Slashdot Mirror
Geomapping Racism With Twitter
Hugh Pickens writes "Megan Garber writes that in the age of the quantified self, biases are just one more thing that can be measured, analyzed, and publicized. The day after Barack Obama won a second term as president of the United States, a group of geography academics took advantage of the fact that many tweets are geocoded to search Twitter for racism-revealing terms that appeared in the context of tweets that mentioned 'Obama,' 're-elected,' or 'won,' sorting the tweets according to the state they were sent from and comparing the racist tweets to the total number of geocoded tweets coming from that state during the same time period. Their findings? Alabama and Mississippi have the highest measures followed closely by Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee forming a fairly distinctive cluster in the southeast. Beyond that cluster North Dakota and Utah both had relatively high scores (3.5 each), as did Missouri, Oregon, and Minnesota. 'These findings support the idea that there are some fairly strong clustering of hate tweets centered in southeastern U.S. which has a much higher rate than the national average,' writes Matthew Zook. 'But lest anyone elsewhere become too complacent, the unfortunate fact is that most states are not immune from this kind of activity. Racist behavior, particularly directed at African Americans in the U.S., is all too easy to find both offline and in information space.'"
How did they account for multiple racists tweets from one "tweeter"?
One racist sending 100 racist tweets is not the same as 100 different racists each sending one racist tweet each.
Ken
I love data porn and tried to play around with this interactive map. I lived in Minnesota for 23 years and do not recall it to be very racist -- even in the rural areas. So according to that map there are five red dots in Minnesota which are strangely all centered around the twin cities area (the most populated and liberal part of the state). And that data puts Minnesota mentionably close to the top of the list? But if I look at Virginia, I can't even count the number of red dots there's so many and it's not even halfway up the list? What the hell?
Do each of these red dots indicate a single tweet? What are the numbers and tweets that they're looking at here, I feel like the LQ value is not doing the best job of reflecting "racism."
My work here is dung.
They're only looking for racism directed against Obama, so they won't find (for example) black against white racism in Philadelphia or Latino against Caucasian racism in California. It is truly regrettable that certain organizations like the SPLC dilute their otherwise honorable mission by turning a blind eye to hate in some of its notable forms.
Lucky for you, free speech covers your spew. Posting AC doesn't allow us to revile you as thoroughly as we should, but we'll remember your hate.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Film at Eleven.
I'm just waiting for one who lacks reading comprehension skills (to know that was an insult) to come in and say "ROLL TIDE" which seems to be the "we know nothing but football" middle-america-battle-cry variant for that part of the world. Here in PA, we get to hear "we are" over and over from the Pennsyl-tucky-ans because PSU grads can't seem to finish a sentence.
Don't forget "unique" and "completely original" lol
You'll find that what makes your post racist (as well as homophobic, as well as plain stupid) isn't any word that is contained in it, but the fuck who wrote it.
"Make Trolls Stay On-Topic"
I might even believe you if you hadn't tagged the end of your post with:
"...especially processing conducted by faggots."
Maybe you are mixed, maybe not. Your post infers the prejudice with those words. I know the vocabulary, I understand the malice and fear behind them. Sadly, I live not far from where the KKK was founded and there are a lot of scared people of many races here. Each of them has racial "power" that's actually the flipside of fear. In my book: all are individuals, some better than others on their own merits.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Cracker Barrel isn't meant as a term of offense. Specifically, it's a term coined because general stores in the 19th centuries kept items, Like crackers in large barrels. Though, I wouldn't hold them up as a standard of racial harmony considering how many times they've been sued for racial discrimination.
The data only accounts for racism specifically targetting Obama by the looks of it. So not surprisingly the states that lost the civil war have the most. But it appears to be counting tweets vs accounts. That makes a huge difference because it only takes one mouthy retard to drive your state up the ranks.
Somehow a meme developed whereby people of color could use the N-word and believed that to be ok. I believe the use of the word carries negative implication no matter who uses it, any any context. It's protected speech.
So also is the f-word.
Your status as a bi-sexual of mixed-race is dubious in my mind, or you wouldn't be actively disrespecting yourself, and others that might be similar to you. Why hate yourself and allow that to propagate? You can be proud. This is 2012. Time to stand up and be counted for being human, no matter the color, no matter the sexual orientation. You presume me to be white and str8. This presumption is part of the problem. By labeling, we do injustice, by pre-judging, hence prejudice.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The most charitable explanation for your post is that you did not click on the link and take a look at the article.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I think to gather this dataset for what you are talking about would require a highly polarizing event with the opposite result. But lets be honest here, there isn't much of a dataset for the main article.
Sure seems to be the same to me.
And yet they're not even close to being the same thing. In the case of Cracker Barrel, 'cracker' has more than 1 commonly used definition and it's clearly not the racial slur in the case of the restaurant. Also, the racial slur 'cracker' doesn't have the same cultural baggage associated with it. For example, you won't find it hard to use the word 'cracker' on network television, but it would be incredibly hard to get permission to use the word 'nigger'. There are few places in the U.S. where a white person could go and have to deal with any form of racism. The same is not true for most minorities.
If you have a problem with the word 'nigger' being considered a racial slur and can't understand the difference in cultural baggage between 'cracker' and 'nigger', you might want to take a little more time to study racial issues in this country. You obviously don't have any experience dealing with true racism first hand.
"Wow I really disagree with Obama's policy on Taxation" = Political Discourse
"Wow I really disagree with that N*****'s policy on Taxation" = Racist
It's not that hard to figure out.
I was trying to make a point that calling the inhabitants of a place racist is itself a form of racism. Looks like you guys didn't get your sarcasm detector calibrated today.
With only a couple of days work this isn't bad. But it's not science, it's interest and a proof of concept for doing actual research.
