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

[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.[/QUOTE] Even if you think they are totally, completely, wrong, how it is racism? Can you draw the connection between thinking racism isn't a big deal anymore and thinking black people are lesser than white people because of their race? Every explanation I've heard from the right is cultural, not racial. They would apply equally to white people, and are applied to white people who do the same things (i.e. single parent homes, lack of focus on education, etc.)

[quote]Can you draw the connection between thinking racism isn't a big deal anymore and thinking black people are lesser than white people?[/quote] That's not the end-all be-all of racism. A lot of folks wouldn't even identify that some of the things they feel don't really come from a place of evidence or observation, they come from racism (assumptions on a person due to their race), and thus they feel they can't be racist. For example: If you feel that any black person you see must come from a poor neighborhood that would be racist. It isn't that there is, in fact, a lot of people who come from poor neighborhoods - it's the automatic association without giving time for context that's done it. You don't have to feel that you are superior to black people to be racist. You just have to feel that black people 'just are a certain way'. You [I]do[/I] have to feel you're superior to be a supremacist, however. Not all racists are supremacists, though all supremacists are racists.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592700]That's not the end-all be-all of racism. A lot of folks wouldn't even identify that some of the things they feel don't really come from a place of evidence or observation, they come from racism (assumptions on a person due to their race), and thus they feel they can't be racist. For example: If you feel that any black person you see must come from a poor neighborhood that would be racist. It isn't that there is, in fact, a lot of people who come from poor neighborhoods - it's the automatic association without giving time for context that's done it. You don't have to feel that you are superior to black people to be racist. You just have to feel that black people 'just are a certain way'.[/QUOTE] Nobody would think that, though? Clearly there are wealthy black people (like Obama). So of course [B]all[/B] black people can't be from poor neighborhoods. To say that a black person [B]must[/B] come from a black area would be nonsensical. Some people might think that it's more likely that they come from a poor neighborhood, and assuming you live in certain areas, that might be factually true.

[quote]Nobody would think that, though?[/quote] Many think that. Not that every black person is a copy-paste of other black people, but that black people have certain things that they do, places they come from, desires, career choices, life goals, and so on. Anyway, to directly counter: [quote]So of course all black people can't be from poor neighborhoods.[/quote] That's not how it works, though. It wouldn't change them from going 'oh, so black people don't all come from poor neighborhoods' it'd just mean 'So Obama came from a rich neighborhood'. And in either case: You're still making an assumption. We're all a little racist and it's not wrong to be as such; our brains just work that way - they are constantly looking for patterns. The problem comes when people reject new information and instead keep their old information, thus 'Not all Black people come from poor neighborhoods' just becomes 'Obama's an exception'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592712]Many think that. Anyway, to directly counter: That's not how it works, though. It wouldn't change them from going 'oh, so black people don't all come from poor neighborhoods' it'd just mean 'So Obama came from a rich neighborhood'. And in either case: You're still making an assumption. We're all a little racist and it's not wrong to be as such; our brains just work that way - they are constantly looking for patterns. The problem comes when people reject new information and instead keep their old information, thus 'Not all Black people come from poor neighborhoods' just becomes 'Obama's an exception'.[/QUOTE] Making accurate generalizations isn't racist. Racism is when you believe that being of a certain race is the cause of a trait. So, for example, it isn't racist to think that a white guy will probably be able to swim better than a black guy, but it is racist to think that the black guy can't swim because black people are just too dumb to learn how. [editline]20th August 2017[/editline] Also, to be clear, thinking that there's an exception automatically shows that the statement, "black people must come from poor neighborhoods," is false. That's the problem with absolute statements; a single exception defeats them. You're presenting black and white anecdotal situations that simply don't exist in reality.

[quote]Making generalizations isn't racist. Racism is when you believe that being of a certain race is the cause of a trait.[/quote] If you're making racist generalizations, it's racist. Otherwise, sure, I agree with that with exception that some people assume life experiences and cultures from a person's skin tone which is also racist. It's not [I]intentional[/I] racism but it's racism nonetheless even though it shouldn't be a big deal so long as it's acknowledged as accidentally racist. [quote]it isn't racist to think that a white guy will be able to swim better than a black guy[/quote] It is, in absence of other context, racist to state that. The only differentiation being given here is the color of skin involved. If you were to say 'an experienced white swimmer will be able to swim better than an inexperienced black swimmer' that'd not be racist to contrast because you're drawing the division between experience rather than skin tone. Otherwise, you're more or less stating that it's the race that's the reason here. [quote]That's the problem with absolute statements; a single exception defeats them.[/quote] Racism isn't about absolute statements. They're about generalized assumptions which are much more flexible (edit: typically, going into the exception below). [quote]You're presenting black and white anecdotal situations that simply don't exist in reality.[/quote] You're presuming that racism is always black and white and always hard and immovable. It's far more grey, typically. With some people though, yes, they view them as absolutes - 'black people [I]must[/I] be violent people', 'asians [I]must[/I] be math wizards', 'irishmen [I]must[/I] be good at drinking alcohol' and so on. You can tell how firm their belief is in that assumption by challenging it - if they're offended, they're intentionally (even if unknowing of the cause) being racist since they're refusing to re-evaluate their opinion because the opinion cites itself as the justification for the opinion. When people really buy in to a racist statement, they'll start making correlating justifications. 'Asians [I]must[/I] be math wizards because they secretly pass notes to each other in class', 'Blacks [I]must[/I] be violent because they hate Whites' - that's when you start becoming radicalized and when your racism starts becoming less a harmless assumption and more a harmful ideology.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52592653]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] I think EFF is being a bit of a blowhard, and somewhat hypocritical in this case. Both GoDaddy and Google's ToS are quite clear and The Daily Stormer broke both. Cloudflare would have continued covering them had they not said that Cloudflare secretly supports their stances. They also acknowledge the fact that it's these providers first amendment right to pick and choose who they provide those platforms to. Making the argument that it's a moral imperative (which I'm assuming EFF is making since they concede they have no legal basis in this case) for these providers to give The Daily Stormer a platform is the inverse of arguing that its a moral imperative that they don't provide them a platform, which the EFF clearly opposes. Also being opposed to free speech doesn't necessarily make you a fascist, it makes you authoritarian. Not all authoritarians are fascists, but all fascists are authoritarian :magic101:

