I can't see this not causing a huge mess over there, but when you get down to it, we should applaud reddit reviewing their content policy. (Assuming they shut down offensive/obscene/"reprehensible" content")
It's not the content policy change I have issue with. I fully agree they need to clarify and straighten shit out. The issue is the constant fuzzy answers. When your user base can find you saying the direct opposite of what you just said in less than 20mins... something's seriously off and you don't have the nerve to admit it.
Not actions that encourage trust of a site, if you get my point.
Oh yeah, you're totally right there. Everything the showrunners over there say is as clear as mud.
If you're going to make a change that goes against what's been previously stated, then you need to come clean on that and admit it's a new course of action.
Exactly. If the content is legal, let the weirdos who like to do their weirdo things stay in their own little corner. Reddit's problem is that the professionally offended crowd don't want things they don't like to even exist.
Are you going to censor /atheism because it offends /christians?
/liberal because /conservative doesn't like it?
Who draws the lines? Is only "popular" content going to be allowed? Good luck with that.
This upcoming AMA may make the Jesse Jackson one look like a puff piece.
It's sad that I still get this semi-obscure Reddit reference.
The beauty of those rules is their renewed ambiguity. They can still do what the fuck they want. Basically nothing says "change," it's just reworded. They can just sit on the new rules until something comes along they don't like or too many users whine about. Then suddenly it falls under the new rules. Calling it now.
It's a slippery slope, which is the whole issue with any kind of content filtering/censoring system. There is no easy answer, because everyone has different thresholds as to what they find inappropriate.
I think the best that they can do is establish their own guidelines, make them clear, and apply them equally across the entire site.
This singular comment has actually just solidified my decision to get the hell away from Reddit. For a former CEO and co-founder, this post reads more like a random shitpost on reddit than anything spoken in an official capacity... nevermind that it's full of constant nonsense. It doesn't clarify anything except that the admins seeming are constantly screwing each other over at every opportunity.
So you got Pao as a temp CEO, make some changes you knew would irritate your userbase, give zero clarification at any stage (with FPH or Victoria)... let a witchhunt form for Pao despite sitting on knowledge that would completely diffuse it... then AFTER you boot her out, you unveil that it was all basically a massive con (because remember, we actively withheld information to fuel a witchhunt, and now we're even stating that we've been a 'bastion of free speech' for 10 years against our will), and villainize your entire userbase...
For a major corporation behind one of the most influential sites on the internet... this is fucking unacceptable. Conduct, transparency, practices... you name it. Just... wow. I never actually expected a site I hung out on for gaming content/communities would actually make me feel betrayed.
Seriously, that's what I said the whole time. Those guys literally sit next to each other in one big office and then they post random half-baked comments and have to re-explain all the time. They should seriously just hire a few PR people and use the admin accounts just for... administrating. Or perhaps an experienced lawyer that can think up solid rules. And they seriously need canned responses for any user interaction, nobody needs that snotty attitude. Good grief.
I have no way to trust if the person answering questions is the real and actual CEO or if it is just some publicist answering for him. They should have some kind of liaison that helps smooth over issues such as this.
Snapzu's Rule 8: Don't post racism or hate speech.
That's a silly and counter-productive rule, by the way. For example, most people don't see that truth isn't racist.
So if I point out that black people are better dancers than us whiteys, people agree. But if I point out that black people are vastly overrepresented in American violent crime statistics, people want to crucify me.
Let's talk about "hate speech" while at it. Why do black people protest a black guy getting shot by the police (through his own fault) by vandalizing and looting innocent businesses like a pack of savage apes?
Did I just commit the crime of "hate speech"? -Why? They do, in fact, vandalize and loot innocent businesses, and that behaviour can be characterized as befitting a pack of savage apes. So what's the problem? Football hooligans tend to behave like packs of savage apes too, but is pointing that out "hate speech"? I'm guessing it's not, and the difference is race, of course.
In reality, the rule about not posting racism or hate speech is just a call for Political Correctness, for self-censorship and for not speaking about things that matter because someone might be offended. That right there, is complete fucking horseshit.
What is wrong with expressing your opinion and arguing a point by actually being respectful? Believe it or not individuals can communicate their point without having to resort to racist name calling, threats against others or hate speech. Obviously, it's a little more effort, and people may disagree with you which is acceptable as usually the goal is to have a discussion in the first place. As for "censorship", we dont go around "censoring" unpopular opinions about anything, we don't care what you wish to discuss, we don't care that you have a difference of opinion or that you wish to argue a point about religion, race, politics, bubble gum flavour or the best time to drink coffee. We just care that you do it with respect to the rest of the community, and we don't think that's bullshit, we think its being a good host.