I think it's absolutely horrible and the fact that these states names but not their numbers have found their way into headlines and a Slashdot summary makes me sick. They might have been right to indict the Southern states that we already know have issues along these lines but their map of tweets lists precisely one tweet for Utah and one tweet for North Dakota. The really appalling thing about the North Dakota tweet is that it is geolocated to Minot, a town that has seen an explosive growth in transient workers from states like Oklahoma and Texas in order to meet the demand for workers with oil specialties in the oil fields near there. It's probably a fifty/fifty shot the tweet was from an actual permanent resident of North Dakota.
Basically if a low population states hits the top of your study and the data is that sparse (one tweet!) then I think you should omit that as an outlier and stricken those names from your press release. It's great to recognize these things in your data and to talk about them in your analysis. It's unjust to propagate just their names throughout the news making people think that North Dakota is not only cold and sparsely populated but it's also racist.
Someone in Salt Lake City could have been joking in one tweet and suddenly Utah is one of the most racist states in a Slashdot summary. A transient worker who feels like lost his job in OK and had to use his CDL in Minot, ND because a black man was president could fire off an ignorant tweet and suddenly North Dakota is full of racists.
My work here is dung.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why is it irrelevant? They claim they're measuring the geolocation of racism, but only pick one very specific type.
The computer drew no conclusions, it merely computed the input it was given, using the parrameters programmed into it. Any profile created is the result of HUMAN thought, not computation,
Good-bye
That's funny, it had the same definition when I was in middle and high school, but for some reason that excuse doesn't innoculate me from the way others respond to that word.
If you are the only one that knows what you mean when you use that word, it is your problem, not you're listeners.
Ken
Did they track the racist tweets, death and riot threats if Romney won? I saw a lot which doesn't mean anything statistically. One picked just now https://twitter.com/MsIvory69/status/267567462298554368 PS. Not at all a Romney supporter.
Never mind the fact that:
.05% of the population is outwardly racist. Who cares if the south has a marginally higher number or the 359 racist Twitter users. This story is as ludicrous, sensationalized, piece drivel that doesn't really show anything. I've lived in Alabama for almost 3 years now and have yet to run into an openly racist person.
- they did not account for multiple tweets from the same person.
- do not consider any term "racist" unless it has been used to "subjugate a people for generations"
- think that 359 TOTAL geocoded tweets out of ALL geocoded tweets (.05%) is statistically significant.
We should be celebrating that only
When the author was confronted with questions regarding why he did not do a reciprocal piece, regarding racism against Romney, he argued that there are not words for whites that have the same power as the "n" word for blacks (although he included the word "monkey" in his "study", a word I've heard used to describe fools both white and black alike). It is clear that the authors view is that is impossible whites to be the subject of racism because they were the oppressor 60 years ago. The article leaves you with the implied conclusion that if someone did not vote for Obama, they must be racist (a implication that the author denies in his follow up).
Did they really expect clusters in Rocky Mountains?
You can find assholes almost anywhere
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Apparently Chris Matthews gets to decide what is racist. For example, he declared that refering to "Chicago" is racist.
Ken
It wasn't life that was unkind, it was their fellow white Americans.
Also, my mother passed through New York City on the way to Europe and remembers seeing signs saying 'No blacks' and such on restaurants. She is younger than 150.
The map is not the territory.
Aside from the problems people already mentioned, if you look in their FAQ, one correction they didn't even mention is correcting it for total Obama support. Obviously if a place has twice as many Obama opponents it's also going to have twice as many racist Obama opponents. But that doesn't prove that it has "more racist Obama opponents" in the sense we normally think of. If you want that you need ratios.
And 395 is a very small number. They mention that it's not a sample, but it's all the geocoded racist tweets they found, but since it is such a small number, they failed to account for the possibility that there just isn't a lot of racism in the first place, and even if they did look for ratios, "very small percentage compared to another very small percentage" isn't interesting.
And they mention they didn't bother checking all the hateful comments about Romney (they did check for anti-white comments, but they didn't check for comments reflecting other stereotypes). Their excuse is basically "we were trying to find out about racism, which that's not". The trouble with that reasoning is that while anti-Romney tweets are not germane to what they literally claim to be looking for, they are germane to the subtext of what they're looking for, which is that racism is a big problem--if there are a lot of anti-Romney tweets, that can show that the number of anti-Obama tweets is not really such a big deal. "Blacks called names almost as much as Mormons" makes a bad headline, after all.
Film at Eleven
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Actually, it's not the word, it's the person that makes it racist. As George Carlin ($deity bless his smutty soul) said "Eddie Murphy talks about niggers, but he's not a racist, don't be silly. He's a nigger". Is Carlin a racist for using the word? I kinda doubt that he is. And even if, he's not for using the word.
Words are, by themselves, nothing but just that. Words. Idioms to represent something, in case of a noun, to represent an item, a person or an idea. It's the intention behind the word that makes it racist or not. And that's not depending on the word. If a racist calls someone an Afro-American (or whatever the PC word is right now, sorry if I don't keep up with the bull but I prefer to be correct instead of PC), the intention is to use the word not only to ridicule PCness, but also to use the PC term to deem someone inferior.
It is not the word. It is the person that is racist. And by changing the politically correct term for it, you don't change racism. You just paint the shit in a different color, but it still reeks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not mapped, but NoHomophobes.com have a live stream of tweets containing homophobic language. Write up over at the Guardian's Data Store
Wow, conflating an item in a 19th century general store with a restaurant chain and a racial slur?
Sometimes white people are called "Cracker"
General Stores used to have "Cracker Barrels" where folks would sit around the barrel, eat the crackers, and talk about the day's events, politics, etc.
There is a popular restaurant chain called "Cracker Barrel"
Ken
May I remind you, this is Slashdot - reading past the headline is optional, and in no way required (or expected) before posting here...
Ken
Seriously. My feed was full of black people calling Romney "cracker-ass cracker", and I had to de-friend people posting racist jokes about him and his dancing horse.
Not at all.
