Google Autocomplete Still Makes Vile Suggestions (wired.com) 238
An anonymous reader shares a report: In December of 2016, Google announced it had fixed a troubling quirk of its autocomplete feature: When users typed in the phrase, "are jews," Google automatically suggested the question, "are jews evil?" Almost a year after removing the "are jews evil?" prompt, Google search still drags up a range of awful autocomplete suggestions for queries related to gender, race, religion, and Adolf Hitler. Google appears still unable to effectively police results that are offensive, and potentially dangerous -- especially on a platform that two billion people rely on for information. Like journalist Carol Cadwalladr, who broke the news about the "are jews evil" suggestion in 2016, I too felt a certain kind of queasiness experimenting with search terms like, "Islamists are," "blacks are," "Hitler is," and "feminists are." The results were even worse. For the term "Islamists are," Google suggested I might in fact want to search, "Islamists are not our friends," or "Islamists are evil." For the term, "blacks are," Google prompted me to search, "blacks are not oppressed."
The term "Hitler is," autocompleted to, among other things, "Hitler is my hero."
What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is showing what others are searching for. What else would you expect from humanity?
Re: (Score:3)
I see this as a reflection of human kind, not of Google.
As we get more polarized, it gets too easy to see the other group as bad or evil, we tend to forget that the other people have the same set of problems that we do. And are just trying to make it in the world the same as us.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
They should prevent exploitation of their algorithms in general, not just when it suits some particular vocal group.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with what your saying here... but I just gotta point out that the world would be equally outraged if google was found guilty of putting a shine on the search results by hiding or depressing results for evil thoughts. I'm not saying there's a fix for this... and perhaps really what I'm saying is that THERE IS NO FIX for this, because humanity is messy, and like a flag in a stiff breeze - there is no equilibrium. We are instead doomed to vacillate back and forth furiously until we're frayed, ripped
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that my question was modded down. Who was afraid of my question?
I am afraid. I don't think you should have been modded down since you raise an interesting point, but I fear that we sometimes go too far in censoring uncomfortable truths. In this case, maybe Google should take action. But we need to be careful. If they censor results for "Jews are ...", a precedent will be set, and they will soon come under pressure to also censor results for "Republicans are ...."
Re:What did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, maybe Google should take action.
The vast bulk of humanity is, in the words of Citizen Ted, "a worthless morass of lying, defecating chimpanzees". What precisely should Google do about this? If they are developing AI that will replace us all, that's enough.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The vast bulk of humanity is, in the words of Citizen Ted, "a worthless morass of lying, defecating chimpanzees".
My experience is that the vast bulk of humanity are decent people. We shouldn't let a the bottom 10% ruin everything just because they shout the loudest. Slashdot accomplishes that with the moderation system, which can be abused but mostly works well.
What precisely should Google do about this?
I think the best solution is to disable autocomplete for racial and religious terms. That is a neutral approach, and doesn't need constant monitoring.
If they are developing AI that will replace us all, that's enough.
That is a good long term solution. But until Humanity 2.0 is out of beta, we still need to deal with the wo
Re: (Score:2)
My experience is that the vast bulk of humanity are decent people. We shouldn't let a the bottom 10% ruin everything just because they shout the loudest. Slashdot accomplishes that with the moderation system, which can be abused but mostly works well.
It really doesn't. Posts where the author sounds sure of themselves often get modded up even if they are completely wrong. We also have a problem of posts being modded up because the posts agree with the moderators political biases (inplausable conspiracy theories, insults). And then there is the laziness problem where just the other week, a link to goat.cx link got modded to +5 because not a single moderator checked the link or read through the replies to see the warning not to click the link.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess we can expect this not to get modded up, even though it's absolutely true. Good observation. Moderation is clearly broken when I'm modded down as a flamebait troll because I asked what is essentially the framing question of this branch of the discussion, with the result that anyone viewing the forum with a filter at higher than -1 sees a series of disconnected comments and not the question I asked.
Re: (Score:2)
What precisely should Google do about this?
I think the best solution is to disable autocomplete for racial and religious terms. That is a neutral approach, and doesn't need constant monitoring.
Google is a search engine and an advertising platform. They aren't a church - yet - and it's not their place to try to change human nature, or even to represent it in an unrealistically favourable light. If people absolutely can not deal with this, there should be an option they can activate to hide it from them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google has been "censoring" suggestions for terms and names related to things like porn and adult services for many years already.
