Twitter won't treat White Supremacy like ISIS because it'd have to ban Republicans

[Mormolyce]

Kind of depends on the person who makes it. I don't see what point you are trying to make with this.

The algorithm would be programmed to find white supremacists, the same way they programmed it to find ISIS members.

Are you saying that opposing white supremacy is "leftist"?

- - - Updated - - -

you think algorithm is code for unbiased? The thing with code and algorithms is that you can basically make it do whatever you want it to. So it can be anything and nothing.

So were they biased when they wrote the one that dug out ISIS members?

- - - Updated - - -

I stopped there. Who cares what this random no-name dude believes? He may believe the earth is flat for all I care.

He's being asked about it because Twitter managed to purge ISIS from its platform using algorithms, so the obvious question is why they haven't done the same for white supremacists.

The answer is obvious, but journalists interview people to get these kinds of replies because that's how journalism works...

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, the left/democrats are far closer to ISIS. Or whatever the new version call themselves.

What's ISIS's policy on gay marriage? Abortion? Separation of church and state? Feminism?

ISIS are literally conservatives.

[Priestiality]

Imagine actually believing this is the case.

"In 2015, 14,997 law enforcement agencies participated in the Hate Crime Statistics Program. Of these agencies, 1,742 reported 5,850 hate crime incidents involving 6,885 offenses. (See Tables 1 and 12.)" -FBI Hate Crime Statistics

"In 2016, 15,254 law enforcement agencies participated in the Hate Crime Statistics Program. Of these agencies, 1,776 reported 6,121 hate crime incidents involving 7,321 offenses. (See Tables 1 and 12.)" -FBI Hate Crime Statistics

"In 2017, 16,149 law enforcement agencies participated in the Hate Crime Statistics Program. Of these agencies, 2,040 reported 7,175 hate crime incidents involving 8,437 offenses. (See Tables 1 and 12.)" -FBI Hate Crime Statistics

Feel free to check it for yourself https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime

[Mellrod]

....you do realize it's 2019, right?

- - - Updated - - -



People wil always feel somewhat more open and comfortable towards that which is closer to them.
You'll find the same attitude in Japan with japanese citizens, or China with chinese citizens, or any other country in which a particular group is the majority: when faced with a stranger they'll naturally be more inclined towards those closer to them as they'll be perceived as slightly less "strangers" than the others.

It's nothing but natural social reactions, and none of this is proof of some sort of oppressive or evil doing system at hand.

Putting aside the mixture of paranoia and stuff that doesn't happen that was woven in, all the rest is nothing but common and natural "majority bias".

Xenophobia, a distrust of foreigners, is not quite the same as racial prejudice, and still isn't a justification for such.

You don't know the people involved

I know they were a bi-racial family: White foster parents and a black foster child. With a neighbor who made an assumption that, with race removed from the equation, seems to have no reasonable logic behind it. Is there anything else that should change the situation?

you don't know the neighborhood they were living in

They lived in a neighborhood where the neighbors were racist enough to call the cops on someone for being black, without using any kind of logic. Or are you implying having the cops called on you only happen in dangerous neighborhoods?

you don't know the history at hand, you don't know the circumstances in which this happened

The circumstances in which this happened are described in multiple different articles. A young teen knocked on the front door of his own house, to which a neighbor assumed some it was some kind of break-in (because of course, curtly knocking on the front door is what burglars do, right?) and called the cops.

and cannot know whether the police wouldn't have been called had the dude been white.

I would love to see all the countless articles detailing white people being harassed, profiled, stereotyped, shot at, kicked out, or arrested for the same mundane things as I listed in my previous comment. To pretend like these situations aren't racially charged is just plain denial.

Allow me to correct you then: that's arrogance. Yours.

...

If assumptions and arrogance is how white privilege is defined then that's clear proof we need to get rid of the notion as soon as possible.