Language is tricky. You can be what you want to be. My doubts about the nature of your posts has to do with your seeming self-reviling. You describe yourself in terms that don't connote pride, they connote self-loathing, which shouldn't be the case.
Along thru this thread, I've told you that you can use any words that you want; they're protected speech. Your inference, however, is that you seem to despise these things. Being of mixed race, part of the LGBTQ rainbow, these are who you are as an individual. I respect individuals. I don't respect negative labels.
For English, there is no real language police. There is, however, the semantical choices made by English speakers that contextually infer their contexts, and their meanings. Describe yourself in any way you see fit, but don't believe that others want to use the negative inference you've used as well. Indeed, these words are used to subjugate you by labeling you in negative terms. Those negative terms are viable. But they do little good.
That you may be perceived by others negatively is their misfortune. For you to do so, however, validates their negativity and prejudice. Be proud. Pride is a positive quality, and eschews the negative.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
We knew nothing of the intentions of the speaker until they spoke, using words and vocabulary, inference, inflections, and other linguistic keys to understand their utterances.
Words can demean, save that those they target may not be demeaned by them. While Carlin used speech loosely and for great humor and insight, this particular choice poises Eddie Murphy dropping to a low common denominator of reference. Carlin may be no racist, but the term is demeaning nonetheless.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Think it through. There are two sides to every coin.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Oh gosh, who else hasn't used their time machine yet? I believe the word is "retro"? I haven't used it in a century, you know, so I might have forgotten.
if the results arent strictly scientific from a statisticians observation. The overarching point is to draw attention to this kind of behavior and place it in contexts such as the "you lie" incident during healthcare reform, the birther rhetoric and even the tea party itself. This was more an exercise in the patterns and processes of social inequality than it was a mathematical endeavor of quantification in my opinion, and it deserves further research into questions like what are the causes and solutions.
Good people go to bed earlier.
As a person who isn't a kid these days, and is completely unfamiliar with hip internet parlance (i.e. lives in the real world), terms like "faggot" and the n-word (I don't even want to type it) are still highly charged, and loaded with ugly context. I really doubt that most gay people or black people would also find these words fully acceptable (go find one, call them it, then try to tell them that its okay on 4chan so they should relax).
Words do have power. Words shape our understanding and conception of the world. Words with a loaded history of venom and hate still maintain a portion of that long after they stop being completely pejorative. It doesn't even matter what the speaker means, as meaning is created mostly by the perceiver.
Further, your being a bit naive. If someone calls me a "fag", I'm pretty sure they aren't critiquing my fashion sense, they are trying to tie me to a group which (for some stupid reason) they find undesirable. It is an insult which hinged on the idea that homosexuals are bad or dirty. This is the actual content behind the word. The word isn't bad, but the connections it requires to have meaning are.
Unless of course they are asking for a cigarette, or some firewood.
Hell, "fuck" has pretty much become a normal word now, but there still are some connotations lurking in the background which keeps me from ever really wanting to use it (I do, and often, but don't find it a point of pride).
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
And I've seen a lot of black-only club, why is it different ?
How is that when people speak their mind it is labeled "racist"? Isn't there a freedom of speech?
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Calling these idiots racists is an exercise of free speech.
Oh, you wanted us to sit silently while you spew little-minded vitriolic bullshit? Is that how you think free speech works?
No. There are few places in the U.S. where a white person WOULD go and have to deal with any form of racism. Lots of places they COULD go, but don't.
The reelection of the first non-white person to be president in the USA was the biggest and most-watched news event, any type of racism not aimed at Obama would not relevant, regardless of where it came from or was aimed at.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
The difference? Massive levels of prejudice and bias, both official and unofficial from the federal government, state governments, the police, and the legal system. I would cite something here but this is basic, uncontroversial US history.
I don't think you should be allowed to have racially exclusive clubs, but I think you are full of shit with your "lot of black only club". For a moment, let's assume you are right. You still must be profoundly ignorant of United States history to think the shoe is somehow on the other foot. In some Southern states, blacks are over 90% of the prison population, but I am sure that is just some crazy coincidence, right?
The map is not the territory.
Bullshit.
I know another term for reverse-racism ... it's "racism". It shouldn't be made different in any way. If people keep doing things to treat any type of racism differently, it will never stop.
Jezebel is about presenting everything in a way that makes liberal women outraged.
Also, like most people in gender studies, they wouldn't know the scientific process or logic even if it pinched their ass.
Please help metamoderate.
Were the tweets because of Romney's race? Or, were they because of his religion or political ideology? Unless one can definitively answer that question, one cannot make the study you suggest.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Why hasn't there been a map showing all the bigots not only tweeting anti-mormon slurs, but printing their hate as news stories? Does the hatrid and bigotry from the left not count (or is it not only tolerated, but condoned)?
How about they do the same thing for Romney looking at the week before the election? There were a very large number of racist tweets against him - threats to assassinate, start riots, start fires, etc.
I don't understand this. "Don't go after the white folk racists! Them blacks is just as bad!" Why are we trying to shift the blame so that if some blacks call whites crackers and some whites call blacks niggers let's just call it even? How about we call them both out without downplaying one side OR the other. The "but they do it too" game is itself inherently racist because it detracts from the point that racism directed in any direction is immoral.
When I was a kid there was a cheese called Cracker Barrel. Harvey Smith was on the adverts.
Harvey Smith rocked.
I can't vouch for the cheese; myself and dairy products don't get on.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I work internationally, and when the term comes up in a context like, say Africa, where people feel like underdogs but are not minorities, or have multiple splits within the race as in China, it gets really complicated. The term has more meaning in USA or European contexts, perhaps, but since this is "Geomapping" it is a geographic study and I don't think this will work. t would be similar if you were trying to track "Classist" tweets across a geopolitical line where the economic strata are different. They should be measuring "aggression" or "separatism" or something. It would be easier if Twitter got people to add hashtags #Imatroll or #fromadickweed or #aggressiveshithead etc.
Gently reply
Sure would be a pity if some facts happened to it.
