It seemed like a ridiculous question. Why not just ban an entire topic of discussion while I make an attempt to preserve our universally threatened rights to speak freely? Should be obvious.
I'm just saying, I doubt "coalburner" or even "niggerlover" would have triggered the removal as quickly as "kikesucker". You seem to have a kneejerk fear and loathing of this particular brand of racism; not without good reason, because it truly is one of the greatest sins a person can commit with speech in this era. For that reason, it would seem as valid to remove such a comment as a direct slur at a user. You're drawing a line, so there's already a compromise. Why not move the line a little to the left to save yourself this particular headache?
I know that you understand that this is precisely how leftism works. Slow and insidious compromises to your ideals. But you also realize you've already compromised, likely in the name of quality discussion, I'm sure. It was a good faith question, I assure you. You're the one that gets to choose where that line is, and I'm just wondering why you fight something that you don't seem to view as conducive to quality discussion, when it's entirely at your discretion.
I don't agree that you can't change things on an individual level. In fact, individual actions are the only way you can change anything at all. Hell, what do you think I've done to KiA2 besides individual actions? Each institution must be built by hand, not abstraction.
I am but a humble janny. "The community" is an abstraction formed by it's changing individual members. What it chooses to fight for, is what they themselves chose to fight for.
These two statements together are more what I meant. It's the zeitgeist. Your individual actions don't mean much unless they're in concert with others. If your firing influences those around you, or if you can get others to take a stand with you, then there's meaning to it. If your a minor individual annoyance that is quickly forgotten, then it probably only has much meaning to you (which, of course, still has value). Your actions, along with the individuals in the community, help shape the coming zeitgeist. If your firing would have no impact on the greater abstract, it would seem ill advised. The institution is built by hand, but it only becomes an institution within the abstract. This is also, incidentally, the exact foundation that modern racism is founded on; individual actions that build on the abstract.
I appreciate your view on being prepared for it, though. Cancel culture makes it a necessity as much as impending recession.
That's my point, I don't think it is because the end result is different. You deprogram people with conditioning. You can only deprogram people through experience to break any previous conditioning, and most importantly, it has to be an act of independent thought. Conditioned responses to trigger words is the opposite of that, and it's done for an ideological purpose.
You have to condition people to have an independent thought that breaks their programming. That's why people point out ((())). Eventually, through exposure, people begin to look into it for themselves. That's why you say 13/50. So people become receptive to the facts shown on FBI table 43. Some people legitimately believe only black crimes are reported to explain away that information if you don't bring them to a place where they can notice things they're conditioned to not notice.
This is why /pol/ memes are effective. They're succinct and make people question. That initial act of questioning things that you were taught to not question is "the red pill". What that means isn't ideologically rigid, because it's an individual act of self discovery.
Because Disparity is not Discrimination. There's an underlying factor of behavior, culture, education, competence, family, tradition, and a thousand other things related to that. White cops and White judges don't mean Whites are using power to dominate blacks. The Racial Theory of History isn't valid.
I may not be reading you right here, but this isn't an argument of discriminatory outcome. It's an argument of behavior, an underlying factor. Everything I've said
has been about observation of behavior, not of outcome. If you meant something else, I apologize, but you seem to be arguing that "equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome", which isn't my point at all. I'm in complete agreement with that statement.
Now, there is certainly an inherent correlation between behavior and outcome. I wouldn't use white in these analogies, because, at least in the US, whites are a majority, and proportions are amplified without and understanding of distribution (on a side note, the anti-AP style guide of capitalizing the W is a nice touch). When you deal with 2% or 13%, it helps contextualize why there's a disproportion. Saying whites are responsible for 64% of anti-social behavior sounds a lot more powerful without the context of whites being 64% of the studied group. Saying whites are responsible for 50% of articles promoting societal degeneracy works the same way (which I can't prove offhand, and I really wish we had a database so I could).
