Electric Frontier Foundation: Silencing "The Daily Stormer" Threatens Free Expression - Polidicks

[quote]Using your logic from this article McCain and Romney's voters were all racist considering the "positive" number of racist answers is lower for 2016 than 2012 and in some cases 2008.[/quote] Yes, I don't see any problems with that statement but for changing 'all racist' to 'mostly racist'. It isn't so much logic as a point of fact in any case. Whether or not that racism [I]actually[/I] was the key behind any of those elections is harder to tell. Best we can do is look at the data and go 'yeah, mostly racists'. If so many responded positively to racism it doesn't seem much a leap to state 'He got a lot of his support from supporting things his base supported'.

[QUOTE=Anderan;52592585]Using your logic from this article McCain and Romney's voters were all racist considering the "positive" number of racist answers is lower for 2016 than 2012 and in some cases 2008. Some of them are even roughly the same as far back as 1992.[/QUOTE] According to that survey, about half of democrats are racist too. The stupid part is assuming anyone who answers one way or the other to those question is automatically racist. [editline]19th August 2017[/editline] Also, who knew that thinking having respect for your elders is more important than being independent, for a child, is authoritarian.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592588]Yes, I don't see any problems with that statement but for changing 'all racist' to 'mostly racist'. It isn't so much logic as a point of fact in any case. Whether or not that racism [I]actually[/I] was the key behind any of those elections is harder to tell. Best we can do is look at the data and go 'yeah, mostly racists'. If so many responded positively to racism it doesn't seem much a leap to state 'He got a lot of his support from supporting things his base supported'.[/QUOTE] So I guess almost half of Democrats were racist in 2008 too.

[quote]According to that survey, about half of democrats are racist too. The stupid part is assuming anyone who answers one way or the other to those question is automatically racist.[/quote] Again, I don't see any problem with that. We've got a lot of people who grapple with racism routinely and that's fine. It's when someone preys on that racism to engage in racist agenda that it's a problem. I'm not saying it's a perfect correlation - I'm saying that there's evidence to strongly suggest it.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592599]Again, I don't see any problem with that. We've got a lot of people who grapple with racism routinely and that's fine. It's when someone preys on that racism to engage in racist agenda that it's a problem. I'm not saying it's a perfect correlation - I'm saying that there's evidence to strongly suggest it.[/QUOTE] That article compared two super subjective traits and said one was a better predictor. There was literally zero evidence to suggest racism was the reason people elected Trump.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592588]If so many responded positively to racism it doesn't seem much a leap to state 'He got a lot of his support from supporting things his base supported'.[/QUOTE] It's debatable that people responding positively to these questions are racist. Half of these play into Republican's obsession with self sufficiency. Saying you think a group should pull themselves up by their bootstraps is probably pretty ignorant but not really what I would consider Nazi level racism. Sorry, you're going to need a lot more or better data to come to the conclusion that racism played a major part in the election.

[quote]There was literally zero evidence to suggest racism was the reason people elected Trump.[/quote] It's hyperbolic to state this isn't evidence. It would be hyperbolic to state it's strong evidence. It is a logical correlation: Politician enjoys popular support. What do the people who support him value? Does the politician specifically target those values? Yes? That's probably why they were elected. [quote]but not really what I would consider Nazi level racism.[/quote] Of course it isn't. In order to prove that you'd have to ask if you'd be OK with living in a world only populated by your own race if it meant you had to kill all the other races to get that world. Trump also didn't, in his campaign, go to Nazi level racism - but the signaling was there if Nazis were paying attention. According to the Nazis: They were.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592606]It's hyperbolic to state this isn't evidence. It would be hyperbolic to state it's strong evidence. It is a logical correlation: Politician enjoys popular support. What do the people who support him value? Does the politician specifically target those values? Yes? That's probably why they were elected.[/QUOTE] Again, nothing about what you posted even implies racism. No question they responded too correlates with people thinking Mexicans are rapists and holding that idea as a value.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592606]It's hyperbolic to state this isn't evidence. It would be hyperbolic to state it's strong evidence. It is a logical correlation: Politician enjoys popular support. What do the people who support him value? Does the politician specifically target those values? Yes? That's probably why they were elected.[/QUOTE] No, it actually isn't evidence at all for that claim. They looked at 2 traits... among possibly hundreds of possible reasons. For example, let's say I'm a huge racist, but the reason I voted for Trump is his protectionist trade policy that he pushed for during the election. Your survey would have picked me up as a racist, but it had no idea that the reason I voted for Trump was trade. You're making a basic correlation =/= causation error. And that's all ignoring the absolutely massive assumption that those questions are good predictors of being a racist. I would strongly dispute that assumption because it falsely equates culture issues with race.

