Slashdot Mirror
Google Searches Show That America Is Full of Racist and Selfish People (vox.com)
gollum123 shares a report by Sean Illing via Vox: "Google is a digital truth serum," Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, author of Everybody Lies , told me in a recent interview. "People tell Google things that they don't tell to possibly anybody else, things they might not tell to family members, friends, anonymous surveys, or doctors." Stephens-Davidowitz was working on a PhD in economics at Harvard when he became obsessed with Google Trends, a tool that tracks how frequently searches are made in a given area over a given time period. As a barometer of our national consciousness, Google is as accurate (and predictive) as it gets. In 2016, when the Republican primaries were just beginning, most pundits and pollsters did not believe Trump could win. After all, he had insulted veterans, women, minorities, and countless other constituencies. But Stephens-Davidowitz saw clues in his Google research that suggested Trump was far more serious than many supposed. Searches containing racist epithets and jokes were spiking across the country during Trump's primary run, and not merely in the South but in upstate New York, Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, rural Illinois, West Virginia, and industrial Michigan.
For all the lessons that our own human history should have taught us, we have made remarkably little progress in addressing such diseased thinking.
The real diseased thinking is what you just posted. Bundle all the shit you can think of under "Trump" and associate the conservatives with that whole bag of vomit. The sad part is that you probably are convinced of at least some of this bullshit.
You are the true face of hate.
lucm, indeed.
As if to say "We all agree to assume that the South is generally racist, but did you also know that the North also has some racism?"
I'm not going to say the South doesn't have a problem with racism, but a kind of "Our shit stinks less than yours" presumption comes across, whether or not it's intended. It's a specific example of the broader issue of cultural elitism, alongside making fun of rednecks, assuming those with drawls are stupid, and calling Californians ditzes.
I myself am not a target of any of these kinds of slights. My accent is (mostly) all-American, I work in the tech industry, and I've lived in and/or visited plenty of different cities/states/countries, so I have the privilege to pretend these little jabs aren't aimed at me. But how's about we stop with bigotry, on all ends? Don't assume black people are lazy, don't assume women give a shit about your feelings, don't assume gay men want to fuck you, and don't assume southerners are ignorant. Such a thing is at best a roundabout way of navigating your foot into your mouth.
None of this really has anything to do with the article itself, but rather some minor phrasing at the end of the summary. Just like CowboyNeal intended.
As your political class has never historically had their actual constitutional freedoms curtailed by law
Facts say otherwise.
The constitution says I have a right to own a fully automatic weapon. But an law pass and upheld in violation of the constitution illegally bans me from it.
"Someone who Google Obama and KKK is not racist, but wants to know if Democrats have something to do with KKK."
This is a very good point and yes the KKK was a strongly democrat organization.
An easy example would be Milo Yiannopoulos. (Not defending everything he says or does, but the associations with being a homophobe and racist were used as part of the smear campaign.)
I quite like the guy, simply because he's politically incorrect.
And this ties very well into the subject at hand. First I'd like to say that not "America" but the whole world is full of racist and selfish people. It's the nature of human beings, nature which is pushed down and frowned upon by contemporary political correctness. Speaking of which, the term originates from USSR, where it had a very different meaning: you were politically correct if your discourse was in line with the communist propaganda.
Anyways... bigotry exists because contemporary society imposes it. I recently was talking to some international colleagues (we were a group of people) and one of my Romanian colleagues said he dislikes Asian people because "their food stinks". He was referring to the strong odor of some meals that his Asian neighbors were making. a German colleague strongly reacted to this, saying that the statement was "offensive" - it contradicted his uprising which forced him to "respect" other cultures, even to the point where the byproducts of those cultures was directly affecting him in a negative way. Later, in a more informal setting (beer, later in the evening), the German guy confessed that indeed the Romanian colleague was right and that he agreed with him, but still it was not something that should have been said out loud.
The problem is such statements ("I dislike Asians because their food smells") are not racist. They're only made racist because society says "thou shalt love everyone regardless of how they affect your life" which is bullshit. Because of that limitation, people no longer feel comfortable expressing their opinions, which leads to "surprise Trump" elections, for example: the silent majority exists because they're only comfortable with being silent - otherwise they're categorized as "politically incorrect" by everyone, including friends and family.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I'm no fan of Trump but as to TFA - why is it assumed that people who search for racist memes must be racists? There's a guy here in Australia who boasts about being the most popular political commentator in the country and offers up the number of visitors to his blog as proof. My personal observation is that at least half the people who comment on his site do so to criticize his overt racism. It's well known that a strongly polarised audience/electorate/workforce is the hallmark of a sociopath in a position of power, both sides of the divide are going to be busy searching for jokes/insults that support their views.
