Website Calls Out Authors of Racist Anti-Obama Posts 423
stevegee58 writes "A tumblr blog entitled 'HelloThereRacists' is publicly identifying other online posters who make racist/assassination comments about President Obama. Beyond merely identifying online usernames, the blog's author is uncovering and publishing the real names and locations of offending posters. It's an interesting mess of legal issues. The outed posters are at risk of a Secret Service visit, but the trouble may not end there. The HelloThereRacists blogger himself may have some problems publicly identifying posters, who are frequently underage teenagers."
Update: 11/16 19:17 GMT by S : The blog has already been taken down.
so what if they're minors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In principle, I agree with you. Legally, he can't do that. Depending on the ToS it might not be acceptable to publish them for anyone, but that's a whole other kettle of wax.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not?
What law prevents this if they are minors?
I would think the first amendment would protect the poster.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not? What law prevents this if they are minors?
Depends on the jurisdiction; some states it's illegal, others it's not, still others, a grey area. Personally, I wouldn't recommend going on a global "naming names" campaign unless I was intimately familiar with all federal, state, and local regulations... otherwise, the probability that my actions would run afoul of the law would inevitably reach 1.
I would think the first amendment would protect the poster.
Normally, yes, but in the case that the speaker is knowingly putting the life of others in danger, not so much.
Remember, your rights extend to the exact poin
Re:so what if they're minors? (Score:5, Insightful)
What jurisdictions have these laws?
Please name one.
I don't see how he put anyone in danger. These were copies of posts people made online. These folks were already telling the world this about themselves. He did not secretly record their bed time conversations.
Re:so what if they're minors? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of them were facebook posts using their real names and pictures of themselves.
Identifying who they were was clearly trivial.
Re:so what if they're minors? (Score:5, Informative)
This mostly addresses the special concerns school publishing has to work with. It admits the government cannot limit the media to print youths names so long as they are correct and were legally collected.
Re: (Score:3)
Those are when you attend a trial. Are you even reading this stuff you post?
Re:so what if they're minors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. That is not protected speech. They are idiots and hopefully no one over the age of 15 or so is engaging in such juvenile behavior. Too bad corporal punishment is frowned on nowadays because they definitely need their asses whipped. Regardless of political considerations President Obama is the executive officer of the United States and it is not only illegal but immoral to threaten him and the racism speaks for itself. I say this as one who politically is totally opposed to most of the President's policies. It's too bad that civilization has deteriorated so badly.
Re:so what if they're minors? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do find the lack of decorum and respect concerning the office of the President of the United States very disturbing. It's not about President Obama or President Bush but the failure to have just manners. It offends me when I hear people treating my President, despite the fact that I didn't vote for him, like he was a piece of trash. Calling him names and suggesting someone harm him is just plain wrong. He represents the People of the United States. Disagree with him, fine. This other crap needs to stop. It doesn't matter if it's President Bush or President Obama. If people can't disagree without losing their minds we will end up looking like one of those Middle Eastern countries with shelled out buildings and rubble filled streets.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and every thread will be investigated by the Secret Service.
I don't think that this guy's blog will have any impact on Secret Service investigations. If they felt there was a sufficient threat to merit investigation in any particular case, then they are more than able to discover the information this guy has uncovered (and more!) without his help. If they felt that some other particular case was not worthy of investigation, then this guy's blog will not convince them to investigate. The blog is a complete non-factor as regards the Secret Service.
Re:so what if they're minors? (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Ok, I will bite...
King Henry asked "Will no one rid me of this trurbulent priest?"
Well, that is one version, there's are others reported, but the meaning was clear: someone cap that fucker.
That incited some of his knights to do exactly that. Went medieval on his ass with broadswords.
If you wanted an updated version, it is like Don Corleone commenting what a beautiful family you have, and what a shame should something happen to them.
So if some one with sufficient real or moral authority and/or infulence made the same sort of comments about a President, it could be taken as a serious threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TOS doesn't hold up in court.
You can't take away people's rights with it, but you can give them rights.
Re: (Score:3)
You might have to explain that one.
If you make promises you have to keep them. But if you attempt to hold people to illegal promises, you can't.