[quote]No question they responded too correlates with people thinking Mexicans are rapists and holding that idea as a value.[/quote] Such a question couldn't be asked without getting a biased or protected answer. It all certainly does [I]imply[/I] racism. There are things that could be explained away here, yes, but the questions all are toward a theme: Do the respondents view other races more negatively or positively? [quote]And that's all ignoring the absolutely massive assumption that those questions are good predictors of being a racist.[/quote] They're good predictors for whether or not someone views other races more negatively or more positively. It would correlate that a racist would view other races in a strong negative light rather than neutrally or just negatively.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592606]Of course it isn't. In order to prove that you'd have to ask if you'd be OK with living in a world only populated by your own race if it meant you had to kill all the other races to get that world. Trump also didn't, in his campaign, go to Nazi level racism - but the signaling was there if Nazis were paying attention. According to the Nazis: They were.[/QUOTE] But how does that prove racism played an important role in his victory? Stop taking small bits of posts and ignoring the entire rest of the posts because you're not even really responding to what is being said. [editline]20th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592615]Such a question couldn't be asked without getting a biased or protected answer. It all certainly does [I]imply[/I] racism. There are things that could be explained away here, yes, but the questions all are toward a theme: Do the respondents view other races more negatively or positively?[/QUOTE] Only one of the questions even implies a negative view of a race. "I think x race should be able to get by without help" doesn't equate to "I hate x race". [editline]20th August 2017[/editline] Though at this point I feel like we're dangerously off topic.

[QUOTE=Anderan;52592616]Only one of the questions even implies a negative view of a race. "I think x race should be able to get by without help" doesn't equate to "I hate x race".[/QUOTE] In fact, it stresses that you think black people are able to do whatever white people can do. No true racist would answer yes to that question.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52592443]Instead, all we have is Cloudflare calling them "vile."[/QUOTE] If you're going to call out any of the three companies specifically, CloudFlare is the one least in the wrong here as I mentioned earlier in the thread. CloudFlare was going to let the Daily Stormer stay up until the retard who runs it decided it was a bright idea to publicly claim CloudFlare secretly supports their views. In that specific instance it's clearly in CloudFlare's best interest to cut ties to them altogether because simply coming out and condemning the site they host will come across to a lot of people as disingenuous. And in GoDaddy's case it was pretty clear too. They'd been hosting the site up to that point but it came to their attention that they weren't simply preaching hate but preaching and actively encouraging violence and they decided that it would harm their public image too much to allow it. I think their motivation for it being about their public image, while it makes sense for a business, is dumb from a ethical standpoint but overall I can agree that this site in particular should not be given free reign to do whatever they'd like. I do agree that having them explicitly state that they're against hosting site's that actively encourage violence like the Daily Stormer did would be better than the more ambiguous statements they did make but I think you're getting a little too caught up in semantics over it.

