The left is correct about one thing: racism and hate are a huge problem in the western world right now. They're just wrong about who's doing it to who. They're always talking about sunlight being the best disinfectant and not allowing hate to escape justice. Let's give them exactly what they want.
Something as simple as an excel spreadsheet would suffice, and it could be decentralized via git, torrent, or simple file sharing. Every time someone decides to publicly support oppression or tyranny, they get an entry on the spreadsheet with their name, the type of racism, and a link to an archive. For posterity, local backups could be included. This wouldn't be hosted on any single server, although it could be hosted anywhere. The more data held by the more people, the better. The main concern here would be not allowing it to be destroyed no matter how many tentacles of the establishment go after it.
Does something like this exist? If not, would anyone be interested in launching a project to create it? I'd be happy to spearhead it right here, but only if there's enough interest.
For those wondering why I ask this and why now, it's because this insane anti-Russia fervor is really reminding me of the forgotten oppression of US citizens who happened to share an ethnicity with a country we didn't like at the time. Irish, German, Polish, and even Ukrainian people were treated like shit and put into camps. The reason this is forgotten is because the people who supported it can simply lie and say "I was always against that". We have no proof any more. If we want people to start being held responsible for mob rule atrocities, we need to start ensuring that the evidence cannot be destroyed.
For posterity, and as a show of good faith, this database should include genuine evil of all types. This includes white-on-black racism, based and redpilled people going too far, etc. I expect these entries to make up maybe 1% of the total database for a number of reasons, but we can't show any bias if we want future generations to take this information seriously.
Also, it should probably only include people who qualify as public figures. Making a list of private citizens could easily be considered libel at the very least. It should be kept to bluechecks, talking heads, government officials, and the like. Even with this restriction, there would still be gigabytes of hate to document, because people like that tend to be the most reprehensible of them all.
Disclaimer: the point of this project would not be to encourage direct action against people, no matter how vile and hateful they are. The point would be to halt the cycle of "commit atrocity, go into hiding, deny committing atrocity, commit another atrocity". These people only do these things because they think they can get away with it. That we'll all forget. And they're absolutely correct. Unless someone does something, evil will always be forgotten in a generation or two and permitted to rise again.
The racism idea is a very bad one. Who controls who gets put on this list? If any retard can do it then you're just begging for leftists to just turn it into another weapon against their opponents. This game developer is a racist because he didn't portray a black character the exact way someone wanted. That writer is an X-phobe because 80% of the characters in her show are alphabet freaks instead of 100%. We've all heard it before. If someone on our side is curating the list that defeats your stated purpose of making future generations take it seriously, especially if this takes off and becomes a threat to some powerful people. They might not be able to delete it if we set things up right but they'll use their lock on institutions to discredit it to the point where being unable to destroy it won't matter.
I do think there's merit in something more limited. Maybe people/companies who are denying people their rights. That includes things like free speech, nondiscrimination, gun rights, due process, etc. That eliminates the possibility of the list being hijacked for nefarious purposes like trying to paint a scarlet letter on a private person with no real power for the crime of saying something "problematic". You could include both sides in this, provided there's factual proof something list worthy happened, especially in the white on black stuff you describe. For example: If Tyrone claims he was thrown out of a restaurant for being black, whoever vets entries (and there absolutely needs to be vetting to prevent leftists from hijacking this) needs to make damn sure that's what actually happened and it wasn't because he was sexually harassing the waitresses or something like that. Drawing the line there keeps the whole thing about rights instead of being twisted into denying people rights. Someone saying "niggers/spics/crackers/immigrants/whatever" needs to die isn't illegal and it doesn't deny anyone their rights. Making hiring decisions based on that opinion does, and only the latter belongs on a list like this.
The only way an idea like this would work is if it has strict, set-in-stone rules about what counts as what. For example, if a senator says "the white devil is responsible for all the world's evils", that is a demonstrable attempt at oppression. If some crackhead from Baltimore says it, it's just trash being trash. Not all evil is created equal.
It would almost be like a Wikipedia for power mongers and rich sociopaths. Anyone can contribute, but there are still rules to follow.
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at when I suggest drawing the line at rights denial if were to do this at all. The senator part of your example is in between the line I'm suggesting and the crackhead part of your example. A senator saying that isn't directly depriving people of rights, but given their influence it's not harmless. It's really hard to make a good call in that gray area. If that senator introduced or backed discriminatory legislation then that takes it into undisputed rights denial territory.
Make sure the rules are actually enforced if that's the case. Wikipedia is a terrible example of enforcing rules evenly given their rotten governance structure. It's basically mob rule over there with social status determining how effective someone is at forming mobs to push whatever agenda they want to push. It also makes an easy target for community capture as the wokie hijacking of their governance showed.