Yea, no. It really isn't arrogance that is the problem, but nice ad hominem there. I provided countless examples in my recently updated comment. Tons of very common and mundane situations, from selling water, to opening the front door to your apartment turned, into police calls and news headliners because of unconscious and conscious racism & prejudice. Given all the situations around the country in which similar things have occurred under almost the same conditions, and in very visible patterns for years, it's far from assumption at this point, it's deductive reasoning. Especially when it's never been a secret that racism is still alive and well in this country.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Again, ISIS is a terrorist organization about killing civilians. White supremacy is an idea that whites might somehow be supreme in some way. This is apples to oranges. Debate about ideas is allowed while physical violence against civilians is not.

Except, this idea has become material when those ideas caused violence.

[Malaky]

"In 2015, 14,997 law enforcement agencies participated in the Hate Crime Statistics Program. Of these agencies, 1,742 reported 5,850 hate crime incidents involving 6,885 offenses. (See Tables 1 and 12.)" -FBI Hate Crime Statistics

"In 2016, 15,254 law enforcement agencies participated in the Hate Crime Statistics Program. Of these agencies, 1,776 reported 6,121 hate crime incidents involving 7,321 offenses. (See Tables 1 and 12.)" -FBI Hate Crime Statistics

"In 2017, 16,149 law enforcement agencies participated in the Hate Crime Statistics Program. Of these agencies, 2,040 reported 7,175 hate crime incidents involving 8,437 offenses. (See Tables 1 and 12.)" -FBI Hate Crime Statistics

Feel free to check it for yourself https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime

"Mmmh.... it's almost as if the numbers increase in proportion with the increase in law enforcement agencies partecipating in the program..."

[Gangresnake]

Maybe I'm late to the party but since this thread reached 17 pages it may be time to point the obvious : The title is a lie.
Twitter never said anything like it.
Someone just thought it'd be a good narrative if it was true, and made an entire article based around that assumption, with the truth hidden in a tiny corner of a paragraph as "Twitter never actually said it" followed by "but our local experts say...!"

17 pages of jerking off about the completely uneducated opinion of a nobody.

[bagelmanman]

heh heh headlines I've come to expect from certain NPCs

[Masark]

"Mmmh.... it's almost as if the numbers increase in proportion with the increase in law enforcement agencies partecipating in the program..."

You ought to go back to 4th grade where they cover multiply and dividing 4 digit numbers, as you evidently failed to grasp those lessons.

Because actually doing the math there shows a 13.8% increase (from 0.39 to 0.44) in incidents per agency.

[Malaky]

You ought to go back to 4th grade where they cover multiply and dividing 4 digit numbers, as you evidently failed to grasp those lessons.

Because actually doing the math there shows a 13.8% increase (from 0.39 to 0.44) in incidents per agency.

What you need here is reading comprehension, not quite as much math.
Obviously I didn't mean the numbers are rising in exact proportion with the increase in agencies, however to claim that this proves we're going "backwards" is disingenuous at best, willfully dishonest at worst.

We have more agencies at hand, more disposition to report, and an american landscape in which everyone seems offended by everything.

A 13.8% is no surprise and doesn't prove the allegations of "skewing in the other direction", so don't expect me to run around screaming about the return of Jim Crow.

[Nimog]

First I want to preface what I am about to say that Nazism or any form of structured Racist government, individual, entity I strongly disagree with. It has no business in a society that wants to uplift its citizens. While I abhor these ideas, freedom of speech must be absolutely protected. To Clarify this point I respect anyone's desire to express their opinions to a certain degree. I do draw the line at calls to kill/maim/physically hurt anyone. If those individuals want to spout nonsense about how a white/black/polka dotted person makes a better (fill in the blank) etc. You are free to do that. I have a choice of if I want to listen or not.
We must allow those ideas to flow, so we can have respectful discourse to actually solve racial problems. If you start telling people not to do something the surprising thing is people will actually start doing the things you tell them NOT to do.

