You are surely aware that one fashionable definition of racism, with some academic support, is that it is equivalent to power or privilege, and therefore no member of a disadvantaged group can be racist, and all members of a privileged group are by definition racist.

This is very inaccurate. The "fashionable definition" you're is really a very simplified, catch-phrasy shorthand for something much more subtle, which is this: Racism is the property of a society or social dynamics that create and perpetuate an unfair distribution of power between groups viewed as races. It is this definition that is shortened to be "discrimination plus power". Obviously, groups that are powerless in a society cannot shape it to withdraw power from themselves, which is why we say, as shorthand, "blacks can't be racist". But it is important to understand that in either case the word does not refer to individuals and certainly not to their sentiments, but to the way they are a vessel for social dynamics. Blacks, by being less powerful, are not as strong conduits for social dynamics, and hence they are not the mechanism for the perpetuation of racism, and hence "they" "are" not racist.

> In addition to being needlessly provocative and drawing attention away from "real", intentional racism, this kind of definition is utterly useless from a descriptive standpoint. After all, if it is completely equivalent to power/privilege, why not use those words?

This is perhaps better called xenophobia, just as "intentional sexism" is better called misogyny. I don't think it is more or less real than the academic definition, but it's not as useful because research has shown that the main mechanism by which racism is perpetuated has little to do with people's conscious intentions. You want to use the description of the main effect, not secondary ones that are perhaps more emotionally obvious but far less influential in practice.

> And if racism occurs completely without choice on the part of the accused, is it not paradoxical to use it as a term of moral condemnation, since morality presumably requires choice?

Without intent does not mean without choice. When I smoke a cigarette I don't intend to make myself sick, but if I know that is the likely outcome, then by smoking I choose to increase my likelihood of getting sick even though it is not my intent. The "moral condemnation" of smoking is effective in reducing smoking by drawing attention to this unintentional choice.

> If abstract, nonhuman entities (societies, governments, etc) can be racist, apart from the racism of their constituent members, how can the same term be used as a term of moral condemnation?

This is related to my smoking analogy. Once you know that your actions are part of an unwanted social dynamics, you can choose to change them.

> But I am arguing that conflating these things with overt racism (or anything involving conscious choice, and therefore subject to moral condemnation) is intellectually muddled, counterproductive, and is at the heart of why conservatives are so angry about this issue.

Right, but as in my reply to 794CD01[1], the difference is what you view as the main issue. Conservatives may view the issue as merely ethical, and when it comes to ethics, intentions matter a lot. The left cares a lot more about the result, and it turns out that what you call "overt racism" has very little effect on the result, and it is racism in the broader sense that is much more important. The left wants to draw attention to what it views as the bigger problem.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12981522