No, it refers to prejudice again others due to their race. The society power differential is an important factor as to the effect of the racism, but a black guy hating on white people is still a racist.
You can argue that, but you will find that it's not in line with most of the modern conception of racism in social science over the past several decades.
Today, racism is much more commonly defined as "an ideology of racial domination" - in which it is not solely about prejudice or even "hate" but specifically a prejudice of racial inferiority that is used to justify a group's inferior treatment or social position.
The conception of racism as primarily about individual psychological prejudice or expressions of hate is considered to be something of a relic of the first half of the 20th century. Since the 50s and 60s, the social scientific conception has become much more focused on power, and the understanding that "racialization becomes racism when it involves the hierarchical and socially consequential valuation of racial groups."
I would say that racist comments backed up by centuries of occupying the oppressor role and myriad oppressive power structures, and racist comments made in frustration out of being on the other side of that history and structure, are two very different things - and any analysis of "racism" that fails to grapple with that difference is woefully incomplete.
That certainly doesn't provide an easy answer for a question like social media content policies, of course. I don't have a clear solution for Facebook. But the idea that equality can only be achieved by magically jumping straight from centuries of oppression to total colourblindness is also silly and harmful, and smacks of a "gotcha!" mentality.
The word "punishment" shouldn't go unexamined here. Punishment is retributory. Sometimes that is what people demand, yes. More often, the demands (removing someone from a platform, or from a job where they interact with the public or make decisions that impact other people) are about preventing them from continuing to do the perceived harm.
Whether the perceived harm is real or severe enough to warrant that or whether that justifies the requested remedy is its own question that has various answers depending on the case. But when someone says "kick this bigot off twitter for their hateful speech" it isn't really punishment they are asking for - it's action to discontinue the harm they are perceived as causing.
Once again: everyone is entitled to "demand" anything they want. Demands are just speech. Whether they get it or not, and who from via what mechanism of power, is another question entirely.
But if someone is at a BLM rally with that sign, why not assume it is a statement of support?
Hahahahahhahahahahahaha JB, dude, are you realy, really still not getting my point about naively allowing yourself to be grifted and manipulated? C'mon man. I'm going to bed. Sleep on it, especially that sentence you just apparently sincerely typed.
If the viewpoints in the letter were understood and applied widely to all of society, would they not represent a good for all?
That's a very abstract question, applying abstract viewpoints to the abstract concept of "society"
So if you mean, like, the real point of the letter - J. K. Rowling whining about the backlash to her multiple tweets and blog posts about trans people - and your suggestion is that, instead of people getting mad at her, they just shut up and didn't criticize it and nobody got angry, and nobody fought loudly and vocally for the humanity of trans people, or asked her to apologize and step back and learn more before continuing to make harmful statements... then no, I do not think that would be "good for all".
How do you feel about the phrase "all lives matter"?
It makes me nervous. Because I know that as self-evident as its literal sentiment is, some might come after me for saying it.
So like, if a person shows up to counter-protest a BLM rally with a big sign saying "All Lives Matter" you are saying that's just a self-evident literal statement whose meaning and intent cannot and should not be judged in any other way? Or does context start to matter at that point?
*It seems clear to me that they were writing in the service of all of humanity.
Do you seriously think that the letter is attempting to infect you with some kind of mind virus that will somehow trick you into doing the author's bidding?*
Well I dunno, but it's injected you with a mind-virus that makes you grandiosely describe the world's richest and most widely-published author whining about people's criticism of her stubborn transphobia by arrogantly and transparently pretending it's civilization-threatening censorship as "writing in the service of all of humanity"
Let me ask you a simple question I raised with someone else earlier today on Twitter, with regards to your notion about ideas existing independently, to be interpreted only based on their self-contained meaning with no consideration given to the context of who is saying them and what their motives might be. It's quite a simple question.
How do you feel about the phrase "all lives matter"?
There is no eyeroll in the world that could express my reaction to this comment's stunning mixture of pomposity and naivete - not even one of Tina Fey's.
But I sincerely do believe that the point raised was necessary and good
Honestly, JB, I think it's absurd and just plain bizarre that you are trying to separate "the point raised" from fascism.
It was a comment in which the primary point was about fascism. It said it repeatedly, under the title "Where it's headed". It was a comment explicitly and entirely about accusing others of fascism. That was its thesis. That was its theme. That was the beginning and the end of the point being made.
And your followup is "well if you ignore the fascism part..."