[quote]Only one of the questions even implies a negative view of a race.[/quote] That's not true. Aside from the obvious: Have blacks gotten less than they deserve? "Do you think Blacks are worthy of the support they receive?" If blacks would only try harder would they be just as well off as whites? "Do you think racism is a barrier to people gaining equal pay?" Do you think generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Blacks to work their way out from the lower class? "Do you think society has a racism problem?" They're intentionally not bluntly worded because if they were you couldn't trust the truth of the response at all. There's noise here to deal with, yes, but it doesn't invalidate the data gathered - it just makes it less absolute. [quote]But how does that prove racism played an important role in his victory?[/quote] [quote=Me, a few posts ago]It is a logical correlation: Politician enjoys popular support. What do the people who support him value? Does the politician specifically target those values? Yes? That's probably why they were elected.[/quote] In other words: He enjoys broad support from folks who more strongly identify with racist ideology - it'd be asinine to therefore state that the more racist statements and so forth he's put up wouldn't resonate strongly with those groups. I could pull up interviews and so forth with folks who wished to vote for him more or less agreeing with said racist statements but if you want me to prove more broadly the role of racism in the election the best I can do for you is demonstrate the values of those who decided to support his election. [quote]Stop taking small bits of posts and ignoring the entire rest of the posts because you're not even really responding to what is being said.[/quote] Where have I not 'really responded to what is being said'?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592639]Where have I not 'really responded to what is being said'?[/QUOTE] Almost every post about how the questions being ask don't really imply racism and the defenses of such an opinion?

[quote]Almost every post about how the questions being ask don't really imply racism?[/quote] Are you being facetious or are you ignoring what I'm writing? Just because you don't accept my answers doesn't mean I'm not responding. What?

Advocating against free speech or being against the EFF and ACLU just because they're defending the same rights our free society depends upon is a fucking joke. Facists exist everywhere not just under the "nazi" label, if you are looking to restrict those rights it just to get "yes i am against nazis" brownie points from your buddies, well shit it looks like you're the bigger threat to democracy now.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592639]Have blacks gotten less than they deserve? "Do you think Blacks are worthy of the support they receive?"[/QUOTE] Or: No one deserves anything. [QUOTE]If blacks would only try harder would they be just as well off as whites? "Do you think racism is a barrier to people gaining equal pay?"[/QUOTE] I don't even see how your re-phrasing is racist. Thinking racism isn't a big barrier doesn't make you racist. At most, it may make you wrong. Hell, if that makes you racist, then I know a whole lot of black racists. [QUOTE]Do you think generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Blacks to work their way out from the lower class? "Do you think society has a racism problem?"[/QUOTE] Again, not thinking racism is still a big problem doesn't make you racist. Even if you were 100% wrong, it still doesn't mean you think black people are lesser than white people.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592639]That's not true. Aside from the obvious: Have blacks gotten less than they deserve? "Do you think Blacks are worthy of the support they receive?" If blacks would only try harder would they be just as well off as whites? "Do you think racism is a barrier to people gaining equal pay?" Do you think generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Blacks to work their way out from the lower class? "Do you think society has a racism problem?" They're intentionally not bluntly worded because if they were you couldn't trust the truth of the response at all. There's noise here to deal with, yes, but it doesn't invalidate the data gathered - it just makes it less absolute.[/quote] There's a multitude of different ways to interpret the answers and you've totally discounted everything other than "the person is racist". Again, I pointed out the Republican's obsession with self sufficiency, yet you've seen fit to ignore that because it doesn't support your interpretation. [quote]In other words: He enjoys broad support from folks who more strongly identify with racist ideology - it'd be asinine to therefore state that the more racist statements and so forth he's put up wouldn't resonate strongly with those groups. I could pull up interviews and so forth with folks who wished to vote for him more or less agreeing with said racist statements but if you want me to prove more broadly the role of racism in the election the best I can do for you is demonstrate the values of those who decided to support his election.[/quote] Enjoying support from a portion of a population does not make that portion of the population a major factor in victory.