Goggle results: "White devil": 55M, "N**r" : 19M.
Oikophobia you much?
When white people hate black people, the people who are harmed the most by it are black people.
When black people hate white people, the people who are harmed the most by it are black people.
In the US there are more white people than black people and the white people have more power. The situation is not symmetric.
For now, the 'specific type' of racism that was measured is still important in a way that the others aren't, even if the others are important also. Soon white people will be a minority, but then black racism still won't be a large threat to white people, it will be asian and hispanic racism, or the absence of it, that affects them primarily.
I agree that racism is a better term than reverse racism. But its BS when people (not necessarily you) bemoan the fact that black racism isn't treated like white racism. Likewise for when people complain of "class warfare" when rich people are criticized for abusing the power that money gives them. (When a poor person thinks that rich people should pay more taxes, and politicians pander to that, it doesn't harm the rich person in anything like the way the poor person is harmed by the self serving actions of the rich person. Getting laid off to increase the quarterly earnings of an already profitable company, for instance, is a lot worse than a multi-millionaire having to pay 20% capital gains tax instead of 15%. The argument is made that higher capital gains taxes would hurt poor people because it discourages investment. This ignores the fact that 'investment' activity is often more parasitic in nature rather than economically constructive. But even supposing the argument is valid, it still illustrates the asymmetry - its the poor person who suffers in both cases. This doesn't imply that rich people are 'worse' than poor people, or that poor people would be any kinder if their roles were reversed. But it does mean that when you're successful, the wealth you acquire gives you more power to affect other people, and you're responsible for what you do with that.)
I consider myself to be racist, and its something I'm not entirely ashamed of. I don't think that cultures are in every sense equivalent, and I don't think that all kinds of intelligence are uniformly distributed across genetic groups. Its BS when black people act like their worst stereotypes then complain of racism when they get criticized for it. But its worse to use even real weaknesses and shortcomings of other people as an excuse to unjustly abuse and exploit them when you have the power to do that. From where I stand, white people who try to draw an equivalence between black and white racism generally don't see anything like the truth about how grievously black people have been fucked over by white people. And I'm not just talking about Jim Crow, that affected many still-living black people. Our entire social and economic order is still to a very large extent built around the values and strengths of non-black people. Its not being 'fair' when you define virtue in terms of your own best advantages then punish others for falling short by that standard.
The authors of the article point out that they distinguished between "nigger" and "nigga". I think that's a pretty useful distinction. It seems to me that when people type the term they tend to use the former when they're using it in derogatory fashion and the latter otherwise.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=PqxPQuIPV2A&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPqxPQuIPV2A
Regarding cultural stereotypes ... yes, I pick on those, and any ridiculous cultural behaviours as well. Cultures are voluntary, not racial, and can be changed. You say our economics are built around the values of 'non-black' people. Other than racism, there is no basis to that statement. Indians, asians, etc, have no problems, but black people do? The only thing other than racism causing that would be culture, and that can be changed. All it takes is the will to do it. The racism needs to stop across the board though. If you treat any kind differently than any other kind, you always end up with a pendulum effect where it never stays in the neutral position.
Unlike fucking Putin loving assholes such as yourself, in America we believe people can vote how they want for whatever reason.
If Romney wanted 99% of the white vote, he should have tried some economic populism.
If I were to ask what 'the age of the quantified self' means, would I regret it?
Marion Barry was first racist against Asians
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74866.html
He then fake apologized for his racism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dcs-marion-barry-widely-rebuked-for-comments-about-asian-business-owners/2012/04/05/gIQA27SVyS_story.html
Then he slurred the Polish people while apologising to Asians
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/marion-barry-commits-new-gaffe-while-apologizing-to-asians/2012/05/24/gJQASY7nnU_story.html
In the whole country over 95% of the pruson population is poor people. Crime is driven by economic status not skin color. Why black people are poor is because social mobility is practically non-existant. They just got stuck starting lower than everyon else thanks to malaria driving a need for cheap and malaria-resistant labor in the warm and marshy parts of the americans five hundred years ago.
Why Did They Have to Take the Word Gay?
If you want to do more than skim the surface of racism, it helps to look at the issue in relation to power structures
OK, let's start by considering that the president of the most powerful country in the world is black.
My other UID is three digits.
"For instance, you take the word "Nigger." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "Nigger" in and of itself. It's the racist asshole who's using it that you ought to be concerned about. We don't mind when Richard Pryer or Eddie Murphy say it. Why? Because we know they're not racist. They're Niggers! Context. Context. We don't mind their context because we know they're black. Hey, I know I'm whitey, the blue-eyed devil, paddy-o, fay gray boy, honkey, mother-fucker myself. Don't bother my ass." - George Carlin
It sounds like you decided that since it's not realistic for the whole of black men to have power over the whole of white men, that you've extrapolated that into believing that it's not possible for a black man to have power over a white man.
White man walks through black neighborhood, gets attacked by black men because he's white. If you don't count that as racism than you should probably stop trying to use words at all.
The term is demeaning because it has been used primarily to BE demeaning. It is meant to be demeaning because it is used predominantly by racist people.
Any term can easily share that fate once it is picked up by racists. That's why I consider it complete idiocy to try to use "friendlier" words to put people down. An example.
"Cripple" is no longer politically correct. Now it's "people with special needs" (or did it change again? Again, I don't keep up to date with bullshit). That neither changes the condition, nor does it mean that these people receive equal treatment. It's just repainting the shit.
Changing the term does not change how people act and react. A politically correct term spoken by a racist is still racist, because that's how he means it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm sorry that you don't like me. You're articulate and obviously intelligent, and a capable human being. You really hit the nail on the head when you said that not all cultures are equivalent. From where I sit black culture is doing far more damage to black people than white racism is. There's no difference between you and me: We're both pink inside and we both bleed red.
Cultures are voluntary, not racial, and can be changed.