Re: (Score:2)
O'Rly? [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in favor of eliminating all auto-complete. I believe that in all cases, the implementers of auto-complete gain information manipulation powers that are not perceived clearly by the users of auto-complete. Does that make me pro-censorship? Does it make me anti-user? Does it make sense to view this as a left or right wing American politics issue? Why am I seeing Cowards posting from those two sides, calling me names, as if I asked something dangerous?
Re: (Score:3)
That's one way to read what he said if you have a mindset which believes Russians cause everything on the Internet you don't agree with.
I assume he meant "humanity is awful and doing awful searches". No exploitation needed.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google bombing is exception, not a rule. It simply doesn't happen on this scale.
There are no secret neonazi meetings for this.
The truth is that people simply do search for these things - "are jews nice?" and "are jews evil?", the latter ends up being more frequent as a result of people encountering nazi propaganda elsewhere and following it up by questioning it via google.
Interestingly, whenever a moral outrage happens over some tardy phrase like that (last time, it was "how to have sex with kids"), the media shitstorm actually amplifies the phrase, in ultra-refined Streissand fashion and only then we can talk about the phrases being artificially rated up.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
whenever a moral outrage happens over some tardy phrase like that (last time, it was "how to have sex with kids"), the media shitstorm actually amplifies the phrase
As a parent, I read that search as being shorthand for "how to have sex with kids in the house"...
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is that people simply do search for these things - "are jews nice?" and "are jews evil?"
While that's believable, with what are you backing up that assertion?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I believe poisoning autocomplete is on par to poisoning the index itself in difficulty. A circumstancial evidence can be found by consulting blackhat seo forums - they mostly hire actual people to do the searches, it's really not something to be easily manipulated. Google antispam is thought to work by making a "bot or not" profile for each user profile it tracks.
As far I can tell, i
Re: (Score:2)
They want money.
They get money from eyeballs.
They get eyeballs by showing people what people want to see.
They determine what people want to see based on what people enter in the search box.
If you want to find out if Jews are petunias, nothing stops you entering that.
So, the assertion is backed up with common fucking sense.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the assertion is backed up with common fucking sense.
SEO. Google it.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about the search box not the results. Stupid fat retarded cunt who doesn't know what "Islamist' means, google that.
Re: (Score:2)
Google wants to make search like the Star Trek computer that can answer natural language questions. But this is kind of like you starting to say "Jews are..." and the computer finishing your sentence with "evil?"
That's how people see it. It's call a "suggestion", not a list of most frequent search terms.
More interesting (to me at least) is the argument that Google search should have some moral responsibility to give certain answers. For example, is someone asks "do vaccines cause autism?" then it's it okay
Re: (Score:2)
There are no secret neonazi meetings for this.
And you know that ... because you were the minute keeper for the last national secret neonazi meeting and you didn't hear it come up?
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you, personally, get your news and personal opinions from Google autocomplete? If so, please stop doing that. That's not what it is for.
Re: (Score:2)
I do. Just yesterday I was using vinegar to clean some shit and someone remarked that vinegar is sour, and I said vinegar is bitter.
I went to ye ol' search engine and typed in "vinegar b" and got "vinegar bitter or sour" as a suggestion.
That suggestion told me that this was a thing. Clicking around a few links and reading a bit told me that while I may be outnumbered, I'm not wrong. Most people seem to categorize it as sour, but there are still plenty of us sane people who categorize it as bitter.
Re: (Score:2)
I went to ye ol' search engine and type in "earth fl" and got "earth flat or round" as a suggestion.
That suggestion told me that this was a thing.
Clicking around a few links and reading a bit told me that while I may be outnumbered, I'm not wrong.
Most people seem to categorize the earth as round, but there are still plenty of us sane people who categorize it as flat.
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually you are wrong. Absolutely wrong. Sour is the taste of acid in your mouth. Bitter is the taste of alkaline (although alkaloids are far more bitter than actual bases, one should note that alkaloid literally means alkaline-like, so color me surprised). Note that those things are completely opposite. While it is possible to taste both sour and bitter at the same time through the use of alkaloids mixed with acid, using ordinary basic substances, it is not. Acids and alkalines react together to make
Re: (Score:2)
Except when I typed "earth fl" I got "earth fleas", "earth flag", "earth flow", etc.