I don't condemn Jewish wealth. I don't condemn Jewish participation in journalism. I condemn their behavior in both how they use, and how they obtain that wealth and influence, disproportionately. And yes, Jews aren't a monolith. There are poor Jews, to be sure. There are wonderful Jews. There are honest Jews. The same applies to blacks, or any other "group". That's not the argument. It's the abstract that matters on the societal level. Anecdotes are great for individual interaction, but only a miniscule data point on demographic observation.
Also, I don't know what the Racial Theory of History is. Is that a tangible thing (CRT?), or is it an allusion to a limited influence of genetic factors on behavior, culture, tradition, competence, etc. on how things have turned out along racial lines?
I'm just saying, I doubt "coalburner" or even "niggerlover" would have triggered the removal as quickly as "kikesucker". You seem to have a kneejerk fear and loathing of this particular brand of racism; not without good reason, because it truly is one of the greatest sins a person can commit with speech in this era. For that reason, it would seem as valid to remove such a comment as a direct slur at a user. You're drawing a line, so there's already a compromise. Why not move the line a little to the left to save yourself this particular headache?
I know that you understand that this is precisely how leftism works. Slow and insidious compromises to your ideals. But you also realize you've already compromised, likely in the name of quality discussion, I'm sure. It was a good faith question, I assure you. You're the one that gets to choose where that line is, and I'm just wondering why you fight something that you don't seem to view as conducive to quality discussion, when it's entirely at your discretion.
These two statements together are more what I meant. It's the zeitgeist. Your individual actions don't mean much unless they're in concert with others. If your firing influences those around you, or if you can get others to take a stand with you, then there's meaning to it. If your a minor individual annoyance that is quickly forgotten, then it probably only has much meaning to you (which, of course, still has value). Your actions, along with the individuals in the community, help shape the coming zeitgeist. If your firing would have no impact on the greater abstract, it would seem ill advised. The institution is built by hand, but it only becomes an institution within the abstract. This is also, incidentally, the exact foundation that modern racism is founded on; individual actions that build on the abstract.
I appreciate your view on being prepared for it, though. Cancel culture makes it a necessity as much as impending recession.
You have to condition people to have an independent thought that breaks their programming. That's why people point out ((())). Eventually, through exposure, people begin to look into it for themselves. That's why you say 13/50. So people become receptive to the facts shown on FBI table 43. Some people legitimately believe only black crimes are reported to explain away that information if you don't bring them to a place where they can notice things they're conditioned to not notice.
This is why /pol/ memes are effective. They're succinct and make people question. That initial act of questioning things that you were taught to not question is "the red pill". What that means isn't ideologically rigid, because it's an individual act of self discovery.
I may not be reading you right here, but this isn't an argument of discriminatory outcome. It's an argument of behavior, an underlying factor. Everything I've said has been about observation of behavior, not of outcome. If you meant something else, I apologize, but you seem to be arguing that "equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome", which isn't my point at all. I'm in complete agreement with that statement.
Now, there is certainly an inherent correlation between behavior and outcome. I wouldn't use white in these analogies, because, at least in the US, whites are a majority, and proportions are amplified without and understanding of distribution (on a side note, the anti-AP style guide of capitalizing the W is a nice touch). When you deal with 2% or 13%, it helps contextualize why there's a disproportion. Saying whites are responsible for 64% of anti-social behavior sounds a lot more powerful without the context of whites being 64% of the studied group. Saying whites are responsible for 50% of articles promoting societal degeneracy works the same way (which I can't prove offhand, and I really wish we had a database so I could).
I don't condemn Jewish wealth. I don't condemn Jewish participation in journalism. I condemn their behavior in both how they use, and how they obtain that wealth and influence, disproportionately. And yes, Jews aren't a monolith. There are poor Jews, to be sure. There are wonderful Jews. There are honest Jews. The same applies to blacks, or any other "group". That's not the argument. It's the abstract that matters on the societal level. Anecdotes are great for individual interaction, but only a miniscule data point on demographic observation.
Also, I don't know what the Racial Theory of History is. Is that a tangible thing (CRT?), or is it an allusion to a limited influence of genetic factors on behavior, culture, tradition, competence, etc. on how things have turned out along racial lines?