Of course cultures are to a very large extent not racial. As stated, your position though is that genetics have absolutely no impact on human characteristics aside from outward appearance. Or else that non-superficial hereditary differences between individuals always perfectly average out between groups which developed substantially in isolation from each other under different conditions. Maintaining either proposition requires denying almost everything that is scientifically known about biology.
You say our economics are built around the values of 'non-black' people. Other than racism, there is no basis to that statement.
Aside from things like skin color and hair curliness, I don't presume to know what characteristics of black people are passed down genetically and which are passed down or imposed socially. Certainly there is a complex and subtle interaction. Since I can't completely separate the two, and neither can anyone else, when most people say 'black' they mean something that includes both genetic and cultural heritage. Of course its an over-generalization, there being huge differences between different groups of black people, and huge differences between individuals within any particular group. And a downside of course is that the use of the word 'black' this way seems to imply that differences are immutably tied to skin color, even when they are mostly historical and cultural. Though its also an imperfect phrase, I'll call them African Americans, since this is the context of the discussion of black and white racism, and I want to be clear that I'm including all kinds of cultural differences including those which are not connected in any direct way to skin color.
Suppose that all African American characteristics are entirely a matter of nurture and have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. Its remains true that culture is not entirely a matter of choice. It is shaped by the demands of circumstance, and there is a huge amount of experiential inertia that can't just be indoctrinated away. If someone uses where they came from and who they have been so far as an excuse, then they're not being fair to themselves or to their alleged persecutors. But its not being fair to them to say that its entirely a matter of 'choice' either. I am who I am, for a multiplicity of interrelated reasons, and I want a fair chance. And no, your 'cultural' values do not give me a fair chance. To a large extent they are hurdles designed for other kinds of people to be able to clear them. They do not look to who I am and see what I can contribute, and do not give me a fair chance to prove it in 'the market' either. If someone is especially good at organizing and memorizing facts, they equate this with intelligence and competence, and design tests to identify and reward people who are like themselves. Or if they're not good at these things, they make a fetish of creativity and problem solving instead, and issue and respect credentials based on that. Add up this kind of behavior across a large group, and you get a systematic bias against other groups, whether you admit its there or not. Calling the recognition of this 'racism' doesn't make it less true.
Indians, asians, etc, have no problems, but black people do?
Indians in America are mostly from relatively privileged (upper caste) families, and came to America for graduate school or other professional pursuits. They suffer racism, but you can't reasonably compare them to African Americans who are descended from slaves. Transport an Indian slum intact to America and then you'll have a better comparison. Ethnic neighborhoods populated substantially by refugees, such as the one I live in, are in many ways a lot more like African American neighborhoods.
Native American's have arguably been wronged even worse than African Americans, and in many ways have equal or worse problems. Those p
That we have racist people in the USA? Shit, play an Online video game with voice chat, you'll hear all sorts of racist stuff, plus lots of other weird ass shit that makes you cringe.
Ya, you can use tech to see what state the tweets come from. I bet you can use technology to see who exactly is the people putting out racists tweets.
I hope no one got grant money for this, total waste of money.
Be seeing you...
I know another term for reverse-racism ... it's "racism". It shouldn't be made different in any way. If people keep doing things to treat any type of racism differently, it will never stop.
Yet no one anywhere has any difficulty distinguishing "reverse-racism" from racism. Why is that? Think really hard about it and ask yourself, "Beyond irrelevant characteristics like skin colour, what distinguishes 'reverse-racists' from racists?"
Could it, perhaps, have something to do with the distribution of wealth and power between the two groups? Negative attitudes by members of one artificially delimited social group against another are irrelevant if the people doing the discrimination are powerless to act on their negative beliefs.
So you might conclude that "reverse-racism" could also be called "irrelevant-racism", while racism remains as relevant today as it ever was, sadly.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Did they only map white racists, or others as well? Such as those threatening violence against whites if Obama lost?
akma
If it looks to you like black culture is doing more damage than white racism, I won't argue with that. I'm not going to deny the reality of what someone else can see, and I'm not in a good position to judge which of two diseases is worse. I was just trying to point out this other side too, what I see.
I recognize that we are all the same, even though every individual is also a little bit unique, and even though there are relationships between groups of individuals. I agree that everyone deserves a chance to aspire to what they want to aspire to, without being told that they can't because they belong to the wrong group.
I do feel some anti-black hatred in my heart, and emote some of it by reflex. Where it comes from I don't know. I wasn't taught it by my parents or my peers, and I haven't been significantly harmed by black people in my life. Maybe I'm psychically picking it up from other people, or maybe its an instinct for 'us' to survive at the expense of 'them'. Maybe I've created it myself in response to other analogous experiences, trying to do to others what has been done to me.
I won't apologize for the honesty of my perceptions. But certainly my perceptions are not perfect, not complete. If I've harmed anyone by a 'soft bigotry of low expectations', I am sincerely sorry, just as I'm sorry for where I've expected too much. And where I've done real harm by being too open and honest, I'm sorry for that also.
Identity is a subtle and fluid thing to me, like a big ever-changing fractal, not defined in terms of any group that I'm a part of, but not defined exclusively by my own 'personaI' collection of nerve responses either. I am an individual, but at the same time tribe is not nothing to me, spirit is not nothing to me. I take some responsibility for the racial hatred I feel, irrespective of its origin. And its utterly wrong and unjustified, however great or little it may be.
To whatever extent I have wronged you, or 'disliked' you rather than giving you the respect and love that all people deserve, I am truly sorry. Someday I will atone for it if I can, I swear. Maybe words like love and atonement are too personally intimate, too presumptuous, or too pretentiously dramatic. But I can't think of another way to say what I really feel.
I *am* very angry. I've had an insight today into the procedural workings of the parliament of my country and I'm in a very murderous mood. That's probably why I understand how much people can be frustrated. ;/
Ezekiel 23:20
or just extreme stupidity?