Flat Earth Society turned up somewhere in there too, but any clicking around would tell you that you're wrong to think Earth is flat.
Further, the Flat Earth Society is a joke. I love that you used it as your example because it shows how dumb you are. No one seriously believes in a flat Earth. It's clear and obvious satire, with some amusing exercises thrown in (trying to explain various phenomena starting with the assumpt
Re: (Score:2)
'hey stupid people - stop being stupid!'
that's you. that's what you are doing. good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is gaming the system here. It is just that the way you start your query matters.
For example "Islamists" is rarely used positively, and the suggestion reflect that. People genuinely interested in Islam would probably use another term, like "Muslims". "Blacks" is probably more negative than "black people". "Jews", or even worse "jew", is used more negatively than "the Jewish".
As for "Hitler is", why would you type that unless you are expecting something unconventional? People more interes
Re: (Score:2)
For example "Islamists" is rarely used positively
Among who? The 1.6 billion muslims in the world? Are you sure about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Among everyone with a dictionary.
Re: (Score:3)
I think he's saying that Google shouldn't be surprised at vile things showing up in a box populated by unmoderated entries from Random Internet Fuckwads. I'm not. They should moderate the entries if they don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, Google has no obligation to prevent its services from being leveraged by those who understand how it works from exploiting search suggestions as a means of disseminating their personal views. Is that what you're saying?
I didn't notice that the AC said anything at all regarding Google's obligations. Help me out here. Is there some force at work that I'm not aware of, that compels people to accept Google's search suggestions?
Personally, when I search for something on Google, I type what I'm searching for into the box, take a quick look to make sure the box contains what I think I typed, and hit the Enter key. What other people have searched for isn't of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
please don't use such rhetoric ("leveraged", "exploiting", etc)
If you are honest rephrase it like "Google, understanding how its services work exploits search suggestions as a means of disseminating its views"...
?
Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is not and SHOULD not be the thought police. If their algorithms show these to be common search queries, take that as a hint that we need to DO something - as long as that something isn't to sweep things under the rug by censoring the results.
Yes, censoring. I don't give a rat's ass about the argument that it's only censorship if the gubbermint does it. The internet is the new town square, deal with it. Circumventing censorship laws by "suggesting" to private companies what is and isn't appropriate things for people to see is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is not and SHOULD not be the thought police. If their algorithms show these to be common search queries, take that as a hint that we need to DO something - as long as that something isn't to sweep things under the rug by censoring the results.
That is a very easy ideology to maintain if you don't think too hard.
Google's search engine by definition censors what you see on the Internet when using their service. Even limiting your results to popular sites, or the ones Google thinks you probably want to see, is censoring out plenty of other results.
Circumventing censorship laws by "suggesting" to private companies what is and isn't appropriate things for people to see is bad.
No one is doing that here. Google will still serve up results for "Hitler is my hero" if the user types that in. What Google doesn't want to do is suggest that search query because they feel a sizable numb
Re: (Score:2)
That's not censoring any more than a city is censoring your exposure to farms.
Censorship requires the intentional curation of content to remove certain elements. You can intentionally curate content without removing those elements (by portraying other elements more-strongly--propaganda), and you can unintentionally over-represent some content (by collecting information for a purpose and by a method, which incidentally ends up over-representing the view as per the collected data and under-representing any
Re: (Score:2)
Suggesting to private companies what they should do is called free speech. If private companies choose to protect their brands by listening to feedback from the public that is also called free speech.
So you want stop the thought police by first stomping on freedom? How is that going to work out?
Re: (Score:2)
Google is not and SHOULD not be the thought police
Well, if they have no hand in what the algorithms produce, they'll be even more gamed than they already are. I'm sure trolls and political operatives would love that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When 1st amendment was written, private entities that could control so much of our communication did not exist, not even in concept. Government was called out because it was the only entity that could limit speech in a meaningful way. 1st amendment core intention isn't about Government actions, it is about limiting free speech.
This is an utterly specious argument. When the first amendment was written it was incredibly difficult to talk to anyone except a few people you knew. The options available then and v
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they did. Unless everyone had a laser printer at home.
Re: (Score:2)
...factor in segregation.
Segregation is such a dated word. The proper term is "POC Only", which sounds much more exclusive. Good thing they redefined the word racist to only apply to white people, otherwise this would qualify for certain.