It has been a while since I've seen it so I didn't get the reference, but now I'm about to go watch it again, because one thing I definitely do remember about it is the inimitably awesome Tim Curry.
Might it be that I just happen to agree with his point?
"His point" was to use the word fascism/fascist ten times in a short comment, and your "agreement" was to immediately suggest that it's unfair to focus on that or treat it as a primary component of his point, and that the reasonable thing to do is ignore that and engage with the point as though it was a completely different point.
That's what I mean about falling for a grift, and letting yourself be manipulated into doing heavy lifting to legitimize someone's argument and respond to it in good faith even though they did nothing to deserve that.
The only consequences for ridiculous speech is: no consequences at all.
That's easy man - just go stand in a closet where nobody can hear you, and you can say absolutely anything you want! Shout, swear, use racial slurs, recite Hitler's speeches, whatever floats your boat. You won't face a single consequence.
If you go out on the street and do that, some people are going to hear you and make their own decisions about how to treat you and think about you in future based on what they hear; if you go to work and do it, your boss might decide he doesn't want to employ you anymore. So I suggest avoiding that. But luckily it's easily avoided with the aforementioned closet strategy. If you have neighbours and thin walls, I recommend acoustic foam (fairly cheap online) or in a pinch just egg cartons pinned to the walls.
By the way, you're even doing it right now with Koby. You're defending him, even going out of your way to correct his wording and offer up a new version of what he said in order to turn it into a serious thing that we must discuss. Go have a look at his past comments. He conned you, buddy - he's not appreciative or respectful of your attempt to engage with him in good faith, he's laughing at you for falling for his grift and being so easily trolled.
To me it looks like those attacks are coming from one side of this "debate," if we can even call it that.
Nonsense. If you genuinely think only "one side" engages in attacks and attempts to deplatform, you definitely have not been paying attention or even trying to pay attention.
Burn them! If not literally, then certainly in spirit.
Every time you invoke literal, forcible punishment then attempt to bridge the gap between that and simple counterspeech and public opinion - then from that point on proceed to discuss the two as if they are roughly the same - you expose the core of why this whole thing is utter crap. If your analysis involves lumping those two things together, it's worthless.
Liberal society only works if if ideas can exist independent of speakers
Explain. Because that sounds obviously false. Only a fool defaults to presuming every idea is always offered in good faith; only a fool refuses to analyze a person's motives and true intent and meaning by applying broader context to their words. Probably the NUMBER ONE thing undermining "liberal society" right now is people credulously seriously engaging with bad faith ideas - that's the attitude that leads people to suddenly praise (reservedly, but praise nevertheless) Donald Trump as "presidential" because he kept his shit together for five minutes; that's the attitude that allows people to rehabilitate George W. Bush or Mitt Romney; that's the attitude that led to a year of everyone acting like Michael Avenatti was a super awesome liberal hero because he was opposing Trump, even as plenty of people could see he was a grifter who would probably end up in jail; that's the attitude that leads to mainstream media fawning over alt-right nazis as trendy fashionable provocateurs; that's the attitude that led the New York Times to publish Tom Cotton calling for troops to come in and brutally suppress American citizens.
Stop. Being. So. Easily. Grifted.
People like Jesse Singal who signed that letter are laughing at you. Hell, they're even laughing at me for continuing to talk about this. They won, because we keep letting them win, because some people insist on treating them as good faith interlopers with ideas that command serious consideration. Just like Tom Cotton openly laughing and mocking the NYT for losing subscribers after it published his column - he trolled them, successfully; they took the bait, and he thinks it's hilarious that they are such rubes.
And that is what I think the authors of the letter are trying to point out
This specific letter exists, right now, on the pages of the prestigious Harper's, for exactly one reason and one reason alone: because the exceedingly wealthy and famous J. K. Rowling is upset about about the current backlash over her transphobia.
You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. You know damn well that if that wasn't big news in the past couple weeks, this particular letter wouldn't even exist, and we wouldn't be talking about it. Stop letting people who are obviously operating in self-serving bad faith manipulate your liberalism and turn it into naivety.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Talking About Racism On Social Media (2019)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it refers to prejudice again others due to their race. The society power differential is an important factor as to the effect of the racism, but a black guy hating on white people is still a racist.
You can argue that, but you will find that it's not in line with most of the modern conception of racism in social science over the past several decades.
Today, racism is much more commonly defined as "an ideology of racial domination" - in which it is not solely about prejudice or even "hate" but specifically a prejudice of racial inferiority that is used to justify a group's inferior treatment or social position.