There are a number of skeptic sites on FB and elsewhere that regularly post all manner of nonsense for their audience to debunk. It's a moral conundrum for them since posting/sharing the article inevitably funnels advertising dollars to the people who least deserve it based on the number of "hits", which totally ignores the intent of those hits. Giving advertisers the ability to fine tune programmatic advertising is the one place where social media companies could theoretically make a huge difference. However the Facebooks and Googles of this world constantly deflect away from their failings and point towards some kind of half arsed censorship or trust ranking to avoid losing revenue from the type of people that most advertisers wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. .
Having said that there are some recent signs of hope, a well organised campaign to inform advertisers their programmatic ads were appearing on Breitbart has seen a 90% reduction in advertising revenue for Breitbart in the past six months.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
the silent majority
...is a misnomer.
63 million votes were cast for Trump
73.5 million people voted against Trump
approximately 90 million eligible Americans - did not vote at all.
The real "silent majority" didn't bother to vote.
source
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
It's too bad the founding fathers weren't educated because goddamn that's a really badly phrased sentence.
Sure,"the people" refers to general population... But the issue now is: does anyone who chooses to have a gun automatically part of a militia? If so, the commanding officer (government official) should be able to choose to disallow actual gun usage (possession is fine) unless instructed to by the commanding officer.
The problem is such statements ("I dislike Asians because their food smells") are not racist.
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Sounds like textbook racism to me. The fact that there's a tangible reason for the prejudice doesn't make it not racist. If he had just said "I don't like the smell of Asian food" that would be fine, but "I dislike Asian people because their food smells" is racist. This person would hold a negative prejudice toward someone of Asian descent who grew up in some other part of the world and didn't cook Asian food.
Frivolous grounds ?
The fourth circuit blocked it on first ammendment grounds (the 9th deliberately avoided that, because it didn't NEED to use it and judges have a standard modus of using the lowest bar for a decision - that's a freedom preserver, don't accuse the government of violating the constitution if you can block the same order on a lesser violation).
But that fourth circuit matters here. Your whole post is about how, supposedly, YOUR first ammendment rights are under assault (because private citizens dare excercise their free speech in conflict with yours) - yet when the court protects first ammendment rights you call it 'frivolous grounds'.
Is it only a valid right when rightwingers or white people or Christian's first ammendment rights are at stake ? Does it become 'frivolous' based on whose freedom of religion is being assaulted ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
"The majority including myself do not give a shit about this LGBT issue. [...]"
This is self-evidently false. If nobody cares, why is so much effort put into fighting LGBT equality? If nobody cared, when we asked for marriage equality, the response would have been, "yeah sure, whatever, we don't care".
The thing that has always creeped me out about people who are very conservatives and really religious is their obsession with what gay people and even straight people do in their bedrooms and the uncontrollable urge they have to regulate other peoples sex lives. I am a 'librul', probably what you Americans would call a communist, although where I come from I'm a pretty moderate social democrat and I quite frankly do not waste much time on thinking about what evangelical christian conservatives do in their bedrooms and whether it happens (as urban legend would have it) only on church approved days in a church approved position through a hole in a sheet because its it's CREEPY!, creepy creepy creepy ...
Huh? "the leadership"? who's that?
I think nearly everyone would argue that extreme examples of misogyny and racism have gone down, but what we're left with are the "soft" sort of misogyny and racism that pervade our culture, e.g. in hollywood, white washing films, people of color being relegated to the role of sidekick or to stereotypes ("how well can you do an Indian accent?"), women being considered uncastable once they hit a certain age.
Or still in day-to-day life, where the internet trolls are way more toxic to women and minorities than to men, or when men speak over women like it's nothing (https://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2017/01/03/gal-interrupted-why-men-interrupt-women-and-how-to-avert-this-in-the-workplace/#6427709017c3), or how job applicants with black sounding names are less likely to get a callback (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/). Assuming you're a white dude, we're just not on the receiving end of societal crap as often as others.
So I wouldn't label you a racist misogynist, but I'd consider whether soft, everyday racism and misogyny is something we should readily accept in our society, even if harder version of both are much rarer.
The goal is to make WHITE PEOPLE feel "racist" and guilty about it, then use that to manipulate them to their will.
Fixed that for you.
Partisan politics brings up the Us vs Them instinct in us. I know that I am not bad, so the other people who don't see things as I do must be.
This is a often a reflexive emotional responce to a disagreement. Normally as enlightened individuals we can stop our primitive brain and try to reason out why the other side may have an issue.
This time Trump used this emotional responce than continually enforced it. For the population who are undereducated and tend to not practice their minds this bombardment of they are bad flooded their heads, and not giving time for the intellect to sit and process the info. Hillary Clinton is bad because her opponent confirmed that I was good and was on his side.
Minority groups in general didn't care for Trumps agenda so they were also the bad guy. So if the minority groups are bad guys then it is OK to insult them and hurt them, because they are part of the group of people who are trying to hurt us.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Racism writ large right there.
Not necessarily. Could be simply hatred, unrelated to race. Trump isn't treated better.