Well said ! There is nothing wrong with healthy discourse if it is done in civil and respectful manner. It's also what makes snapzu special and in my opinion is the most crucial thing we need to try and preserve at all cost especially with the recent influx of new users.
There is nothing wrong with healthy discourse if it is done in civil and respectful manner.
Note that there's a difference between me ranting about black people behaving like savage animals, and not being civil towards whomever I'm talking to.
So you want me to refrain from expressing myself the way I feel like expressing myself, in the name of Propriety and all, but your response to me sounds like you're upset.
Should you have "censored your feelings" too, or should we just accept that there's no point in censoring them at all? If I feel like swearing like a sailor, and go ahead and do so, I don't think it's my problem if someone gets offended by it. Anyone is free to ignore everything I say.
But if the way I express myself doesn't sit well with someone, that should not be made into a problem for me by the site's operators.
So you want me to refrain from expressing myself the way I feel like expressing myself, in the name of Propriety and all, but your response to me sounds like you're upset.
If you feel I was upset in my reply than in your eyes your reasoning must be infallible, it is after all your opinion, I however don't need to convince you otherwise.
Should you have "censored your feelings" too, or should we just accept that there's no point in censoring them at all?
I wouldn't call it "censoring", most folks would refer to it as being polite and understanding, but yes, it's obvious that I took the more difficult path and argued my opinion in a respectable manner so that my reply can elevate whatever this conversation is becoming to a level that is:
a) able to continue on without having to resort to racist name calling, inducing hate or threats against others. (notice a theme emerging here?) and
b) to not subject the rest of the community to the same type of behavior I listed in point a. (You wouldn't act like this at a party, why do you think it's acceptable on an online community?)
Most AFK people if they need to rage punch something, scream racism/abuse or threats will tend to do it alone somewhere as not to become pariahs amongst their peers. For some reason a long time ago, it became bafflingly acceptable to believe that people can pop onto a community forum and use the "free speech" argument to say anything you want thinking the community itself or the management has no right to any recourse. Some places ignored it, others took a hard stance to protect their community. We are the latter.
If I feel like swearing like a sailor, and go ahead and do so, I don't think it's my problem if someone gets offended by it. Anyone is free to ignore everything I say.
My neighbor is playing music so loud my bed frame literally shakes from the bass. It's 3 am in the morning and it is common courtesy to turn your music down after 10pm on week days as there are many in the area that wake up for work in mere hours. How am I free to ignore this music? and should there be recourse available? Again, I wouldn't consider it "self censorship", it is more like being courteous to others which takes more effort, and requires empathy and understanding instead of hate and selfishness. As for swearing like a sailor, its all about the context, nowhere in our rules do we specifically ban swearing. Are you swearing for the sake of swearing? are you using it in conversation to provide a level of emotion that your message would otherwise lack? or are you attacking someone mercilessly to a point where anyone of sound mind would call it abuse? I swore on a number of occasions, it's the context that I swore in that matters.
We approach all matters on a case by case basis, our goal is never to remove legitimate discussion even if it isn't popular opinion, but our rules state clearly what we don't accept, and you either agree to our rules or go somewhere else, although lately even those places are realizing that ignoring such behaviour can prove to be a bad thing.
But if the way I express myself doesn't sit well with someone, that should not be made into a problem for me by the site's operators.
Actually, it absolutely should be. We are the hosts of this community and we are the ones with the tools to protect it from those who break our rules. Ultimately, we will use them for exactly that reason.
Actually, it absolutely should be. We are the hosts of this community and we are the ones with the tools to protect it from those who break our rules. Ultimately, we will use them for exactly that reason.
Exactly. If you're hosting a party, and a guest starts insulting the gay couple, or slinging racial slurs at the black chick, it becomes uncomfortable and the host's job is to fix it, or the party is going to end real quick. Maybe it just means, if you don't like the people attending, remove yourself from that party.
I wouldn't call it "censoring", most folks would refer to it as being polite and understanding
Well, I’m sure you get the idea. You would be consciously refraining from expressing yourself the way you feel like doing it, because it might offend someone. How is politeness relevant if you’re not hostile towards whomever you’re talking to?
but yes, it's obvious that I took the more difficult path and argued my opinion in a respectable manner
My point was that your disrespect still leaked through. It could be argued that if “politeness” really were a primary concern for you, you wouldn’t have let that happen.
What was the point of the extent of restraint you exercised, if your disrespect leaked through anyway?
It’s also worth noting that your disrespect (or hate, if you will) is aimed at me, whereas my disrespect (or hate) was aimed at people looting businesses that haven’t done anything to them.. which of those is more detrimental to our having a fruitful conversation?
a) able to continue on without having to resort to racist name calling
Look, there’s that word again. That’s the real issue here, not “hate speech”.