Of course, people could argue that is a pretty good definition of racism anyway.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
How about all the racists who voted for Obama cause he is black? Surely they posted, messages reflecting that.
Your status as a bi-sexual of mixed-race is dubious in my mind, or you wouldn't be actively disrespecting yourself, and others that might be similar to you.
You can't use someones interpretation of words to discredit what they said about being bi-sexual and of mixed race. Not everyone applies the same power to words as other people. Not that I necessarily believe them, but I'm friends with an african american who will easily throw out the word "nigger" and also have a friend who is gay who uses the word "faggot". Am I really in that much of a rare position? Perhaps it is because of them that I'm not afraid of these words and also perhaps why I've got no issues with their lifestyle and/or race. I grew up with these people.
It amazes me to this day people are afraid to say these words, even in proper context of merely discussing the words. The "taboo" nature makes me think of superstition and all the wonders that has brought us.
One other thing....
When you force someone to work in support of an evil system, you set him at war with himself. He wants to work hard, love the fruit of his labor, and care for his family. But he also hates what he's supporting, and consequently hates what he's doing, and eventually hates himself. How can he not? Every day it takes an honorable and capable man, already imperfect like everyone else, and drives him toward becoming someone just a little bit more insolent and slothful. Of course he is responsible to fight against the evil in his heart. But its not a fair fight, his very ability to fight for what is right is what has been assaulted. Then after you've worn him down this way for 400 years, or for a half billion, in one way or another (we're all human), its his fault if he can't instantly spring into angelic perfection as if it never happened? Suddenly its all a "choice"? This is bullshit. I've experienced both sides of this, and its bullshit. Yes the first thing he needs back is his strength of character, and bankrolling his life or making excuses for him isn't going to give him that. He has to pull himself up, nobody else can do it for him. But at the same time, pretending that his condition is primarily his doing because there is no longer significant white racism, that its his moral failure, is just wrong.
When you're being knifed for walking down a street in the wrong colored neighborhood, will it matter to you whether the thugs knifing you are of a social group generally significantly less powerful than your own?
I hear racist attitudes to Obama are also very common in Israel
Just twigged - they looked at 'tweets'. So we're not looking at racists, we're looking at their interpretation of Racists, who use Twitter, who tweeted about the election result. That's not a great basis for anything. Maybe not all racists use twitter.
We may need a door-to-door sampling using a questionairre. God, that would be good: 'On a scale of 1 to 10, how racist are you?". And then we're into whether racists really see themselves as racist. And do some non-racists see themselves as racist.
I should do a thesis on this...
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Their definition of racism is limited. Why didn't they include the phrase "old white men" in their search? It comes up about every 5 minutes on twitter.
Self-slur is neither uplifting or accurate. People use self-demeaning words all of the time. Doesn't make it better or give them respect; they're labels. My personal experience says that when people use demeaning self-labels, they're depressed or on the offensive about being defensive. There is no real pride there. They're somehow admitting to be different in a derogatory categorization. I find nothing wrong with any race, mixed race, browner than you, lighter than me. I don't really care about another's sexuality as it has no context for me. Gay? Bi? Trans? Str8? Fine. Have a nice day. Context, the negative type, then allows people to perpetuate mythological connotation to the nature. Queer? Swings both ways? Chick with a dick? Dude without one? Makes no real different but the terminology is negative, and potentially abusive-- and prejudicial.
Discuss the words? Fine. The context for this entire post is the geo-location of tweets that are derogatory in nature. These weren't fellowship, kinship tweets.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
What the f*** now?
It's stereotyping, not racism. Racism is a specific (and particularly pernicious) form of stereotyping, but not all inclusive.
LOL. I mean jeez, the irony! You obviously have no idea how racist that statement is.
How is that when people speak their mind it is labeled "racist"? Isn't there a freedom of speech?
It's funny how trolls (and aren't racists a kind of troll?) always get all mad about their freedom of speech being violated, just because somebody points out that they're trolling. As if the 1st amendment covers saying things that are offensive, but it doesn't cover telling people that they're saying offensive things.
Speaking of old people with outdated vocabularies, can anybody explain to me why "suck" and "screw" no longer have any sexual connotation? It's just weird.
Hey, _I_ know what will make racial tensions go away! Lets excuse racism when one group does it and focus exclusively on how the OTHER race is the source of all of our problems. THAT will make everyone like each other!
Theres no such thing as reverse racism. Its not my fault I was born white, and for someone to fault me for being born white is just as racist as anything described in the article.
You mean "who voted against Romney because he showed the finger to everyone who is not a rich white male", right?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
"How about we call them both out..."
Good idea. In fact, that's the point of the posts you object to. The examination of racist tweets "called out" one specific kind of racism without any attempt to "call out" any other kind. Why would you defend that sort of conduct? And why would you defend it by accusing it's detractors of exactly the sort of shortsightedness that the examination of racist tweets suffers from?
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Ah, yes. Where would we be without liberal apologists for racism? Gosh, if people were accountable for their deeds then we might actually make progress. I leave you with the immortal words of The Band (all-white, in case you are one of those people who changes the meanings of words if they are spoken by the "wrong" skin color [change the meaning of "wrong" by the culture you relate to the most]) and please do change the meaning of "she" and "drunkard" from their original meaning to this context:
Up on Cripple Creek she sends me
If I spring a leak she mends me
I don't have to speak she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
What's wrong with being a racist is that you're hating the wrong person. Don't hate the black person. Hate the asshole, independent of his skin color.
Are there black assholes? You can bet your sweet white ass there are. Just like there are jewish assholes, gay assholes, latino assholes and yes, white assholes too. Being an ass doesn't have much to do with your skin color, your sex, your religion or your lifestyle. People are people, and some people are just simply and plainly assholes the world would be far better off if they just offed themselves.
The problem is a feeling of entitlement. I'm entitled to being treated nicely and get freebies no matter how much of an ass I am because I'm jewish/black/latino/gay/white. No, screw you, you're not. The only thing you have a right to is being treated like a human being unless you waive that right by being an ass.