The conception of racism as primarily about individual psychological prejudice or expressions of hate is considered to be something of a relic of the first half of the 20th century. Since the 50s and 60s, the social scientific conception has become much more focused on power, and the understanding that "racialization becomes racism when it involves the hierarchical and socially consequential valuation of racial groups."
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Talking About Racism On Social Media (2019)
Re: Re:
racism is racism
Is it, though?
I would say that racist comments backed up by centuries of occupying the oppressor role and myriad oppressive power structures, and racist comments made in frustration out of being on the other side of that history and structure, are two very different things - and any analysis of "racism" that fails to grapple with that difference is woefully incomplete.
That certainly doesn't provide an easy answer for a question like social media content policies, of course. I don't have a clear solution for Facebook. But the idea that equality can only be achieved by magically jumping straight from centuries of oppression to total colourblindness is also silly and harmful, and smacks of a "gotcha!" mentality.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: For the record...
She/her wasn't referring to you, but the woman in the story! As in, your comment was bringing perspective to her claims
On the post: What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The word "punishment" shouldn't go unexamined here. Punishment is retributory. Sometimes that is what people demand, yes. More often, the demands (removing someone from a platform, or from a job where they interact with the public or make decisions that impact other people) are about preventing them from continuing to do the perceived harm.
Whether the perceived harm is real or severe enough to warrant that or whether that justifies the requested remedy is its own question that has various answers depending on the case. But when someone says "kick this bigot off twitter for their hateful speech" it isn't really punishment they are asking for - it's action to discontinue the harm they are perceived as causing.
On the post: What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said
Re: Re: Re:
does not entitle anyone to demand consequences
Once again: everyone is entitled to "demand" anything they want. Demands are just speech. Whether they get it or not, and who from via what mechanism of power, is another question entirely.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if someone is at a BLM rally with that sign, why not assume it is a statement of support?
Hahahahahhahahahahahaha JB, dude, are you realy, really still not getting my point about naively allowing yourself to be grifted and manipulated? C'mon man. I'm going to bed. Sleep on it, especially that sentence you just apparently sincerely typed.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the viewpoints in the letter were understood and applied widely to all of society, would they not represent a good for all?
That's a very abstract question, applying abstract viewpoints to the abstract concept of "society"
So if you mean, like, the real point of the letter - J. K. Rowling whining about the backlash to her multiple tweets and blog posts about trans people - and your suggestion is that, instead of people getting mad at her, they just shut up and didn't criticize it and nobody got angry, and nobody fought loudly and vocally for the humanity of trans people, or asked her to apologize and step back and learn more before continuing to make harmful statements... then no, I do not think that would be "good for all".
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you feel about the phrase "all lives matter"?
It makes me nervous. Because I know that as self-evident as its literal sentiment is, some might come after me for saying it.
So like, if a person shows up to counter-protest a BLM rally with a big sign saying "All Lives Matter" you are saying that's just a self-evident literal statement whose meaning and intent cannot and should not be judged in any other way? Or does context start to matter at that point?
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*It seems clear to me that they were writing in the service of all of humanity.
Do you seriously think that the letter is attempting to infect you with some kind of mind virus that will somehow trick you into doing the author's bidding?*
Well I dunno, but it's injected you with a mind-virus that makes you grandiosely describe the world's richest and most widely-published author whining about people's criticism of her stubborn transphobia by arrogantly and transparently pretending it's civilization-threatening censorship as "writing in the service of all of humanity"
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me ask you a simple question I raised with someone else earlier today on Twitter, with regards to your notion about ideas existing independently, to be interpreted only based on their self-contained meaning with no consideration given to the context of who is saying them and what their motives might be. It's quite a simple question.
How do you feel about the phrase "all lives matter"?
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no eyeroll in the world that could express my reaction to this comment's stunning mixture of pomposity and naivete - not even one of Tina Fey's.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I sincerely do believe that the point raised was necessary and good
Honestly, JB, I think it's absurd and just plain bizarre that you are trying to separate "the point raised" from fascism.
It was a comment in which the primary point was about fascism. It said it repeatedly, under the title "Where it's headed". It was a comment explicitly and entirely about accusing others of fascism. That was its thesis. That was its theme. That was the beginning and the end of the point being made.
And your followup is "well if you ignore the fascism part..."