You need to see that if a group of white people were vandalizing and looting innocent businesses, I’d be just as inclined to call them a “pack of savage apes”, because that would fit their behaviour. It’s not about their colour, it’s about their behaviour.
But you’re (implicitly) accusing me of being a racist, even though I’m not.
I’m a truthist, or more generally, an “objectivist” (but not in the Randian sense).
inducing hate or threats against others. (notice a theme emerging here?)
What if I posted on Snapzu and made a highly “impolite” remark on pedophiles and their activities? If I commented that “pedophiles are filthy monsters”, referring to their documented child-molesting activities, would that constitute “hate speech”? They’re a group of people, and you could even say that I actually hate them!
Notice a theme here?
For some reason a long time ago, it became bafflingly acceptable to believe that people can pop onto a community forum and use the "free speech" argument to say anything you want thinking the community itself or the management has no right to any recourse.
What’s baffling to me, is how resistant people are to objectivity. But as for free speech, let’s go to an example where it matters the most: taxation is extortion. A lot of people will find that claim “offensive”, but it’s a clear fact:
When a mafia threatens people with violence to get money from them, it’s called “extortion”, but when a government threatens people with imprisonment to get money from them, it’s called “taxation”. There are people who go against lots of hostility in trying to get others to see that, because it's very, very important and people need to hear it even though they'll be upset.
Some places ignored it, others took a hard stance to protect their community. We are the latter.
In reality, if you want Snapzu to be a community worth “protecting”, you’ll actually encourage free speech, because that’s how you can have a positive effect on humanity’s circumstances. A community that doesn’t tolerate views that are currently considered offensive is one that might as well just swap cat pictures and circle-jerk with inane pun threads.
How am I free to ignore this music? and should there be recourse...
I wouldn't call it "censoring", most folks would refer to it as being polite and understanding
Well, I’m sure you get the idea. You would be consciously refraining from expressing yourself the way you feel like doing it, because it might offend someone. How is politeness relevant if you’re not hostile towards whomever you’re talking to?
but yes, it's obvious that I took the more difficult path and argued my opinion in a respectable manner
My point was that your disrespect still leaked through. It could be argued that if “politeness” really were a primary concern for you, you wouldn’t have let that happen.
What was the point of the extent of restraint you exercised, if your disrespect leaked through anyway?
It’s also worth noting that your disrespect (or hate, if you will) is aimed at me, whereas my disrespect (or hate) was aimed at people looting businesses that haven’t done anything to them.. which of those is more detrimental to our having a fruitful conversation?
a) able to continue on without having to resort to racist name calling
Look, there’s that word again. That’s the real issue here, not “hate speech”.
You need to see that if a group of white people were vandalizing and looting innocent businesses, I’d be just as inclined to call them a “pack of savage apes”, because that would fit their behaviour. It’s not about their colour, it’s about their behaviour.
But you’re (implicitly) accusing me of being a racist, even though I’m not.
I’m a truthist, or more generally, an “objectivist” (but not in the Randian sense).
inducing hate or threats against others. (notice a theme emerging here?)
What if I posted on Snapzu and made a highly “impolite” remark on pedophiles and their activities? If I commented that “pedophiles are filthy monsters”, referring to their documented child-molesting activities, would that constitute “hate speech”? They’re a group of people, and you could even say that I actually hate them!
Notice a theme here?
For some reason a long time ago, it became bafflingly acceptable to believe that people can pop onto a community forum and use the "free speech" argument to say anything you want thinking the community itself or the management has no right to any recourse.
What’s baffling to me, is how resistant people are to objectivity. But as for free speech, let’s go to an example where it matters the most: taxation is extortion. A lot of people will find that claim “offensive”, but it’s a clear fact:
When a mafia threatens people with violence to get money from them, it’s called “extortion”, but when a government threatens people with imprisonment to get money from them, it’s called “taxation”. There are people who go against lots of hostility in trying to get others to see that, because it's very, very important and people need to hear it even though they'll be upset.
Some places ignored it, others took a hard stance to protect their community. We are the latter.
In reality, if you want Snapzu to be a community worth “protecting”, you’ll actually encourage free speech, because that’s how you can have a positive effect on humanity’s circumstances. A community that doesn’t tolerate views that are currently considered offensive is one that might as well just swap cat pictures and circle-jerk with inane pun threads.
How am I free to ignore this music? and should there be recourse available?
Instead of silencing people community-wide, you could implement personal filters like Hubski’s.
Again, I wouldn't consider it "self censorship", it is more like being courteous to others which takes more effort, and requires empathy and understanding instead of hate and selfishness.
Do you see what you did there?
are you using it in conversation to provide a level of emotion that your message would otherwise lack?
-This. As I’ve already explained, the idea is that people should be allowed to express themselves freely, the way they feel like expressing themselves.