The main problem with being racist here is that it actually MAKES people assholes. Take one nice black person. He's going around his life trying to get along and get ahead not by a feeling of entitlement because he's black but by an attempt to be a productive, "good" person. If he is hit with racism time and again, what will his reaction be? "Screw you, white breads, I'll now treat you the way you treat me".
Congrats. You just created a racist.
Is that your goal? If so, please go on. You create a completely unnecessary "us vs them" spiral that wastes your resources.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There were also reports of black panthers showing up at polling places to intimadate voters. It is very inaccurate to just portray this as being one group.
I would also like to mention as well that while those tweets are mostly just chatter , we are ignoring the very real racial genocide that is accuring right before our eyes and all around us. The fact is that the European race is going extinct. People of European extraction are having far too few children to even regenerate their population level, this means that each year the European ethnic population gets smaller and smaller and this cannot go on for ever, eventually ther race will be completely destroyed and cease to exist. This is nothing less than the genocidal extermination of an entire race of people and is no different in effect than any other genocidal extermination. The extermination is as well traceable to specific policies of the Democratic Party which seems to have decided that it hates the white race and wants to destroy it. Abortion, without which this would not be happening, killed huge numbers of white babies each year. Abundant access to birth control pills which I call genocide pills and should have never been approved. The anti family, man hating, white hating rhetoric that constantly spews out of the Liberal media in the USA which has been an agent in nothing less than the annihilation of the white race.
This is not an abstract argument and it is no joke. By 2040 Europeans Americans will be a minority in the US, under 18 whites will be a minority much more quickly than that, this decline is continuous and shows no signs of stopping, whites are declining as a percentage of population as well as in absolute numbers as a percentage of global population. Eventually real white Europeans will vanish completely from the US, being destroyed by Liberal, anti family, child hating policies that have encouraged this population decline, and what is left will be destroyed by miscegenation. The result is genuine white people, will be nowhere to be found and will have been completely exterminated off the face of the earth.
What the immigration invasions in the USA represent is the crowding out of white people globally and their decline as a percentage of global population and gradual complete annihilation as a unique, distinctive race, and their eventual destruction as a unique, distinctive race, and the gradual death of the white race globally. This represents a crowding out and eventual death and annihilation of the white race. It is not only happening in the US but also in all European countries. I would also like to point out that no other race faces this kind of jeopardy, Indians, Mexicans etc who are flooding into the US are in no danger of going extinct in ttheir own countries in fact they are rapidly expanding populations. The japanese and Koreans despite facing shrinkage would rather cope with the economic challenges and work to reverse and stop the shrinkage with policy themselves rather than to allow their countries culture and identity to be forever destroyed by immigration invasions. Essentially in Europe dark skinned islamic races are replacing the native populations of European countries at a such a rate that there will be no true members of the native European population left.
In the USA they use terms like "nation of immigrants" to basically dupe white people into allowing their race to basically be destroyed and crowded out of the country. The nation of immigrants lie is laughable in Europe but white populations in Europe are in even more rapid, catastrophic decline adn headed for extinction more quickly than in the USA. The fact of the matter is the term "Nation of Immigrants" is a nonsense term and holds absolutely no legal meaning or weight, the USA has no obligation whatsoever to allow it to be invaded and the countries founding group to be destroyed and rendered a shrinking dying minority in the country that they founded. As well the nation was never a nation of Immigrants from anywhere and Everywhere at all. That
Not twice as much....but 200% more.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I would also like to point out that the term 'diversity' is being used by the very people who are destroying the white race as a way to train white people to allow their countries to be invaded by rapidly reproducing foreign races that will eventually destroy the white race. These people know exactly what they are doing, there is a conspiracy to destroy the white race and these things that are causing this are the result of this conspiracy to implement the policies that are causing it.
Secondly, the thirsd world immigration invasions will never stop and will destroy the white race unless we close the door and stop allowing it. In fact, these immigration invasions are enabling the very high reproductive rate in third world countries because they know that they can reproduce like crazy and then invade European countries, crowding out the European race and destroying Europe and as well it gives them no incentive to solve their own countries problems because they think that they can invade other countries rather than solving their own problems. Stopping the immigration invasion is the only thing that will stop the destruction of th white race and also stop third world races from crowding us out, and as well will force these third world countries to work on solving their own problems rather than invade other countries, and will stop the brain drain from those countries
1) Around 10% of the population is African American. Even if there were the same proportion of "reverse racists", the numbers would be ineffectually small.
2) Segregation, sundown laws and lynchings were common up until the mid '60s, and not the 1860s.
3) This election featured a center-right candidate, a party moderate, famous for his business-friendly policy positions and support of the petroleum and natural gas producers - Barack Obama. White men voted against him in droves, against their own economic interest. Tell me again how white supremacism is no longer an issue in this country.
Very interesting! I too would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
Casteism
Unfortunately, this is no joke. I wish it were not true, really. The Fertility rates in most European countries are around 1.5. You need 2.1 just to replace your population. This means that the European population is shrinking every year. This cannot go on forever. Instead of actually doing something to actually stop this shrinkage, and save the ethnic and cultural identity of their countries, European governments seem to have decided to destroy the populations of their own countries and replace with with violent, Islamic fanatics from the middle east. Abortion and the anti-family and selfish mentality of social liberalism and the attacks on christianity in Europe are to blame for this shocking decline.This is basically destroying European races. The effect of this is genocidal. It can be stopped, we know how to stop it by public service campaign promoting family values and Europeans having large families, and ending abortion except in cases of rape or the mothers health, but socialist and liberal seem to long for the day when Europeans have gone extinct.
How do they account for people of a specific group referring to themselves with racial slurs? I cant listen to a rap song without hearing the word nigger and im not even sure what to say about gangnam style. Isnt it about chinese rich people?