Baffling.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re:
It has been a while since I've seen it so I didn't get the reference, but now I'm about to go watch it again, because one thing I definitely do remember about it is the inimitably awesome Tim Curry.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Might it be that I just happen to agree with his point?
"His point" was to use the word fascism/fascist ten times in a short comment, and your "agreement" was to immediately suggest that it's unfair to focus on that or treat it as a primary component of his point, and that the reasonable thing to do is ignore that and engage with the point as though it was a completely different point.
That's what I mean about falling for a grift, and letting yourself be manipulated into doing heavy lifting to legitimize someone's argument and respond to it in good faith even though they did nothing to deserve that.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Suit yourself. You know what I think.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: I'm unconvinced
Dumber than "fascism isn't about right-wing extremism or racism, it's about being hating opinions that are different than yours?"
Heh okay fine, fair point :) It's the most specific and novel dumb thing.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Fantasy
The only consequences for ridiculous speech is: no consequences at all.
That's easy man - just go stand in a closet where nobody can hear you, and you can say absolutely anything you want! Shout, swear, use racial slurs, recite Hitler's speeches, whatever floats your boat. You won't face a single consequence.
If you go out on the street and do that, some people are going to hear you and make their own decisions about how to treat you and think about you in future based on what they hear; if you go to work and do it, your boss might decide he doesn't want to employ you anymore. So I suggest avoiding that. But luckily it's easily avoided with the aforementioned closet strategy. If you have neighbours and thin walls, I recommend acoustic foam (fairly cheap online) or in a pinch just egg cartons pinned to the walls.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: I'm unconvinced
He talks about counterspeech, but the state is employing counterspeech when the prosecutor makes his case
Out of all the idiotic takes being shared in response to the letter, this might be the dumbest of all.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, you're even doing it right now with Koby. You're defending him, even going out of your way to correct his wording and offer up a new version of what he said in order to turn it into a serious thing that we must discuss. Go have a look at his past comments. He conned you, buddy - he's not appreciative or respectful of your attempt to engage with him in good faith, he's laughing at you for falling for his grift and being so easily trolled.
On the post: Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To me it looks like those attacks are coming from one side of this "debate," if we can even call it that.
Nonsense. If you genuinely think only "one side" engages in attacks and attempts to deplatform, you definitely have not been paying attention or even trying to pay attention.
Burn them! If not literally, then certainly in spirit.
Every time you invoke literal, forcible punishment then attempt to bridge the gap between that and simple counterspeech and public opinion - then from that point on proceed to discuss the two as if they are roughly the same - you expose the core of why this whole thing is utter crap. If your analysis involves lumping those two things together, it's worthless.
Liberal society only works if if ideas can exist independent of speakers
Explain. Because that sounds obviously false. Only a fool defaults to presuming every idea is always offered in good faith; only a fool refuses to analyze a person's motives and true intent and meaning by applying broader context to their words. Probably the NUMBER ONE thing undermining "liberal society" right now is people credulously seriously engaging with bad faith ideas - that's the attitude that leads people to suddenly praise (reservedly, but praise nevertheless) Donald Trump as "presidential" because he kept his shit together for five minutes; that's the attitude that allows people to rehabilitate George W. Bush or Mitt Romney; that's the attitude that led to a year of everyone acting like Michael Avenatti was a super awesome liberal hero because he was opposing Trump, even as plenty of people could see he was a grifter who would probably end up in jail; that's the attitude that leads to mainstream media fawning over alt-right nazis as trendy fashionable provocateurs; that's the attitude that led the New York Times to publish Tom Cotton calling for troops to come in and brutally suppress American citizens.
Stop. Being. So. Easily. Grifted.
People like Jesse Singal who signed that letter are laughing at you. Hell, they're even laughing at me for continuing to talk about this. They won, because we keep letting them win, because some people insist on treating them as good faith interlopers with ideas that command serious consideration. Just like Tom Cotton openly laughing and mocking the NYT for losing subscribers after it published his column - he trolled them, successfully; they took the bait, and he thinks it's hilarious that they are such rubes.
And that is what I think the authors of the letter are trying to point out
This specific letter exists, right now, on the pages of the prestigious Harper's, for exactly one reason and one reason alone: because the exceedingly wealthy and famous J. K. Rowling is upset about about the current backlash over her transphobia.
You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. You know damn well that if that wasn't big news in the past couple weeks, this particular letter wouldn't even exist, and we wouldn't be talking about it. Stop letting people who are obviously operating in self-serving bad faith manipulate your liberalism and turn it into naivety.
Next >>