[Priestiality]

First I want to preface what I am about to say that Nazism or any form of structured Racist government, individual, entity I strongly disagree with. It has no business in a society that wants to uplift its citizens. While I abhor these ideas, freedom of speech must be absolutely protected. To Clarify this point I respect anyone's desire to express their opinions to a certain degree. I do draw the line at calls to kill/maim/physically hurt anyone. If those individuals want to spout nonsense about how a white/black/polka dotted person makes a better (fill in the blank) etc. You are free to do that. I have a choice of if I want to listen or not.
We must allow those ideas to flow, so we can have respectful discourse to actually solve racial problems. If you start telling people not to do something the surprising thing is people will actually start doing the things you tell them NOT to do.

That's cool but as a private company the first amendment means literally nothing because no one owes you a platform.

[Heran]

No. It's not. They literally do not have access to all the same benefits in most cases as their counterparts. That is a blatant lack of opportunity.

Are there any laws stopping them? No, so there is equal opportunity. You want equal outcome.

We're only talking about within the US so I don't know why you keep comparing it to other places.

People in far worse situations than black people in the US succeed.

[Malaky]

Not sure why you think it's just about laws.

The moment you accuse a system of being systematically racist you need to point at objective elements within it, like laws and rules, that are indeed racist and aimed at keeping those groups down.

If all you have are "feelings" and emotions you have nothing and your accusations are founded on bs.

Maybe you should educate yourself on Jim Crow laws and the severe impact they had that still affects certain groups today.

You mean the people today who didn't live a single second under those laws?
Maybe you should consider the possibility that this might just be an excuse to avoid addressing one's personal failures and shortcomings.

[Malaky]

You probably think since we had a black president then it proves racism doesn't exist.

Nope, that's a nonsense statement nobody would believe.
It does prove the country isn't racist though, that's what everyone else would see in that, and with good reason.

Here's a good video for you demonstrating the concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K5fbQ1-zps

I'm so grateful you decided to post that.

[d00mGuArD]

He's being asked about it because Twitter managed to purge ISIS from its platform using algorithms, so the obvious question is why they haven't done the same for white supremacists.

The answer is obvious, but journalists interview people to get these kinds of replies because that's how journalism works...

That's how bad journalism works.
Real journalists look for facts and reliable sources.
Not "what a twitter employee believes"
What if that guy believes in flat earth? Who cares about their beliefs?

[Dacien]

In terms of economics they have those same privileges I'm sure. I doubt they have many negative effects stemming from their race such as racial profiling as well. It does make the term "white privilege" less accurate. I think on most contexts though it's understood to be used as a comparison between white people and specific minority groups. I guess they could call it "not black privilege" to be more accurate but I doubt that would be an acceptable term.

There are lots of different types of privilege. I work in the construction industry as a shorter-than-average guy with a less-than-average weight. I lift and work out and am pretty strong for my size, but you know who the foreman chooses to help him move 500 pound switchgear? The big guys. The 6-foot-tall, 240 pound guys. You know who all the foremans I've worked for choose to help them? It's rarely me. And it's nothing personal. It's just that the bigger guys are more suited. They have the privilege of being bigger guys. Right now on the job I'm on, one of them is black, the other Hispanic.

But I'm white, so that's supposed to somehow give me this great advantage in life over them. It's not so. I will be the first one to admit that black people, on the whole, usually have a tougher time growing up than most, although I think it has much more to do with the astronomical single motherhood rate than it does with racism, which is more improved today than it has ever been in history, and getting better as time passes. But singularly focusing on race as the ultimate variable, the ultimate and premiere privilege or lack thereof, is just shortsighted.

[Malaky]

Why don't your argue your own points instead of linking youtube videos and just shouting at people that "no you're wrong!!!"

Because "here's a good video for you demonstrating the concept" is something you said.

Your rules, bro. Enjoy the rebuttal of that obviously staged race.

[Heran]

You're asking if there are laws stopping who from doing what? From children going out and getting internet on their own to their home? Sure I guess there's no laws for that. Not sure how they'd do it.

Are there laws against stopping a child from having a better home environment? Well, technically yes. They can't just run away from home and live with someone else, can they?