Re: (Score:2)
One's free speech rights do not entitle one to a printing press, or blog platform. If I was running a blog host I have every right in the world to impose any conditions I so desire upon the use of that host. If you want to exercise your rights to the maximum it is upon you to buy your own equipment with which to broadcast your speech.
Re: (Score:2)
There are parents who can delude themselves into believing their murderer child is still a "good boy", so I'd say that this will only help those parents who simply didn't know what their little asshat children were saying online.
Re:so what if they're minors? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think bigotry and prejudice evolves in a vacuum? A good many of those kids probably live in households where their parents, relatives, and friends tout those views.
Re:so what if they're minors? (Score:5, Informative)
I saw the site yesterday and a number of posters exposed also included bits about how their parents shared the same views.
Re: (Score:3)
Please. I'd bet half the trolls on the internet are minors. Kids say and do things just because they are forbidden, its normal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:so what if they're minors? (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet has become a gormless lynchmob.
Children behaving like idiots is news? Hardly. It is the norm and that's why we protect them and punish in a way that does no lasting harm. "Real consequences" are community service, being grounded for months, being cut off the internet for month(including their parents deleting their internet personas permanently) being lectured by a judge in a closed session. All done in private. Not a public punishment under the eyes of a jeerying crowds and most certainly not a visit by the Secret Service lest it be for proper educational purposes. And least of all being pointlessly thrown into jail.
The much more interesting question is why they post this particular type of hateful tripe.
If you want to answer that with "friends and family" then you are propably partly correct but also shortsighted.
Re: (Score:3)
when you can just say something bad about religion or conservatives or capitalism and get instant +5 insightful
That's probably because criticising religion, conservatives and capitalism quite often is insightful.
Re: (Score:3)
Also why do conservatives pause so long between breaths? They CONSISTENTLY deviate from the mean by AT LEAST two milliseconds! Those breathless bastards!
And capitalism is far too capital! I mean, does it have to be that large? You can hardly move it through the staircase when moving out. You just might as well call it aunt Edna.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The south, as a touchstone example, while forced to integrate has never been forced to accept it socially.
How, exactly, do you "force" someone to accept something socially? Since by the definition of "socially", as I understand it to apply to this post, is that it is composed of what people choose to think. You can force people to act in a particular manner by applying negative reinforcement to those who do not act that way. How do you force people to think in a particular manner, since for the most part you only know what people think when they tell you?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How, exactly, do you "force" someone to accept something socially?
You take a page from the social conservatives' playbook and make it the responsibility of the government to arbitrate morality. Public pressure denouncing the unwanted ideology is the first step to establishing government policy. Once we establish a 'moral majority' that believes this behavior must be dealt with, we are on our way to achieving this goal.
How do you force people to think in a particular manner,
You don't, directly. But if you proscribe the unsuitable behavior, people will eventually fall into line. Or they'll out themselves as being social misfits
Re: (Score:3)
Is their intention to kill innocent people? or something else?
Re:and salon (Score:5, Insightful)
the often heralded myth by of the GOP that racism happened a long time ago and we don't need to talk about it, as they did during the Treyvon Martin murder.
You seem to have a memory problem. In the Treyvon Martin case it was the "liberals" that were knee-jerk racists, and it was the "conservatives" (including Fox News to their credit) that were saying we should actually look at the facts.
Re:and salon (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
the often heralded myth by of the GOP that racism happened a long time ago and we don't need to talk about it, as they did during the Treyvon Martin murder.
You seem to have a memory problem. In the Treyvon Martin case it was the "liberals" that were knee-jerk racists, and it was the "conservatives" (including Fox News to their credit) that were saying we should actually look at the facts.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if it's digital.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where "look at the facts" means "not even have a trial for an obvious suspect." I think you'll find that most liberals would be perfectly ok with a "not guilty" verdict if the evidence pointed that way, but not even charging someone who beyond a shadow of a doubt, and by their own volition, shot and killed a minor, is not a sane course of action.
Dealing with the intricacies of what is murder, what is manslaughter, and what is completely justifiable is something that should be handled by a jury of ones peer
You don't bring everyone to trial (Score:3)
The idea in the US is that you really try to only bring people you are fairly sure are guilty to trial. A trial costs a lot of money and majorly disrupts a person's life. You don't say "Just take them to trial, it'll get all sorted out there."