Citations:
https://www.dailywire.com/news... [dailywire.com] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/... [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Alphabet is run by a bunch of pussies that will cave in to the request.
Otherwise, youtube would have told the advertisers "Where the hell are you going to go, TV?" when they threatened to pull there ad's over some bullshit showing on a youtube video.
Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google showed me something I don't agree with! Better run back to my safe space and hide with my teddy bear. - smh
People in general are vile and disgusting, this is just another attempt to hide the real world from people and make them snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google showed me something I don't agree with! Better run back to my safe space and hide with my teddy bear. - smh
Also worth noting that Google customizes its completions and suggestions based on what you look at. If you're getting results that include "kill all the jews" and "why are jews evil" - it's because Google has recognized that you seem to search for stuff like that a lot.
This trips people up a lot when they post "hilarious" Google autocomplete results where Google recommends really weird fetishes related to some benign search - not realizing that what they're actually showing the world is that they frequently
Re: (Score:2)
Your hypothesis seems to be that anyone who doesn't want to be subjected to the more vile aspects of humanity is a "snowflake".
How do you figure? My post says no such thing. What it says is that forcing Google to censor their autocomplete in an attempt to hide people from the real world is turning humanity into snowflakes.
Don't like autocomplete? Turn it off! I don't need other people determining what I can and cannot see when searching the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
What it says is that forcing Google to censor their autocomplete in an attempt to hide people from the real world
It's no more the "real world" than people talking about kittnes. The real world consists of both nice things and bad things. Nastyness is no more real than any other aspect of life.
s turning humanity into snowflakes.
You have cause and effect back to front. google are only hiding it because people don't want to be subject to racist bullshit.
Don't like autocomplete? Turn it off!
Autocomplete's fine
SJW Google To the Rescue! (Score:3, Funny)
Help! Help! I can't think for myself and my eyes are sensitive!
mangoes in a heatwave (Score:2)
When I tested this by entering "you should not eat", I got the helpful autocompletion "mangoes in a heatwave".
Color me naïve... (Score:4, Informative)
... but I fail to see the problem.
Those who search for "hitler is my hero" will find the results anyway and will not hindered by the completion removal.
Most others are not likely to be converted to die-hard nazies because they see a completion alternative.
The minuscle part of humanity that are, probably have worse problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually tempted to go look up what that search result contains ...
Who the fuck cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to the Internet. Sack up and deal with it.
Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an impossible problem to solve. There will always be the next "offensive" sentence. And anyway, who gets to define what is offensive? The only solution to this problem is to stop showing other people's searches. Which, arguably, might be a good change to make.
Regardless, I'm not seeing the problem. These are search terms. What is offensive about searching for "blacks are not oppressed"? Are you looking for evidence to support that conjecture? To refute it? As a search term, why should anyone take offense?
Or how about "islamists are not our friends"? The term "islamist" refers to a muslim who believes that Islam should be not only a religion, but also a political system. In the West, we believe in a separation of church and state. So, in fact, islamists are not our friends. Where's the offense?
We'll skip the "Hitler" searches, because the vast majority of those are not serious. Bored teens on 4chan have to do something with their spare time.
What about "feminists are sexist"? In fact, modern feminism in the West no longer seeks equality for women, it now seeks special treatment. Just as affirmative action is by definition racist, so modern feminism is sexist. Even if you disagree with this, searching for the reasons that people may believe it, is a perfectly legitimate search.
Climate change? There is, in fact, still a great deal of debate. Not about the climate warming, perhaps, but certainly about the degree of warming, about the predictions being made, and the degree to which climate change is natural or anthropogenic. Again, why should search terms be problematic?
Re: (Score:2)
Special treatment like wage parity? Special treatment like non-hostile workplaces? Special treatment like bodily integrity and autonomy?
Perhaps you mean to say "affirmative action is by definition race-conscious" and "feminism is by definition gender-conscious". If so, say THAT.
Cool strawman arguments. He never said any of those things. Nice job putting words into his mouth though. This is sometimes referred to as "Mansplaining".
Vaunted AI (Score:2)
Ummm ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I too felt a certain kind of queasiness
Then step away from the computer and read a book. The internet is not a place for people who are queasy when faced with opinions they don't agree with, ESPECIALLY AS AUTOCOMPLETIONS ON A SEARCH ENGINE. If the question "are jews evil?" makes you queasy, they you will not like the internet, and the rest of us do not want you to try to recast it in your limited vision of what is proper and correct.
I would suggest only reading books your mother picks out for you, since she will be able to filter those to prevent you seeing queasy-making things.
Queasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google returning a suggestion for a search makes the author "queasy"?
Really, snowflake (in all of its derogatory connotations), you need to turn off your computer and go outside for a few minutes. You're not mature enough to use a keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe people don't consider the phrasing of their Google searches.
Maybe they look for dissertations, in which case I can clearly imagine a thorough and indepth essay on what Jews are and aren't being titled "Are Jews Evil?" simply because of the Betteridge law of headlines!
Maybe someone told them, "I don't remember the title, but if you Google for 'blacks are not oppressed' you'll find it," and what they're after is a comparison of black life today compared to before Rosa Parks.
Consider the stupid, stupi
Google Feud (Score:2)
People type all sorts of things into Google and autocomplete simply reflects that. Ever played Google Feud [googlefeud.com]?
Here are the answers to What is the number for [googlefeudanswers.com].
Check out #8.
1. comcast
2. the irs
3. pi
4, marvin
5. autozone
6. time
7. cvs
8. 911
9. boost mobile
10. walmart
Re: (Score:2)
By my keypad doesn't have an eleven... it only has numbers zero through nine... how do you dial nine-eleven???? Aaaa!
Re: (Score:2)
How about Santorum? (Score:2)
Due to a concerted campaign spear-headed by Dan Savage, putting "santorum" into Google not only returns a deliberately vile suggestion as the first result, it offers it as a "featured suggestion".
Regardless of what you think of the politician, should Google be held accountable or be compelled to alter search results? Not only is the result incontrovertibly vile (that was the explicit goal) but it was an engineered effort by an individual and his fans against another individual.
If this is okay, why are sear
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly is vile: "santorum... rick."
When you click you find out that this some American politician who: "likened Obamacare to Apartheid in South Africa in a Nelson Mandela tribute speech" and "signed an online pledge vowing not to respect any law, including any decision by the United States Supreme Court, conferring legal recognition on same-sex marriage."
Now, the second suggestion is a useful noun describing a particular mixture of biological and non-biological products.
Vile is in the eye of the behol
Re: (Score:2)
The choice of search terms to illustrate "vile" results seems to betray the ideological moorings of the author,
You say that like it's a bad thing. I guess that's your ideology speaking.
Malicious training (Score:2)
This is the result of jokers, idiots and people possibly too smart (and hateful) for their own good.
Google is simply showing what it thinks you're trying to type, based on what others have put in. Now imagine a bored someone writes a script to peg Google search with some undesirable search terms and has the bot hammer Google 24/7/365. So Google naturally learns 'people like to search for this term, I'll suggest it to others cuz it's so popular.'
With botnet armies at their disposal, anyone with some know h
Islamists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I was curious. Interestingly, the first suggestion for "christian fundamentalists are" is "not a separate denomination." Second is "stupid," third is "cults."
Seems reasonably on par with the results for "islamists are". I expected "...stupid" is probably a top five suggestion for any X is/are query because it's the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about parity in extremist views between christianity and Islam. I am not a person who claims that all religions are equally dangerous, and I do think the polls you cite are indicative of a real problem.
I would like to bring up a couple points, however.
#1. Like all polls, there are probably polling errors. These can result from poor translations of questions and/or answers. They can result from the fact that people do want or feel comfortable answering questions honestly (e.g. due t
My attempt was relatively tame... (Score:3)
I tried "Jews are". Google auto-completed it as "Jews aren't white".
Re: (Score:3)
And I didn't get anything remotely racist or anti-Semitic. But what I have gotten (in the past) is auto-completes related to my recent searches. So perhaps the author of TFA spends too much time digging around for racial slights.
Tosh.0 (Score:2)
This is a regular gag on Tosh.0
You should try Tijuana sometime and try NOT to get a suggestion for a Donkey Show.
Vile? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those "vile" suggestions... (Score:2)
Be Glad Someone is Searching "Are Jews Evil?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be more concerned if the widely spread issues of antisemitism weren't being combated by people going to Google and asking if what they've been told as children or are being told by their peers is true.
I searched "Is God..." and the first option is "Is God Real?". Great question!
I searched "Are all criminals... " and the first suggestion was "Are all criminals mentally ill?" The second was "Are all criminals bad?" Again, great questions!
Questions are good. Especially when they are intended to seek truth and combat prejudice.
Why don't they allow you to turn it off? (Score:2)
A cookie setting is not an opt out when you have an account.
There should be a way to turn it off so it stays off everywhere you are logged in.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he gets it, you demonstrate why the modern racist line of thinking is effective at spreading their views. A cursory examination finds nothing inherently, blantantly racist about any individual part of it, but the components work together to form a racism-rationalizing machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RACIST is simply a tool to dismiss something that one doesn't like. However, crying racism often leads to actual racist thoughts, like this video exposes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Voter ID laws are racist because they (particular race) don't know where to DMV is. They don't have the knowledge. They aren't aware or uninformed. They don't have ID. They ....
Categorizing all people one way. THAT is racist.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
RACIST is simply a tool to dismiss something that one doesn't like.
Deplorable nonsense, "racist" means "unfairly discriminates based on ethnicity," which you demonstrate your knowledge of by using it later in your own post:
However, crying racism often leads to actual racist thoughts,
Thoughts you don't like and would like to dismiss? Or thoughts which unfairly discriminate based on ethnicity?
Re: (Score:3)
Um... no (Score:2)
Voter Ids laws are racist because the people who came up with them did research beforehand that showed they would hurt minorities, particularly blacks.
Words have meaning. Besides the occasional internet troll the word "racist" is usually not a blanket insult. The person in question has generally done specific things. Where it gets complicated is that racists have learned that their behavior is no longer t
Re: (Score:2)
Do we really know that for a fact? Especially the emphasised bit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can show actual linkage between closing of offices and voter ID laws, specifically that they are more than just coincidental in nature, I'd be all ears to hear it.
From the Article ... "To be fair, the state’s listed reasons for closing these offices seems more economical than anything else."
A full and complete sentence, that indicates that the closing of offices was not racist in nature. IF there is an absence of racial motivation, then the result cannot be racist. Then you get to the rest of t
Re: (Score:2)
... or "role".
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas.
1. Racism isn't a problem ...
This is a polarizing, divisive statement. You are telling everyone that doesn't feel racist, and doesn't experience racism that THEY are racist. I am not sure if you are trolling or what, but if you have an interest in actually effecting change you should change up your tactic. Accusing and blaming people just makes them defensive and closed to your ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you cannot even cope with the idea of racism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Did anyone say it didn't exist? You see, the alternative to "everything is racist" isn't "nothing is racist". Most things in the real world (to which you clearly are lacking experience) operate in the gray area between the two.
No, the problem is you;re such a precious snowflake that you go into a blind tizzy when someone so much as mentions racism just in case someone accuses you of it.
Unfortunately for you, the evidence of certain people going into a blind tizzy is forever memorialized on the internet now for all to see.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally this leads to vile thinking to express this statement as true.
Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas.
1. Racism isn't a problem
2. The minority group wants more then it deserves
3. We should stop such groups from demanding more.
4. We should role back any special considerations for them
5. We should give preference to the majority group
1: Racism isn't a problem that justifies treating people unfairly, it isn't a problem that justifies censorship, and it isn't a problem that justifies altering or "correcting" the truth.
2: Many minority groups do want more than they deserve. (Hint: What you deserve for being a member of a minority group is nothing more than fair consideration and treatment.)
3: We should indeed put an end to entitlements and get people used to the idea that fair consideration and treatment is what they are owed, not equal (or better) outcomes.
4: We absolutely should get rid of unfair treatment that exists only to benefit specific groups.
5: We should not give preference to the majority group. We should give fair consideration and treatment to all groups and, ideally, stop thinking of people as members of specific groups. Note, again, that this does not mean equal (or better) outcomes.
This applies to race, sex religion, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Normally this leads to vile thinking to express this statement as true.
Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas. 1. Racism isn't a problem 2. The minority group wants more then it deserves 3. We should stop such groups from demanding more. 4. We should role back any special considerations for them 5. We should give preference to the majority group
I am not a racist, but I agree with part of this list. For all intents and purposes I am white (I have negligible traces of Native American blood). My wife is Latina with 20% Native American and 9% African blood.
1. Racism IS a problem.
2. Many minority groups DO want more than they deserve
3. Anyone should be able to demand anything they want, but that doesn't mean we should pander to them.
4. We SHOULD roll back Affirmative Action type programs which are racist by design. Racists will find ways around the