[quote]Or: No one deserves anything.[/quote] That's what's called an 'outlier'. Individually, no, the questions would not make you racist. The more you continue to bark up the tree of racism however, the more likely you are a racist. That's why there were multiple questions that asked more or less the same basic thing, as you've now noticed. [quote]Again, I pointed out the Republican's obsession with self sufficiency, yet you've seen fit to ignore that because it doesn't support your interpretation.[/quote] Sorry, I've been typing messages so quickly that I didn't respond to that one in particular, yes. The question as phrased isn't about self-sufficiency: It's about prejudice. I'd say it's probably more racist for someone to immediately go 'prejudice doesn't exist, this is simply them being inefficient'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592649]Are you being facetious or are you ignoring what I'm writing? Just because you don't accept my answers doesn't mean I'm not responding. What?[/QUOTE] You keep cutting out the part where a counter argument is presented and just interjecting your own interpretation. I've presented other reasons why people could have given the answers they did and you've yet to respond to a single one. You keep basically saying "these people responded positively so that proves racism".

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592659]That's what's called an 'outlier'. Individually, no, the questions would not make you racist. The more you continue to bark up the tree of racism however, the more likely you are a racist. That's why there were multiple questions that asked more or less the same basic thing, as you've now noticed.[/QUOTE] How do you possibly know that's an outlier? From my experience, a huge portion, if not the majority, of conservatives don't think society owes you anything beyond protection of basic human rights. I also responded to the other questions, but you ignored those. [editline]19th August 2017[/editline] That's the problem with making very specific conclusions based on vague questions.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592659]Sorry, I've been typing messages so quickly that I didn't respond to that one in particular, yes. The question as phrased isn't about self-sufficiency: It's about prejudice. I'd say it's probably more racist for someone to immediately go 'prejudice doesn't exist, this is simply them being inefficient'.[/QUOTE] You have on hell of a broad definition of racism. [editline]20th August 2017[/editline] You've taken a bunch of really vague questions, decided that the majority of people that answered positively hate minorities, and thus racism played a major role in Trumps victory while utterly discounting a multitude of other reasons people could have supported him. Show me data better than an opinion piece on the Washington Post.

[quote]From my experience, a huge portion, if not the majority, of conservatives don't think society owes you anything beyond protection of basic human rights.[/quote] Sorry, I interpreted that as a nihilistic statement - as in nobody has the right to have anything. That is more of the norm, I guess, but would nonetheless be a strange path to get there when considering the original phrasing because it's about fairness. If someone truly doesn't believe in fairness at all, I mean, I guess they could hold that view sure but I suspect that most people have a concept of 'fair versus not fair'. [quote]I also responded to the other questions, but you ignored those.[/quote] [quote=My answer to your other questions]Individually, no, the questions would not make you racist. The more you continue to bark up the tree of racism however, the more likely you are a racist. That's why there were multiple questions that asked more or less the same basic thing, as you've now noticed.[/quote] [quote]You keep basically saying "these people responded positively so that proves racism".[/quote] I didn't say it [B]proves[/B] anything; I said: [quote]I'm not saying it's a perfect correlation - I'm saying that there's evidence to strongly suggest it.[/quote] [quote]You've taken a bunch of really vague questions, decided that the majority of people that answered positively hate minorities, and thus racism played a major role in Trumps victory while utterly discounting a multitude of other reasons people could have supported him. Show me data better than an opinion piece on the Washington Post.[/quote] First, it's not just whether or not they answered positively. In a lot of those graphs the number is high because they answered strongly in the negative. There are certainly other reasons people could have supported him and I suspect that for a lot of people the reasons are numerous and differentiated between them. However, I'm not interested in the spread of their opinions, I'm more interested in seeing how many folks that did support him also support racism and racist statements more often than not. A correlation is not a causation - but it is evidence nonetheless that can be used as a hypothesis to answer other questions such as: If most of the folks that voted for Trump are racist, was that the thing that attracted them to Trump in the first place? Last, the data is 'more than an opinion piece on the Washington Post', which you ought know if you bothered to actually read my source. It comes directly from here: [url]http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/download/datacenter_all_NoData.php[/url]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592676]Sorry, I interpreted that as a nihilistic statement - as in nobody has the right to have anything. That is more of the norm, I guess, but would nonetheless be a strange path to get there when considering the original phrasing because it's about fairness. If someone truly doesn't believe in fairness at all, I mean, I guess they could hold that view sure but I suspect that most people have a concept of 'fair versus not fair'.[/QUOTE] The entire question was, "Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve." That's it. There was no context of fairness. Also, you have given a total non-response to my examples of how those questions do not show racism. You've just restated your claim that they do, in fact, show racism. If none of the question show inherent racism, then the questions together also wouldn't show racism. [editline]20th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592676]Last, the data is 'more than an opinion piece on the Washington Post', which you ought know if you bothered to actually read my source. It comes directly from here: [URL]http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/anes_timeseries_2016/anes_timeseries_2016.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] The numbers are from that survey, the conclusions are from the WaPo. The analysis is the entirety of your argument, which is found only through the WaPo opinion piece. No one is saying the numbers are wrong. We're saying the numbers don't mean what you think they mean.