In the case of an affirmative defense, like self defense, what should happen is the police investigate the situation and determine if the affirmative defense holds water. If it doesn't, they then had it off to the DA for charges.
So "Wait for the facts," is indeed appro
Re:and salon (Score:5, Informative)
No that was the police, that were the first ones who took in the evidence, talked to witnesses, dealt with injuries.
Evidence overwhelmingly put Zimmerman in the clear. Trayvon had bruises on his knuckles that shows he was punching somebody. Zimmerman had no bruises on his fists, he wasn't, but he did have multiple wounds including a broken nose and bleeding from the back of the head. Eye witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, went to call the police - heard the gun shot and returned to see Trayvon on the ground. Interviews with Trayvon's girlfriend indicates Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman, and what was said before (T: 'Why are you following me?" Z: "What are you doing here?" then a fight breaks out).
Liberal news agencies altered the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist (they apologized for this), filtered images to hide wounds on Zimmerman's head (after removing the filters they announced there were wounds...) They published a 6-7 year old picture of Trayvon as a 11 year old kid (helps draw sympathy), and an old mug shot of Zimmerman (Boy, helps the innocents there right? Didn't even mention all charges against him were dropped and he had a clear record).
All evidence collaborates with Zimmerman's story of self-defense. Trayvon did attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman's wounds were all self-defense style wounds.
Re: (Score:3)
Question for you:
Zimmerman was following Martin around and could certainly be considered threatening in that respect. Why can't Trayvon be covered under stand your ground? Had Zimmerman not followed Martin around the incident would not have happened. I've asked this of numerous people who insist Zimmerman was obviously in the right and never got a response.
He should have a trial. He went out of his way to follow Martin and ultimately caused the incident. If he is found to have acted in self defense then goo
Re:and salon (Score:5, Insightful)
There's only one problem with Salon's argument. The kids themselves have already permanently stigmatized them as racists.
One something goes onto the internet, it's there permanently. It will never go away. Therefore, what you say COULD very well bite you in the rear years later. People have already lost jobs and whatnot because of stuff they've posted online. Sometimes very publicly. And yet people still can't seem to get the picture.
Even a highschooler should know better than to say incredibly stupid things like this in a public forum. High schoolers are not stupid. They may not be as mature as a full adult, but they are not stupid.
More generally, anyone may be free to say whatever they want, but they do NOT have the right to avoid the consequences of what they say. These people have no one to blame but themselves. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
"Even a highschooler should know better than to say incredibly stupid things like this in a public forum. High schoolers are not stupid. They may not be as mature as a full adult, but they are not stupid."
I would amend that to "they are not anymore stupid than the average adult." Because make no mistake people, kids included are stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...lambasting them for outing kids...
How do you "out" somebody who's posting to what is essentially a public forum. Granted, I don't use twitter, but aren't (god help me for saying this) "tweets" public?
On an interesting note, I just pulled up the tumbler page and now it's 404, after just having looked at it 5 minutes ago.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you "out" somebody who's posting to what is essentially a public forum.
By tracking down not only their real names, but their physical addresses. "strength_of_10_men" is really George Thompson who lives at 3482 Wayback Lane, Apt. 4, Glen Close, CA, and his phone number is 800 555-1212.
This is a celebrated tactic when anti-spammers deal with spam kings (who are sending email out to anyone with an email address, or essentially "public"), with the implication that someone should go "visit" them to help them straighten out their lives. Why would we not recognize it as the same ty
Re:and salon (Score:5, Insightful)
salon just made a decent argument lambasting them for outing kids in a manner that could permanently stigmatize them as racists.
What exactly is the problem with calling a racist a racist?
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is the problem with calling a racist a racist?
Nothing, if the person the label is being applied to has actually said something truly racist deliberately.
But, if it is a case of ignorance of the listener ("niggardly" [etymonline.com] is not a racist term [jacobsen.no]), or someone helpfully trying to "decode" a "keyword" [dailykos.com] for us, or assuming because one party to some event was white and the other black that the event must have been racially motivated (e.g., the white cop who made a black congressman who had just broken into his own house show ID), there's a lot wrong with trying to
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really imagine every time utters the "n" word, they actually believe in the superiority of the white race?