We've all lost it when stubbing our toe. But, in the past when I've stubbed my toe, my reaction has never been to yell out, "Who's the nigger who left that there?"
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
People absolutely have a right to speak their mind. When they use that right to say things like "oh my god, we elected the nigger again", they clearly identify themselves as racist. It's not illegal to be a racist in the USA, because of freedom of speech, but it's also not illegal to point finger at someone who's a racist and say, "look, what a jerk".
I actually believe we should preserve all of the worlds races and respect them, and avoid any further immigration invasions, and respect the racial composition of each of the countries.. I am sure you do not agree. It is you who are racist. I think that the United States should grant additional reserves to native Americans and that we should strongly defend the USAs borders from all immigration to protect our native american population as well as the other population groups in the country. Mexicans are a grave threat to the USAs traditional Western European culture and also the native american traditional culture as the Mexican immigration threaten them all. I am sure that you agree with none of this because you hate the USA, hate whites and hate native americans too. What I propose is stopping all immigration into the US to protect the traditional demographics, including such groups as the native americans, and that the white majority has done well and will continue to do well in assuring equal rights to the other groups in the country such as the black population and the native american population . I support equal rights for all of the traditional groups in the USA and strongly oppose immigration which threatens all of the traditional groups of the USA.
How often does that happen, vs the number of times a black person doesn't get a job because he's Black?
Learn to love Alaska
White man walks through black neighborhood, gets attacked by black men because he's white. If you don't count that as racism than you should probably stop trying to use words at all.
How often does that happen, compared to a black man not getting a job because the boss doesn't want a black person for a worker?
Learn to love Alaska
Will it matter to you, as you're being knifed for being white in the wrong place, that 10 or 100 or 1000 black people somewhere didn't get a job somewhere that day because they were black, while only 0.01 white people didn't get a job because they were white?
Racism is racism; a racist act stands alone, and does NOT rely on the relative power of the races the individuals committing it belong to have effect. Members of the more powerful groups can of course do more damage by being racism, on the whole. But that doesn't mean that the members of less powerful groups cannot be racism.
I remember when "crap" suddenly became acceptable to use in polite company. It was about 1998.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
But why would I give a shit about american history ? Of course I'm ignorant of it, it's stupidly uninteresting at best.
Clearly the proprietor of this research is polarized and began a one sided view and attack of racism without presenting any unbiased facts regarding the other side of the racist coin.
I'm quite sure that if we accumulated the data on the other side of the 'racist' coin we'd find to a higher degree that this racist hatred exists far more abundantly against whites than whites against any other race.
If whites are all so racist, then please explain how the great majority of whites have forsaken their own heritage to adopt the cultural mannerisms of 'African Americans' and how the term Wigger was born?
No, I think we see more white people embracing the black culture than any other Non-black race on the planet.
How many Asians and Hispanics are running around your town dressed in the latest of thugwear exposing their undergarments 'grills' & 'bling', grabbing their crotches, driving jacked up cars with 22" wheels, and dumbing down their dialects and vocabularies to try and fit in with the "Niggas"?
How many other races have a large number of their population (both sexes) involved in relationships and sexual flings with blacks?
If we examine all of the racist data that can be accumulated we would find that it is white people who are the most hated and discriminated against race of all. So let's all keep singling out a few white trash examples to keep the hate whitties fire burning.
Even in the smallest regard, One need look no further than their own mirror to find a bigot.
While it is true that racism or bigotry does exist and that it is not helping anyone in this country by any means other than to serve it's intended purpose by those who are trying to keep it alive and thriving. Which is to say that it serves no purpose other than to divide and conquer a nation.
It is being used as a political tool in a toolbox full of deceit for keeping a war machine churning.
What most people fail to see is that this hatred is being spoon fed to them by those who want all of this animosity to flourish.
It serves a purpose, and it is serving it well.
Everything that is happening today is all part of a big picture; pieces of a puzzle that when finished will reveal a great horror that none of these idiots will have realized was coming since they have all played a part in keeping themselves dumbed down and blinded by their own hate fired ignorance of the puppet masters behind this whole mess.
Mark my words, It's been a long time in the works and it is coming.
We have been warned time and time again but nobody wants to hear or accept the truths that have been irrefutably documented and presented.
The public at large is more concerned with themselves, their own lives, and their own opinions than becoming educated about and involved in actually making positive changes in this country and stopping the corruption that has such a firm grasp of it's balls.
Time to wake up Sheeple.
Time to make a difference starting with the person in the mirror.
Let go of all this stupidity and start opening your mind to what is really happening here or before long we will all be looking back at how great this country actually was, all the freedoms we took for granted and let slip away, all those who have fought and died for those freedoms, and that we were all too full of shit to see it coming.
I may not agree with everything you said, but that was well thought out and argued. It certainly gave me a lot to think about.
Racists are everywhere, in every nationality or race, this is true. Some of our largest atrocities came about because of it, and not all of them involved white people (Rwanda comes to mind). I disagree about Hispanics, though. First you brought up Puerto Ricans, which last I checked were Hispanic, and I have met some racist Mexicans (against other Latin Americans, or Blacks, mostly).
As for Jews, I have met some racist ones, and I have met some well-adjusted ones, in my experience the latter out weigh the former. With Jews you have to remember that there are still some among them who lived through the largest racist atrocity in recent memory, so the shadow remains. Also there religion has been plagued by persecution, and somewhat focuses on it (though this might be slowly changing, at least in the U.S.). Also Jews are among the most hated groups among everyone I know. Most of my friends are rather modern in their views (most of them being various flavors of not-white, and/or gay), but a lot of them still dislike Jews. People, especially people in poorer areas, hate them. I would be a bit wary too.
Also, a lot of racism is actually classism. Historically, a lot of American blacks had a beef with Koreans and Asians. Not because they are Asian, per se, but because they own businesses in Black dominant, depressed areas. The same is true with Jews. There is a race element, sure, but there also is a bit of economic frustration rearing its head in the most irrational way.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey