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.
Partisan politics brings out the worst in people? Who'd have thought?
I had a sucky sig.
Vox is a leftist advocacy site and doesn't even try to sugarcoat it.
I'd like to see you link to something from say, Mike Cernovich. Never will happen, but if you're going to link to this partisan tripe, might as well go both ways.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
While this is only partially damning to the US compared to the thousands of other things it is failing at, this method of data collection ignores the need for sampling. Even taking a census of collected data is nothing but a biased sample due to the sheer quantity of data that is never entered into a google search. At best the changes in frequencies may show the behavior of whatever subset of the area targeted participates, but it remains a convenience sample with limited use in larger inference.
When I was a kid, we used to look up "fart" in the dictionaries in the school library.
People are vulgar morons. We're idiots. We do stupid things and get a laugh out of them. Google didn't do anything that wasn't already done before (except track it all for advertising purposes).
fart [fahrt] Vulgar.
noun
1. a flatus expelled through the anus.
2. an irritating or foolish person.
verb (used without object)
3. to expel a flatus through the anus; break wind.
Verb phrases
4. fart around, to spend time foolishly or aimlessly.
So after decades and decades of diminishing racism all of a sudden America becomes a nazi state? Puh-leese Boris.
While this is only partially damning to the US compared to the thousands of other things it is failing at, this method of data collection ignores the need for sampling. Even taking a census of collected data is nothing but a biased sample due to the sheer quantity of data that is never entered into a google search. At best the changes in frequencies may show the behavior of whatever subset of the area targeted participates, but it remains a convenience sample with limited use in larger inference.
And further, it draws conclusions about the data by "rationale". Explaining a reasonable-sounding rationale for the data is not the same as testing a hypothesis.
For example, I'm sure "severed head of Donald Trump" was a big search item a couple of weeks ago. Did this mean that a large part of the population wanted to do him harm?
A lot of people have been searching "Jihad" recently. Can you conclude anything about the people doing the searches, other than they heard something in the news and wanted to find out more?
Could it be that people google things that appear to be are racist and selfish because... they wanted to find out more about what's going on?
This just shows how effective censorship has been. People no longer feel free to express their personal views, particularly when it's related to race, Islam or feminist issues. It's very dangerous to society that diversity of ideas is no longer tolerated. We're in a situation were, even if things are clearly going very wrong, everyone will be too scared to point it out.
This is precisely why Trump was elected. He's one of few people prepared to voice ideas contrary to those of the establishment. It's rather sad that only people with the security of being a billionaire are free to voice their opinions.
Slashdot has been bloody awful lately.
Pointless political articles and click-bait headlines with little or no tech aspect, just what the audience wants to see!
Do you realize the Pee Wee Herman is just a character? That Paul Reubens made up the character to entertain people? That Paul Reubens is actually acting a part when playing Pee Wee Herman?
These seem obvious questions, but your focusing on the persona of a host of a TV show, rather than the guy playing the part, says that you don't get that distinction.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
We've been proving this point for years on the comments section of Slashdot. We didn't need a study to show us about racist or selfish people. Another example of a needless study...
Yes - but the point here is that he made it his purpose to portray a legitimately evil person, at least in the classic role-playing definition of evil - where he was actively willing to harm people for his own benefit constantly and with cruelty... and he stuck to that personality the entire time.
And THAT is what the people elected. Which is especially odd, given the supposedly Christian notion the nation has for itself. Jesus' perspective on the rich, and on selfishness is basically most of the new testament.
What does your crying have to do with the content of the article? Or are we just screaming "fake news!" at the sight of anything that challenges our dissonant views?
Since it sounds like you've read the article, maybe you could answer this question: Did they track all racism, or just the racism they disagreed with? If so, then in what regions of the country was anti-white racism concentrated (or fast-growing)?
Far be it from me to suggest Vox (and the "researcher") are just partisan hacks who would selectively ignore (and even promote) the racism they agree with, but that info is missing from TFS (and the headline refers to "racist" people in general).
but your focusing on the persona of a host of a TV show, rather than the guy playing the part
I haven't seen that much Apprentice, but I'm not seeing a lot of daylight between Trump the tv persona and Trump the politician.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I think you might be wandering into the realm of hyperbole here. I mean sure, his character could be cruel sometimes, but not always. Often, it was done in good fun. And it was obvious that in his heart, he believed that he was doing what he thought was best for everyone, in the long run.
And besides, how evil is it, really, to trick people into saying the magic word? And it isn't like his chair was actually eating anyone.
Wait, which one were we talking about again?
P.S. You might want to read the new testament again. And this time, pay attention.
See that "Preview" button?
The choice was either that arrogant person, or a person who literally stole furniture from the White House and had goons persecute women to make them withdraw their rape accusations against her husband. I'd say America showed common sense, given the options.
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.
It's racist and sexist not to vote Democrat. That's why the Democrats tend to murder or try to impeach presidents when they lose their elections; they're trying to save the country.
You think I'm kidding, but I remember a song by spoken word artist Shane Koyczan. He said: "Strange in a George W. Bush hasn't been assassinated yet kind of way".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Hear the crowd laugh and applause. Those are the people who see themselves as the "tolerant" side.
I wonder what he has to say about Trump.
lucm, indeed.
I think you might be wandering into the realm of hyperbole here. I mean sure, his character could be cruel sometimes, but not always. Often, it was done in good fun. And it was obvious that in his heart, he believed that he was doing what he thought was best for everyone, in the long run.
And besides, how evil is it, really, to trick people into saying the magic word? And it isn't like his chair was actually eating anyone.
Wait, which one were we talking about again?
OK, you got me with that one. I started to think maybe I should have watched The Apprentice, it seems really more interesting than I thought.
P.S. You might want to read the new testament again. And this time, pay attention.
Like most people, he wants to focus on the soundbites.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Did you EVER think of it as "it is what we DIDN'T elect" is the reason he won? I think that should explain quite a bit. Take a look at your description and now apply that to the other candidate. Tell me now the choice that was made would have had a different outcome. One was a reality show and the other was reality.
I guess this means that since All Franken played the role of an idiot comedian on television that's all he can bring to the role of being a senator, too.
>America Is Full of Racist and Selfish People
>Trump
>After all, he had insulted veterans, women, minorities, and countless other constituencies
And yet he won the majority of the vote. Apparently these alleged "insults" weren't taken very seriously.
Dear editors of Slashdot and the rest of the Liberal media machine (owners of the Democratic party and the unfortunate souls who follow them)
We get it, you're trying to turn the people against each other because the rise in economic equality is giving them too much potential to challenge the status quo and represent their own interests.
A healthy portion of the community has been telling you to fuck off this garbage for a while now, but you just keep going....
Dear sane people of the world:
We're not just going to be able to tell them to fuck off. We are going to have to FORCE them to. Think on that
"And we have the evidence to prove this but we're not going to publish it. Trust us, we are qualified to judge, we're the people who have been actively interfering in elections around the world for more than a century."
Not just for white folks anymore.
equality has been established, STFU - Q.E.D.
Obama 2020
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I was one of those googlers, and it wasn't because I was interested in being racist, it was to usually search for articles with those key phrases after a coworker was outraged, or because I had no idea such a phrase existed and decided to google it.
Yet again, classic researchers crunching some numbers and freaking out before re-evaluating their inputs.
This is hardly news. The rest of the world knows that since before the Internet and Google.
What a dumbass conlusion to think search terms would equal to the opinions of the people doing the searches.
Search criteria? So what. Racism is not what you think, it's what you act upon. Racial statistics in given social settings don't deliver neutral results, and pretending that they do is just bone-headed. But you need to give everybody the chance to act as an individual before judging him, and to earn your respect as an individual.
It's the acts that count.
I don't think Ohio and Pennsylvania are what everyone is used to thinking of them. I recently drove coast to coast and I have to say that Pennsylvania just didn't have that feeling of a poor, ran down place anymore. It's nice and clean and just gave off the ritzy rather than gritty vibe.. The biggest shock was Ohio. I couldn't find a single country station during the whole drive through it. I also couldn't find a single Country Kitchen in Ohio. It's like the whole North East doesn't end until Chicago nowadays. You don't feel like you are in midwest until Minnesota.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
How about Ronald Reagan? He got uspstaged by a monkey.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
... population is stupid and democracy is an insane method of government.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Oh, the irony... What would you call such a negative generalisation about people living in the south, I wonder?
... from having their own countries.
Not one single white person will be allowed to simply associate with only their own kind. This evil must be stamped out.
All employers must police their employees' speech and force them to pretend that they agree with everything the government is doing, vis a vis mass immigration of non-whites into white people's countries.
Why?
Why do you believe that white people, and ONLY white people, shouldn't be allowed to simply live around their own kind?
It is quite possible all these racists and xenophobes have always existed, and all Google has done is to install a microphone at all the water coolers, coffee machines, bars, ... Recorded what had unrecorded private conversations and actions and they kind of news and stories people read.
Then you need to compare with the volume that was declared non-racist and altruist.
Further it possible America is less racist than Europe. We gave refuge to half of all the Jews of the world in WWII. After Hitler and Nazis were defeated, did the European saviors and the non-nazi regular Germans allow them to return? Europe decided to dump all the displaced Jews in a arid desert in a far away land grabbed from the Arabs and created a spanking new country and sowed the seeds of eternal conflict in the Middle East. This on one hand. Google searches on the other. Gimme a break.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Jobs.
Wealth.
Not having to pay for "health" cover.
Less tax.
Less wars and US backed regime change.
Find a candidate that can talk in many different states about topics like that without needing a long break or not having a coughing fit.
Constituencies want free things that the tax payer is expected to pay for.
Jobs in that state matter, been able to save money matters. How far one average wage can get a family matters.
The cost of rent or mortgage is a topic. The cost of new health care plans.
The value of university education and the loans needed. Will a student get in based on merit and how hard they studied or some other consideration?
The failure of another regime change and the "moderates" the best minds in the US expected to find.
One candidate was able to talk for longer to more people in more states and win.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Contains racists. Imagine that.
Your problem is not that there are racists. That's to be expected. Your problem is that you are creating new ones. Constantly.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Of course Google wouldn't lie about anything would they? I'm no genius like Eric Schmidt, but maybe he should have paid his millions in "bribes" to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats with a post-dated check. Honest brokers? Not those guys.
As Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket would say:
"Well ... no shit!"
And how is this "persuasive proof that America is full of racist and selfish people"? Clinton places an ad trying to tie Trump to the KKK and accusing him in August 2016. ThinkProgress, Mediaite, and other progressive sites publish articles like "Even the White Supremacists at Stormfront Say Hillary Won the Debate", of course, people are going to search for "stormfront" and "white supremacy".That's not an endorsement of white supremacy or Stormfront, it is an expression that most people don't know about these things: people search for things they don't know.
Oh, and just be aware: if you try to search Hillary Clinton's actual KKK connections (her mentor and close friend, Sen. Byrd was a KKK member and filibustered against the Civil Rights Act), or if you're trying to fact-check Clinton's bogus ads accusing people of racism, in fact, if you are trying to fact-check Stephens-Davidowitz himself, you will be using search terms that will cause Stephens-Davidowitz to accuse you of racism.
Of course, given the furious rate at which Stephens-Davidowitz must have typed those terms into Google and Google Trends for his "research", just think of how high Stephens-Davidowitz himself scores on his racism-o-meter!
Searches containing racist epithets and jokes were spiking across the country during Trump's primary run
And searches for "covfefe" probably spiked after that infamous tweet. Doesn't mean everyone searching for it knew what the fuck they were searching for.
If you want to accuse someone of racism, you need more than "they googled something". Otherwise, all you are doing is accusing them of thought crimes.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
...and it builds up, it festers, and it finds an outlet sooner or later.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
You know what I see here in most of the comments against? Denial.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian wanting to come out - Vox's readership and staff included.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This is about as disingenuous as it gets and not just a little bit pedantic.
What we see on campuses today is, in fact, censorship. While it isn't the Government or an extension of that government (College Administration) shutting down speech, it is censorship none-the-less.
You would be the first to cry censorship if your speakers were shut down by violent protests.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Sometimes I have to google a horrible thing, because I don't know what it is. I wish that were a large portion of this traffic. I suspect it's a very small part.
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
I think the numbers are still low, actually. Imagine if they included all kinds of racism, not just their kind of racism. Everyone has said something racist, therefore the number should be approaching 100%.
The problem is that saying something racist does not make someone a racist. It's actually pretty hard to prove someone is a racist, but much easier to accuse someone of it.
I'm sure there are millions upon millions of people that are neither racist nor selfish that aren't searching google for much of anything.
How do we measure the good when there is no obvious way to do so?
and exactly how and for what purpose did they do so they still havent told us that part. they allude it was to help trump but they havent actually showed that to be the case
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
"We Don’t Have to Pretend Like We’re Not Racist Anymore!"
The god-damned never-ending gun-control argument always takes over any thread. OK, let's do the legal analysis thing.
The plain reading of the second amendment says that the government can't take away the right of people to carry arms. It doesn't go into what kinds of arms. The initial clause (something which the writers thought necessary here, but not necessary in any of the rest of the bill of rights) complicates the sentence, but it does not cancel out the second part: the right of the people to bear arms has to be interpreted in the context of "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", but that statement adds context, it doesn't reverse the plain meaning.
Got that? OK so far. From that statement, you can say that the government has the right to regulate arms (it makes no sense for a militia to be "well regulated" without the ability to regulate), but not the right to "abridge" the right of citizens to bear arms, (where the plain meaning of "abridge" means "take away.") From other supreme court decisions, we can add that the government does not have the right to make regulations that are so strict as to de facto take away the right to bear arms (the court has already struck down other such attempts to take away rights by the back door.)
Thus. The government can regulate arms, but can't take them away. So the only issue is, at what point a particular regulation becomes de facto taking away the right to bear arms, and not merely regulating them?
My personal conclusion-- and I'm now shifting over to opinion, not analysis-- would be that the government is allowed to require a permit for a person to have a machine gun, but can't forbid it utterly.
The Founders were a wordy bunch who regularly committed their thoughts to paper or at least made public speeches which were transcribed for posterity. And of course there's those pesky minutes of all the meetings.
The military forces of a free country may be considered under three general descriptions — 1. The militia. 2. the navy — and 3. the regular troops — and the whole ought ever to be, and understood to be, in strict subordination to the civil authority; and that regular troops, and select corps, ought not to be kept up without evident necessity. Stipulations in the constitution to this effect, are perhaps, too general to be of much service, except merely to impress on the minds of the people and soldiery, that the military ought ever to be subject to the civil authority, &c. But particular attention, and many more definite stipulations, are highly necessary to render the military safe, and yet useful in a free government; and in a federal republic, where the people meet in distinct assemblies, many stipulations are necessary to keep a part from transgressing, which would be unnecessary checks against the whole met in one legislature, in one entire government. — A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. I am persuaded, I need not multiply words to convince you of the value and solidity of this principle, as it respects general liberty, and the duration of a free and mild government: having this principle well fixed by the constitution, then the federal head may prescribe a general uniform plan, on which the respective states shall form and train the militia, appoint their officers and solely manage them, except when called into the service of the union, and when called into that service, they may be commanded and governed by the union. This arrangement combines energy and safety in it; it places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government, who often form the select corps of peace or ordinary establishments: by it, the militia are the people, immediately under the management of the state governments, but on a uniform federal plan, and called into the service, command, and government of the union, when necessary for the common defence and general tranquility. But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from t
who cares the method??? murder is still murder if its with a knife pressure cooker bomb or gun
It is, but it's a lot harder.
What guns change is that they can turn a momentary poor decision-- or simple hot-headed stupidity-- into dead bystanders in about a second.
Few people use pressure cookers in bar fights, or during incidents of road-rage.
How dare they search for politically incorrect things! There was a time when i considered myself politically left, but since that left embraced orwellian newspeak and dogmatic tabooing anything that doesn't fit their agenda I'm no longer willing to be part of that. Instead of convincing arguments they employ "deplatforming", essentially censoring. The very same means the political left fought against a few decades ago it now wholeheartedly embraces. Next politicians will demand that google forbids politically incorrect search terms.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Are you trying to convince us that since it isn't racist to refer to somebody's nationality,
That is exactly correct.
racism
rsizm/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Words do have meaning, and you should really try to learn what words mean before making asinine statements like you just did.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That searches are some kind of deep proxy for what you really think is an advertising slogan intended to make search engines seem more relevant and powerful than they actually are.
Google search results are just as full of worthless noise as they have always been and online store product suggestions are comically wrong. If the ability to know what I'm thinking actually existed it would seem to me to be in Google's direct financial interests to use it.
Apology for submitting half a post... The act of recognition of Race/Religion/Ethnicity is not bad. My ancestry is Hillbilly. Hillbilly is not in and of itself derogatory. Even terms like you mention could be used in non-derogatory ways. Comedy is an easy one, but also description of events, etc...
Most importantly, how does Google or any other search engine know the reason you are searching for those terms? If you are posting racist comments I could see making a claim like TFA does that racism is a wide spread problem. Membership in racist groups would also be a measure. Searching for a set of keywords? Not an indication of racism.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The boundary of "racism" is nebulous. For example, many conservatives believe that "the system" is rigged so that most their tax money is going to minorities who are "kept lazy" by not being required to work or given preference because of Affirmative Action instead of merit.
That's not necessarily direct racism, in terms of belief of genetic inferiority, but it's a belief that certain groups are treated different by the government, causing social divides and unfairness.
Now, I have also met blatant racists. For example, one lady at work admonished me from associating with "their kind". And a civics professor of mine used in part a "no great civilizations in Africa" argument to claim blacks are genetically inferior. I also know people who are paranoid random Muslims will explode in their presence.
Table-ized A.I.
So you're letting people at Vox decide that these jokes are racist? Vox?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
This should be in the "Thank You, Captain Obvious" department.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
If you create a stigma of shame around certain disrespectful behaviors or beliefs, all you do is drive it underground. It's still there, people just become better at hiding it. I was hopeful this would become obvious after Trump's election - where Trump supporters were shamed by the media to the point that they lied to pollsters about who they were going to vote for, causing the the polls to inaccurately predict a Clinton victory. But instead the media has gotten sidetracked with blaming the whole thing on Russia (probably because that would absolve them of any responsibility).
If you want to get rid of prejudice and discrimination, you have to do it through education and exposure. First you counteract the bigoted prejudices by teaching people that these other people who look or believe differently than you are more like you than they are different. They have feelings, hopes, dreams, desires, failings, make mistakes, and are just trying to make a better life for themselves just like you. Then you expose people to these other people for long enough so they can see these things with their own eyes (short exposure causes them to only pick out things which confirm their prejudices). I come from a conservative religious background. But one of my childhood friends turned out to be gay. Becoming friends with someone from a group you're supposed to be opposed to is the best way to gain perspective. It's no longer "would I scream slurs at some anonymous person?" It becomes "would I scream slurs at my friend?"
The entire SJW tactic of trying to change society via shaming is misguided, and arguably harmful as people will perceive shaming to be an accepted tactic. People are learning that it's OK to disrespect and behave rudely towards other people with certain beliefs (religious or atheist), from certain areas (the Bay Area or the deep South), or with certain characteristics (black or rich). Basically it's the same discrimination SJWs are purportedly trying to stamp out, just directed at different groups. You're not stamping out hatred, you're just swapping it for a different hatred.
Don't assume the caricatures - the criminal black, the privileged white male, the self-entitled Millenial, etc. - are true. Each person is a unique blend of feelings, thoughts, abilities, and beliefs. And you have to learn that person's unique blend before you have the right to criticize them. Judging them based solely on their appearance, where they're from, what event they're attending, etc. is prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry. Doing so under the guise of stamping out prejudice is hypocrisy.
The assumption of intent is the problem. Seeing an "ism/obe/ist" everywhere means that you assume the worst possible intent at all times. How many people would have searched for Richard Spencer if not for running a Google search after reading/hearing smears against Milo (I mentioned way up)? Hell, I would not have known the name except for the smear campaign. I read about him because I wanted first hand information to form an opinion with. According to this survey, my inquiry was probably labelled "racist" because the assumed intent was not curiosity/fact finding.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I do live in the ghetto. As a white male. And I get along with 90% of my neighbors. Even the welfare queens that I have to work to support. The people that have never lived in a ghetto(I'm 30 years in) have no fucking idea what it's like and should really stay out of "poor people's problems"
Vox website shows that Washington is full of insufferable sactimonius dweebs.
A friend has a T-shirt: "Pay no attention to my search history. I'm a mystery writer, not a serial killer."
There's lots of innocent reasons someone might search for horrible things.
Racists and Selfish People = Leftists.
In the language of the time, "regulated" meant "equipped".
No, it didn't. Who the hell makes this shit up? It meant nothing of the sort. Some aspects of the language has changed, but "regulated" meant then what it means now: regulated.
"Regulation" does not mean a piece of equipment, it means a rule. It's from the Latin word for "rule" (regis: genitive singular of rex) the same word used in English words such as "regent", someone who rules in place of a king.
The second amendment isn't restricting the right to well regulated militias, but rather citing the need for militia as a reason to allow people to keep and bear arms. That is not a limit upon who can keep and bear arms.
The problem with this is that we now have nuclear arms. So if you are really advocating for no limit on keeping and bearing arms you must support the right of everyone in the US to keep and bear nuclear arms. The US and likely the world would not survive such a situation for very long and, unsurprisingly nobody, not even the NRA (at least as far as I am aware) think that US citizens should have the right to bear nuclear arms. Hence everyone already agrees that there should be limits put on this right and the only question remains where that limit should be put.