If they use it in a derogatory sense, like the people responding to Obama's election, then yes I do. If they use it in a joke context then they're still racist as fuck but I have no clue what's going in their tiny confused brain with regard to superiority. But yeah, I think all the racists out there bitching about the election do in fact resent that they are essentially being led by someone who is not white. I think that they think that they are "better" than that, that they "deserve" a white leader inst
Re: (Score:3)
You mean if a white guy got elected and a bunch of black racists started posting a bunch of racist messages on Twitter and Facebook, would I react the same way? Yeah, I would.
But go ahead, keep defending racism.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no way to check that since the site seems to be down but that does not seem surprising at all.
Much of the Northeast is rural and racist as hell. I have lived in the deep South and the North east, rural vs city was a far better predictor of racism than latitude.
Definition of racism? (Score:5, Insightful)
So who gets to decide the difference between a "racist" comment and a generally insulting comment?
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr's famous "dream" was that [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." [usconstitution.net] Many of Obama's critics are doing exactly that.
Disclaimer: I'm a halfhearted Obama supporter in the "lesser of two evils" sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say everyone days. Using the N-word several times and making references to slavery as many of those posters did is makes it pretty clear.
Re:Definition of racism? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, its pretty easy.
If you say he's a bad President with bad policy decisions and poor judgement, that's the content of his character (or actions). If you say he's a (sand) nigger or muslim or mention slavery or his non-whiteness, as many of those posts in the blog did, its racist. If you talk about the preferred method of assassination being lynching as MANY of these did, its *really* racist (also stupid as shit).
Those were *really* blatant. "I'm not racist!" one said, "I like plenty of black people, I just hate niggers" (paraphrased by me, site's down now). Its hard to read that as anything but, "I like the black people who know their place, i.e., subservient to my white ass." And that'd be one of the nicer ones.
Things get fuzzier when you have someone talking about the loss or waning of "Traditional America", which is IMO racist -- but which is trying very hard to cover it.
When you talk about the only reason he won is because the "new" America is getting "gifts" from Santa, you're bemoaning the decline of the white male bloc and rather offensively deciding no one but that white male bloc can make an intelligent decision on its merits -- that's just generally insulting, but arguably not quite racist. But is it *damn* close to both racism and male chauvinism (since this new America also happens to include whores and sluts: i.e., single women who are thinking only of sex sex sex sex sex sex and all the sex they can have for free now, and not about the future as a responsible wife and mother would).
Sure there are plenty of people who are Obama critics who are not racists. However, a LOT are -- and a LOT of what's going around is very thinly veiled racism. This blog was posting up stuff which didn't even try to veil said racism, though. :)
When a frankly moderate (at best: we progressives did /not/ get the far-left guy we thought we wanted) President's every action is treated as some sort of alien insurrection that is utterly incomprehensible to the people -- there's something more then just policy disagreement going on. It's so far beyond partisan or political policy.
Wheeee! Spinning!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
FTA:
Oh, I guess that makes everything all right then.
The most racist comments by the most racist people always start with "I'm not racist, but..."
FTS:
This, and similar, statements are made in the article, but never explained or justified. There's nothing illegal or immoral about revealing the source of a quote, regardless of age.
Double standard (Score:2)
So why isn't this blogger exposing the real identities of poster who made racist comments about Allen West and Mia Love?
Re: (Score:2)
Because black republicans arent real blacks. they're either simply traitors to their kind, or merely black on the outside. Even 4 years ago when I was still in ATL i was told this repeatedly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
I saw it before it went down. These were not people saying bad things about the president. These were people using the Nword, saying that white people should vote for a white president. One poster even claimed that god hated black people.
These were clearly racist things.
Re: (Score:3)
Say you have a collection of statements:
Barack Obama is a fucking nigger!
Mia Love is a fucking nigger!
I'm glad that cracker Romney didn't get elected.
Was offline for a few and now I'm back, glad to see my president is still black.
If the only one you call out is "Barack Obama is a fucking nigger!" then you have an agenda of criticizing your political opponents, not of speaking against racism. The fact that the statement is racist doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:3)
Citation or retraction please.
A google search turned up this quote:
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if republicans don't want to be associated so much with racism, maybe they should... you know.... stop being so racist?
OK (Score:3, Interesting)
Will they also be outing the authors of all the tweets that threatened to assassinate Romney or riot and murder in general if Romney had won? Just curious.
Uncovering what? They used their real names (Score:2)
Re:Uncovering what? They used their real names (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't on one hand say people should respect your views ...
I don't respect your views, and I don't expect you to respect mine either. But I do respect your right to express those views.
Identifying posters ... (Score:2)
If its a matter of public disclosure, they can always place the identity information on a web page protected with a password for use by law enforcement. Make the password 'password' and we'll call it good.
The site has vanished. (Score:2)
Not found.
We couldn't find the page you were looking for.
Already down? (Score:2)
It's down. (Score:2)
Annnd, it's gone already. Or it's gone at the moment. [tumblr.com]
Not clear if the author took it down, if this is an automated reaction to problem reports on Tumblr, or if Tumblr itself took it down for Reasons.
and its down (Score:3)
wow, site goes down right as its being discussed....
Re: (Score:2)
Usual jerks (Score:4, Insightful)
On the actual site [tumblr.com] (quit linking to some blog that links to a site of interest, Slashdot submitters), it's just typical jerks, mostly in high school. Somebody at the Secret Service will have to read through all that dreck looking for someone who might conceivably be a threat. It's mostly just kids mouthing off. Ones who are both making threats and have guns [tumblr.com] may get some attention.
It's sad reading the Facebook pages of some of those people. Their future is dim. For white people with only a high school education, life in the US has become slightly worse each year since 1973. For them, there is no American Dream. Hard work is no longer enough. Of course they're angry. The GOP and Fox News exploit and direct that anger at Obama, but they didn't create it.
Gone? (Score:2)
Looks like the blog is gone.
I guess tumblr was afraid of the slashdotting they were about to get.
On a related note... (Score:3)
Looks like the blog is gone.
I guess tumblr was afraid of the slashdotting they were about to get.
Here's a map someone made a week ago:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/where-americas-racist-tweets-come-from/265006/ [theatlantic.com]
Blog down: Google Cache instead (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a cached version, [googleusercontent.com] since the site is no longer available.
False positives (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the chairman of the Maine Republican party. If black people are not known to live in a town, yet they are bused in to vote, it is legitimate to ask questions about that. Sorry, it just is. If he's mistaken about the demographics, let him be duly raked over the coals for crying wolf unnecessarily. But why call him a racist for apparently being a watchdog against voter fraud?
This blogger was apparently in over his head, and most definitely does not have my respect. Glad his site is down.
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech absolutely does not imply freedom from consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are free to say anything you want as long as your ok with consequences of the men in black suv's showing up and putting you down sans trial under patriot act anti terror legislation. But that's still free speach how exactly?
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the GP meant free speech can have consequences that are not from the government.
Short of assassination threats the folks with black SUVs should leave you alone, but I should be able to find out about it and avoid you.
Should I not have the right to chose not to associate with such folks?
Re: (Score:3)
There's a huge difference between homosexuality, which is something you're born with, and being a dumbfuck, which is something these people chose.
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh settle down. You and all of the Paranoid Drama Queens out there. The Secret Service / FBI / NSA / Men In Black isn't going to whisk you away to Guantanamo Bay in the dark of night. Neither the little racist asshole or yourself are so special.
If anything they'll ask you some questions. If they feel like further evaluation is needed, you will be able to get a lawyer. The vast majority of times they'll just stare at you and maybe ask you to grow up a tad.
There are enough issues with government intrusion into personal privacy to keep everyone on their toes. Jumping up and down about this sort of thing just creates noise, not signal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"If anything they'll ask you some questions. If they feel like further evaluation is needed, you will be able to get a lawyer"
Not under NDAA (Obama's Law), all you need is to be declared a "terrorist" and they can drop a bomb on you from a drone aircraft, no court, no judge, no lawyers no nothing. Don't get me wrong, the (R) president would do the same.
In other words, Obama is the worst part of GWB and then some. The Next President will be all the worst parts of Obama and then some.... see how that works?
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
Not under NDAA (Obama's Law)
You mean that thing that congress hashed out and sent him to sign?