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592726]If you're making racist generalizations, it's racist. Otherwise, sure, I agree with that with exception that some people assume life experiences and cultures from a person's skin tone which is also racist. It's not [I]intentional[/I] racism but it's racism nonetheless even though it shouldn't be a big deal so long as it's acknowledged as accidentally racist.[/QUOTE] It simply isn't racist to apply real statistics to generalizations when you don't have more information to go on. Let me give you a situation: You are chosen as a team captain for a swimming race and need to pick a partner. In front of you is a black guy and a white guy. You know nothing about them. They look to be in the same level of fitness, the same body build, the same clothing, etc. You have no idea whether they have any swimming background. Who do you pick? The statistically correct answer is to pick the white guy. He is factually more likely to be better at swimming because of the geographical and cultural differences between white and black people as they grow up. White people generally have more access to pools, have a stronger pressure to learn how to swim through family, etc. So they are more likely to have skill at swimming. Was that a racist choice? No, it was not. The skin color of the person correlated with being worse at swimming, but it was not the causal reason that the black person is probably worse at swimming. The skin color just happened to also correlate with other, cultural, markers that tend to lead to being a worse swimmer (like geographical living conditions and family pressures). Knowing true statistics isn't racist. Assuming that those statistics are caused by someone's race is racist. If you're going to say that recognizing true statistics is racist, then racism is a pointless and useless term.

[quote]Who do you pick? The statistically correct answer is to pick the white guy. He is factually more likely to be better at swimming because of the geographical and cultural differences between white and black people as they grow up.[/quote] And here's the part where you're racist: You're assuming where they grew up and assuming their culture by the nature of their skin. Just because it's statistically supported doesn't mean you're not engaging in racism. The way to not be racist would be to figure out their individual backgrounds. Do I admit that's a little ridiculous or otherwise impossible in certain situations? Sure. But in such a case the less racist way to go would be to say 'I'm not actually sure'. That doesn't mean the statistics won't bear out in the end though; good statistics tend to work like that. Again, as I said, racism isn't always a horrible ridiculous evil thing. It certainly can be - but most of the time its just our brains filling in the blanks for missing data with data from elsewhere (though part of the problem here is that most data being put in here hasn't been 'sanitized' for such use, your brain could pull from anywhere) or trying to find a pattern that fits. However it is a big problem if someone says they've never been racist or that racism isn't something we deal with every day.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592764]And here's the part where you're racist: You're assuming where they grew up and assuming their culture.[/QUOTE] No, I'm acting based on true statistics. For a comparison: If I have two jars in front of me, one with 20% blue marbles and 80% red marbles, and one with 20% red marbles and 80% blue marbles, and I'm told that I need to pick a red marble, but only get to pick from one jar, then I would pick from the first jar. Does that mean I'm assuming that I will pick a red marble? No, it means I'm statistically more likely to get a red marble from the first jar than the second jar. In the same way, I'm not assuming the white guy is better at swimming. I'm picking from the jar that is more likely to produce a person that is better at swimming. [editline]20th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE] The way to not be racist would be to figure out their individual backgrounds.[/QUOTE] I specifically said that you knew nothing about them in this situation, just like much of the real world. It is literally impossible to get to know every person you interact with individually.