Since the original aim was to secure the state that would perhaps be a good guideline to follow. Having everyone out there wandering around armed today does nothing for the security of the state because today you have an army which has access to nuclear arms. In fact having easy access to guns leads to less security because terrorists and others attacking the state can easily get their hands on them. The recent terrorist attacks in London show this well - the terrorists were reduced to using vehicles and knives. If the same thing had happened in the US it would have been vehicles and guns and the death toll would almost certainly have been a lot higher.
Just because you search for something doesn't indicate what you feel about it, good or bad. It doesn't doesn't mean you're "in" to it, maybe just doing research for the sake of knowledge.
Exactly. What has happened to the level of critical thinking on Slashdot. I had to scroll almost all the way down the comments to find a single comment questioning the validity of assuming google searches are anything more than requests for information. Google searches really only tell you what people are curious about. Not what they believe. They are questions. Not answers.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Clearly that's true to some degree no doubt, but continuing to act as if that's the rational behind all or even a majority of Trump voters (who were not necessarily Trump supporters, there's a difference) isn't exactly endearing the left to anyone outside the echo chambers, or helping to set up whoever runs in 2020 to do better. If there's on thing the middle/low class white people aren't going to want to hear (again) it is someone from a classist institute like Harvard telling them they are racist.
For fuck's sake, someone always has to bring up how the "left" would win over Trump supporters, if the left could just stop being so insulting towards them.
Think about this for a second: These are people who ignored every single repulsive aspect of Trump's policies and the campaign he ran. They willingly voted for a man who said, and I quote "I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters." Here's a hint: That means even Trump realizes his own supporters are drinking the kool aid.
These are people who are either completely unwilling to listen to a viewpoint which contradicts their world view, or they actually agree with the deplorable things that come out of Trump's mouth. You're just not going to win over those people; you just have to hope they don't bother to vote, and your side has a better turnout.
Blah, Blah, Blah.
All I hear is the tragedy of why Trump actually stands a chance at re-election. It's not your doomsday scenario of the how evil and intractable Trump voters are though. It's that you perfectly describe the Democratic party's approach to losing the election.
The Democratic party, and people like yourself, need to be reminded that Hillary Clinton LOST to this guy. A presidential candidate that publicly encouraged Russians to hack American computer systems. A presidential candidate on tape talking about he can just grab a women by the p#$$! and get away with it because he's so rich. A presidential candidate that publicly noted the NRA could 'do' something about Obama trying to take away their guns. Take the time to absorb how awful a candidate he truly was. Now take the time to get your head around the fact that Hillary Clinton still managed to lose the election to the guy.
If the Democrats don't want to lose the next election, they need to get people to vote for them next time around that DIDN'T vote for Hillary. If the Democrats choose to declare everyone that voted against Hillary as evil monsters that loved the worst parts of Trump, they are driving away the very people they need to win over.
Funny you didn't post words to that effect under the comment about "left-wing thugs."
Please provide an example of a left-wing or liberals demonstration that was disrupted by right-wing activists.
*crickets*
That's why I don't think we need to defend the left-wing thugs, they're having a field day every time someone else tries to express their opinions.
lucm, indeed.
If not small nukes.
When slicing through a man, you get that personal feedback. Nuclear weapons... ehh, it goes off, big bang, but you don't get any feedback.
So does the President we somehow "elected".
You have succeeded in turning virtually every last citizen into a brainwashed proponent of your polarizing propaganda campaign. If it's not identity politics, it's not news.
I just read the article. I have to say that this data can be taken either way. Just because someone searched something doesn't mean they're a racist. If this person said or did something and I search to see if its true does that make me a racist, misogynist, or whatever is implied? No, it means I wanted to see if there is reason to believe it. The article mentions some site called Stormfront, I'm about to search it to see if it exists. And I just searched it. Wow wtf! Very strong KKK vibe from the first glance. Anyway I just searched it, but I'm not racist. If someone told me that there is a pic of Sofia Vergara with a penis then I'll probably search it. Not because I'm into she-males (or am I...), but because I want to see if it's true. All I'm saying is if you type "how to start a fire" and then you search about Jebus on a crucifix it doesn't mean I'm going to burn a cross... or am I.
Where were you from 2008 to 2017? Off-planet or hiding under a rock, or just blissfully oblivious to what assorted people were saying and making images about Obama? I'm not condoning everything the Democrats have said and done, but if you're seeing only Democrats doing things like this you're deaf and blind.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not condoning everything the Democrats have said and done, but if you're seeing only Democrats doing things like this you're deaf and blind.
As usual, all you do in your shallow replies is say "it's not true!" and leave it at that. Post a link to support your statement if you want people to take you seriously.
lucm, indeed.
Check https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Casteism