It's funny how people's understanding of how government works goes right out the window as soon as they find a talking point to latch onto.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:3)
So you are free to say anything you want as long as your ok with consequences of the men in black suv's showing up and putting you down sans trial under patriot act anti terror legislation.
Because the men in black SUVs only show up if you threaten to kill someone important? But beyond that the AC didn't say that any consequence was justifiable. Having your real name attached to stupid racist things you've said is a far cry from extraordinary rendition.
Additionally, free speech has never meant you were free from the consequences from your fellow people, only from government reprisal for most things that you can say. Even that protection from the government has been limited. For example, yo
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. As part of having the right to free speech, others have that same right.
But you (unintentionally, I presume) make light of "real" bullying here, which goes far, far beyond "speech". Those chronically bullied very quickly become numb to mere words, and would gladly put up with that over what they actually endure.
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech does not mean that there are no social consequences of that speech. I am not so sure I like what this guy is doing, but I'm inclined to think that he has the right to do it (as long as he breaks no reasonable privacy laws doing so).
Of course, he should also understand that there are consequences to what he does too. It's one thing to be a verbal racist against someone in a chat room, it's another thing to put someone's real name out there with the implication that perhaps someone should *do something* with that data. I mean, honestly, what does he expect people to do with that information but to get them harassed or trolled?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you're assuming the names of people published are accurate. if they are not then he could face a huge ton of legal issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Be warned AC. You will be outed soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I have mixed feelings about this.
Asserting that a person acts a certain way because of their skin color is absurd. It should not be tolerated.
Somebody mentioning a suspicious correlation between cultural demographics which involve skin color and and group behaviors is really not.
Re: (Score:2)
I have mixed feelings about this.
Asserting that a person acts a certain way because of their skin color is absurd. It should not be tolerated.
Should not be tolerated or not be given consideration as though it were an informed position?
I ask because one of those statements can and will eventually be enforced with guns. The other is simply the responsibility of the other participants of the discussion and no one else.
Re: (Score:3)
This is ideology. It's intellectual filth. It's a mind cancer. You get two sides attacking each other in a fog of hypocrisy so dense you wonder how they can even keep moving.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you think the idiot that posted this is representative of the creator of that tumbler.
The two sides here are racists and not racists.
There is no ideology, no hypocrisy just calling people out for what they said.
If I ever run into one of those folks I now know not to hire them or buy anything from them. That is the best part of free speech it lets the loons identify themselves so I can stay far away.
Re: (Score:3)
You know how I know you never saw "Book of Mormon"?
Re: (Score:2)
The curse of Cain...
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with a broadway musical?
Re:Racism should be okay. (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally, discussing racist views should be OK but as soon as it is targeted that is wrong. If a person feels uncomfortable sitting next to a different person they should be encouraged to discuss it but in the current PC climate they cannot. If someone feels uncomfortable with a black man or a woman running the country, they should be free to discuss that without any problem. I do not support their view in any way but pushing these things underground creates a bigger problem. So I think we should defend their free speech...
Suggesting harm is not wrong because the target is black or Muslim or a woman, it is wrong because it is an assault. It is already a crime and in a truly non racist society we should just see it as a crime because it is one, not because the victim was different.
We need to end racism in society by stopping racism from being the crime. End all racism, sexism etc. We need a society that treats all people the same, regardless of who they hate.
Re: (Score:3)
We need to end racism in society by stopping racism from being the crime. End all racism, sexism etc. We need a society that treats all people the same, regardless of who they hate
The laws were established because we as a society do not treat all people the same, in fact parts of society not only wants to see the other part die, they want to see them die a gruesome and painful death.
Re:Racism should be okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
impeachment yes, assassination no
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
I probably did at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
The Fanboi culture has spread from love of your favorite brand of gadget into politics, been that way since Monica Lewinsky, in my opinion.
It's fine when you're arguing about what you should have in your pocket, but when it's the leader of a major superpower...
Re:What about threats to conservatives? (Score:4, Informative)
Cached page (Score:5, Informative)
Replying off-topic but it's relevant:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahellothereracists.tumblr.com [googleusercontent.com]
Re:Not against the law to be racist (Score:5, Insightful)