You're literally just arguing that "some of the succeeded so they all can!!" And that's a piss poor argument. Can they? Sure. But the entire point that you keep ignoring is that it's magnitudes more difficult to do so and so that leads to less of them doing so. Why are you okay with a higher proportion of a certain group of people having to work multiple times harder than another group of people to have the same level of success? If society can help put them on the same level playing field, they should.

You probably think since we had a black president then it proves racism doesn't exist.

Here's a good video for you demonstrating the concept.



Notice how many of them didn't even try. Do I agree that they should have just given up? No. But I do understand why they think it was pointless to try. You seem to lack that understanding.

- - - Updated - - -



I already did that. Maybe re-read the posts you quoted. And again, there were racist laws and practices that existed in the past that still have a negative impact on those groups today and society isn't doing as much as it could or should to make up for that past.

Just because they didn't live under those laws, doesn't mean their parents or grandparents didn't. It doesn't mean their family isn't still feeling the negative impacts of that past.

I'm seriously tired of dealing with this ignorant bullshit in this thread.

You want equal outcome, not equal opportunity. Equal opportunity already exists. Not everyone will succeed given equal opportunity, you think that to be a problem and want equal outcome instead because you think equal opportunity is not enough.

- - - Updated - - -

The algorithm would be programmed to find white supremacists, the same way they programmed it to find ISIS members.

Are you saying that opposing white supremacy is "leftist"?

It's not finding only ISIS members though. It's finding people who just are Arabs as well, which your article specifically mentions. I guess we should label them ISIS members or islamists given this? Doesn't matter that the algorithm is too aggressive?

[Priestiality]

There are lots of different types of privilege. I work in the construction industry as a shorter-than-average guy with a less-than-average weight. I lift and work out and am pretty strong for my size, but you know who the foreman chooses to help him move 500 pound switchgear? The big guys. The 6-foot-tall, 240 pound guys. You know who all the foremans I've worked for choose to help them? It's rarely me. And it's nothing personal. It's just that the bigger guys are more suited. They have the privilege of being bigger guys. Right now on the job I'm on, one of them is black, the other Hispanic.

But I'm white, so that's supposed to somehow give me this great advantage in life over them. It's not so. I will be the first one to admit that black people, on the whole, usually have a tougher time growing up than most, although I think it has much more to do with the astronomical single motherhood rate than it does with racism, which is more improved today than it has ever been in history, and getting better as time passes. But singularly focusing on race as the ultimate variable, the ultimate and premiere privilege or lack thereof, is just shortsighted.

You're literally comparing one extremely specific situation that's part of a broader but still quite specific situation, to the everyday experiences of people of color. Your skin color has nothing to do with your height or weight beyond very minor pre-dispositions for certain traits i.e. the average Nordic person tends to be taller than the average Asian person, but not always. Privilege, in the sense of skin color, has to do with basic everyday interactions, not extremely specific work related situations that 99% of the population will never find themselves in because they don't work in the same industry you do. It is literally things like: retail employees are more likely to monitor young black men, despite the fact that when I worked in retail the overwhelming majority of our thieves were middle-class wine-and-xanax suburban moms with "Let me speak to your manager" haircuts. It's things like telling a cop you have a legally concealed, licensed handgun and not getting immediately shot by some scared punk bitch pig. It's things like being able to go to the store for a pack of skittles and walk home in your own neighborhood without some dimestore Paul Kersey deciding you "don't belong" in the neighborhood in which you live.

[Has lost its way]

The algorithm would be programmed to find white supremacists, the same way they programmed it to find ISIS members.

Are you saying that opposing white supremacy is "leftist"?

- - - Updated - - -



So were they biased when they wrote the one that dug out ISIS members?

- - - Updated - - -



He's being asked about it because Twitter managed to purge ISIS from its platform using algorithms, so the obvious question is why they haven't done the same for white supremacists.

The answer is obvious, but journalists interview people to get these kinds of replies because that's how journalism works...

- - - Updated - - -



What's ISIS's policy on gay marriage? Abortion? Separation of church and state? Feminism?

ISIS are literally conservatives.

I think one day you will find yourself in a extremely limited world when your beliefs in time recede and those you once deemed as evil turn your own tools against you.