[quote]The entire question was, "Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve." That's it. There was no context of fairness.[/quote] 'Less than they deserve' is a question of fairness, the context is in the question's phrasing. It implies that they deserve some amount and your role is to determine whether what they have received is higher or lower than you like. It doesn't ask whether you think they should or shouldn't deserve anything - it asks you to measure how much they are receiving from what you know and interpret that yourself. [quote]Also, you have given a total non-response to my examples of how those questions do not show racism.[/quote] We disagree on what racism means I suppose, then. I presume that people do know that there is racism, that folks encounter it, that there are in fact ceilings that are in place somewhat due to racism, and so on and so forth and so - accordingly - I presume that those who state that those things do not exist are those who are forgiving racism and, thusly, are likely to be racist themselves. I do admit the flaw that, somehow, folks could just be unaware - but to disagree that those things exist is racist in my mind because they can be proven to exist - and have repeatedly over many studies in a variety of fields, though we may disagree on the impact that racism has or how much impact is owed specifically to racism and how much should be owed to racist policies. [quote]The numbers are from that survey, the conclusions are form the WaPo.[/quote] Are you saying we would not arrive at the same conclusion that WaPo did, if you were tasked to rank and sort the responses in accordance to roughly how racist they were? Unless they've fabricated data, which I doubt because WaPo doesn't tend to abide such reporting, I don't see a reason to suspect they're trying to push something fraudulent or distorted.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592684]We disagree on what racism means I suppose, then. I presume that people do know that there is racism, that folks encounter it, that there are in fact ceilings that are in place somewhat due to racism, and so on and so forth and so - accordingly - I presume that those who state that those things do not exist are those who are forgiving racism and, thusly, are likely to be racist themselves. I do admit the flaw that, somehow, folks could just be unaware - but to disagree that those things exist is racist in my mind because they can be proven to exist - and have repeatedly over many studies in a variety of fields, though we may disagree on the impact that racism has or how much impact is owed specifically to racism and how much should be owed to racist policies.[/QUOTE] Do you live in a massive bubble? People on the right say that racism isn't a big deal anymore literally all the time. The magnitude and effects of racism is one of the big splits between the right and left in modern society. This includes black people on the left and right.

[quote]People on the right say that racism isn't a big deal anymore literally all the time.[/quote] And they're either willfully ignorant or racist, yes. Also, folks on the left say it occasionally. [quote]The magnitude and effects of racism[/quote] To say it's 'not a big deal anymore' is more or less to say that it's a 'solved problem' and thus 'no longer exists'. That means that they don't believe there is racism which is at least somewhat racist in my mind if it's not coming from a place of ignorance.

This is a constantly ongoing argument with one side giving a study, the other side trying to poke holes in it, the other side giving a study, the other side trying to poke holes in it, etc. etc. etc.

[quote]This is a constantly ongoing argument with one side giving a study, the other side trying to poke holes in it, the other side giving a study, the other side trying to poke holes in it, etc. etc. etc.[/quote] Yes, this is typically how debates go.