[quote]In the same way, I'm not assuming the white guy is better at swimming. I'm picking from the jar that is more likely to produce a person that is better at swimming.[/quote] But you are assuming. You are assuming based on their race. Just because it's statistically supported doesn't make it not racist, as I've gone over above. I see you're having trouble with this concept, so I'll again restate the objective definition of racism: Making an assumption about someone based solely on the color of their skin (or cheekbones/hair/etc, ethnic traits in general really). Statistically-supported racism is still racism because you're still choosing to believe in something you know is an assumption over the reality, which is that you don't [I]actually know[/I]. Edit: [quote]I specifically said that you knew nothing about them in this situation, just like much of the real world. It is literally impossible to get to know every person you interact with individually.[/quote] [quote=Yes, I'm aware. I already went over that in one of my edits; sorry.]Do I admit that's a little ridiculous or otherwise impossible in certain situations? Sure. But in such a case the less racist way to go would be to say 'I'm not actually sure'. That doesn't mean the statistics won't bear out in the end though; good statistics tend to work like that. It's nonetheless racist. You simply can't make an assumption based on the color of someone's skin and have it not be racist.[/quote]

I guess we fundamentally disagree on what racism is. You've effectively defanged racism. You've made it into something that every person on the entire planet does every single day, and must do to live a normal life. Who cares if you call them a racist? Everyone is a racist to you.

[quote]I guess we fundamentally disagree on what racism is.[/quote] I don't think we do. I think you just feel 'icky' to call yourself racist. Like I said, everyone's a little bit racist; that's just how our brains work most of the time. It's not a big deal most of the time so long as it's kept in check and we continuously acknowledge we're making an assumption. It's when people just [I]make[/I] assumptions and don't realize or don't care that they're making assumptions that we quickly get into bad territories. [quote]You've effectively defanged racism.[/quote] In no way have I. Violence can range from shoving you to pulling you apart via horses while you're boiled alive in a silver cocoon filled with bullet ants who've been extremely agitated. Just because I've explained that I can shove you doesn't mean that the other end of the spectrum doesn't exist. I'm just explaining that racism is more than the one thing you previously seemed to believe it was and from your present phrasing it almost feels like you're trying to normalize all racism because you dislike that it's on a broad spectrum? When most people take offense and yell at you for being racist, it's typically because you've made some sort of assumption and have not only made that assumption but have attempted to put it on them or make decisions about them using that assumption. In other words, they're mad because you're not recognizing them - you're recognizing a fictional character you've built in your mind out of piecemeal information from who-knows-where. The more harmful and ridiculous and/or violent the statement is, the more racist it is. Extreme racism involves things like 'The Jews are the reason for the downfall of humanity' and 'If you let a black man in to your home he'll rape you, your wife, steal all your stuff, and then murder you' where you're not just making an assumption - you're making a whole host of [U]dangerous[/U] assumptions that build on each other. Those statements have [B]plenty[/B] of fangs on them. Anyway, this is what I meant by 'it's either racist or ignorant to state that racism is no longer a thing' because it'll always be a thing. Whether or not we allow our assumptions to be harmful to others is at least in large part due to how well we respect that we're just wired this way and that facts are better things to trust in than assumptions.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52592783]I don't think we do. I think you just feel 'icky' to call yourself racist. Like I said, everyone's a little bit racist; that's just how our brains work most of the time. It's not a big deal most of the time so long as it's kept in check and we continuously acknowledge we're making an assumption. It's when people just [I]make[/I] assumptions and don't realize or don't care that they're making assumptions that we quickly get into bad territories.[/QUOTE] We most definitely do disagree. I define racism as having an unjustified believe that one's race is a cause of a trait. You define racism as recognizing any statistical difference between groups of people, whether true or not. They are fundamentally different. When I call someone a racist, I'm calling them out for a horrible unfounded view. When you call someone a racist, you're just pointing out that they're human.

[quote]You define racism as recognizing any statistical difference between groups of people, whether true or not.[/quote] That's not what I define it as. I've already written above what I define it as, which is not that and is not 'fundamentally different'. [quote=Definition]Making an assumption about someone based solely on the color of their skin (or cheekbones/hair/etc, ethnic traits in general really).[/quote] 'An assumption' doesn't mean a statistical difference. It could be literally anything. I could assume all Irishmen have red hair. I could assume black people hate tanning. Etc, etc. When I [B]call[/B] someone racist, I'm calling out a horrible view or a very misguided statement. I'm not calling you or anyone out - I'm just explaining that we're all prone to racism. Edit: It's a bit like 'being a criminal'. Near-everyone has committed crimes of probably inconsequential weight or value; therefore we are all criminals (and yes, I mean including things like littering, loitering, and jaywalking). However, if I [I]call[/I] someone a criminal, I'm stating they're guilty of something much more than some petty, mostly-harmless, offense. Edit 2: Also, though I'd love to continue this discussion it is now 4:33 AM and my grammar is going to hell in a handbasket.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52592790]We most definitely do disagree. I define racism as having an unjustified believe that one's race is a cause of a trait. You define racism as recognizing any statistical difference between groups of people, whether true or not. They are fundamentally different. When I call someone a racist, I'm calling them out for a horrible unfounded view. When you call someone a racist, you're just pointing out that they're human.[/QUOTE] I think systemic racism putting pressure on people to commit crimes that lead to justification for systemic racism is a self fulfilling prophecy on a national scale that verifies your point. Take a large pool of black people and you fill find a more criminal charges than other races, but even more people that can account for times in their life where they've experienced prejudice. And take a pool of any white people and you've got some people that have some, haha [I]classic[/I] stories of times they tooootally should've gotten arrested but the cop 'just let me off lol' Anecdotal but you get the idea that you could verify this with statistics.