We all feel strongly about pedophiles, and the feeling is.. hate!
I just happen to feel strongly about vandals too, and any other wrongdoers. A spade is a spade, even if it happens to be black.
What are you trying to accomplish? The admin clearly expressed to you how this community will be managed. It is abundantly clear that hate speech is unwelcome on snapzu, its really that simple. If you want to hate on people for the sole purpose of hating on people, then go somewhere where hating on people is a thing.
Think of the rules against hate speech here as a feature of this community instead of a limitation, everyone here wants to get away from this type of crap, we are here and satisfied because we found a corner of the internet that has exactly what we want. Go find a corner of your own that has the features you're looking for and I'm sure you will be happy as well.
You can express yourself any way you like. However, when you're engaged in discourse with someone it's better to take into account your audience, ie the one you're speaking to. After all, whats the point of talking with someone if the way you speak to them shuts them down to further discussion?
For example, a religious person and a non-religious person are speaking. The non-religious guy just outright says he thinks all religions are fairy tails and all religious people are nut jobs. Or conversely the religious guys says that all godless people are without morals and are going to hell. This shuts down the other person to further discussion because they feel there's no need or use talking with this person any further. Either because they've come off as insulting, aggressive, or just outright disrespectful.
Even though both people spoke what they believed and felt and expressed themselves how they wanted, absolutely nothing meaningful or insightful came of their "discussion." I've seen religious and non-religious people who probably held those very beliefs have very insightful and interesting conversation because they took into account the person they were speaking to.
when you're engaged in discourse with someone it's better to take into account your audience
Yes, but the more sensitive an audience is, the less likely they are to be rational, and thus, your effort will more likely be wasted anyway. Basically we just need people's messages not to be censored, so that the more rational among the audience can see them.
You started off well, there, with that line about “the truth isn’t racist.” Then you went to illustrate what you mean by ‘the truth,’ and it’s fairly repulsive.
Opening with what you think will be an anodyne statement, you make a superiority/inferiority characterization based on race, and because that's not awkward enough yet, you manage to work in the phrase “us whiteys.” Point of future reference: no, that’s not endearing you to your audience the way you think it is.
Next, you give us an example of something you say and that you feel persecuted for saying. The exemplar you provide for “the truth” that “isn’t racist” is apparently the inherent criminality of a race. Now, what you said can be factually true, and at the same exact time what you saying it tells people about you and your views can also be true. At this point, you haven’t lost the people reading your comment, necessarily, yet. The exact point has been made at Snapzu lately, without the unconsciously revealing baggage you bring out in a moment. This feeling of being persecuted by others for plainly stating your views may be something you misunderstand. It could be that your views are repellant.
You‘re on a roll, now. Next up, you want to talk about quote hate speech unquote, because apparently the term bothers you on a basic level. Your heart rate is up, you're getting your kicks now, and you reach deep down and come up with this:
Why do black people protest a black guy getting shot by the police (through his own fault) by vandalizing and looting innocent businesses like a pack of savage apes?
Now, I remember there was some kind of a controversy a while back about the Planet of the Apes movies being recommended by Netflix in relation to other movies that dealt with the civil rights struggle of the Sixties and Seventies. This may have been a sham controversy, because the outrage in the press was to the effect of Netflix’s recommendation algorithm somehow confusing black folks for apes. When, in fact, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes and Battle for the Planet of the Apes are playing off of the politics of the time they were made and substantially are about slave revolt, organized labor, black power politics and the like. There was no need for a controversy over those recommendations.
You, on the other hand, clearly see black folks as what you call savage apes. Sounds like a personal problem. Not interested in helping you with that, especially because you seem really proud of it. Let's not even unpack the other baggage in that sentence, how even your hypothetical police homicide victim deserved being shot, or that the collective noun for black protesters is apparently the word pack, or that the only form of political protest the blacks/apes in your mental world ever mount turns out to be vandalism and looting. I’m just going to let that hang in the air, because I don’t want to breathe any more of it.
The truth you told us wasn’t racist is only getting more, and more, unconsciously bigoted the further you get into this rant.
They do, in fact, vandalize and loot innocent businesses, and that behaviour can be characterized as befitting a pack of savage apes
You're ascribing human behavior to race, and indignant that anyone could take you to be a racist. Here's another way you could think of that. There is a stink to that racism. People shun you when you reveal these attitudes because they stink, in a real way. Nobody m...
You started off well, there, with that line about “the truth isn’t racist.” Then you went to illustrate what you mean by ‘the truth,’ and it’s fairly repulsive.
Opening with what you think will be an anodyne statement, you make a superiority/inferiority characterization based on race, and because that's not awkward enough yet, you manage to work in the phrase “us whiteys.” Point of future reference: no, that’s not endearing you to your audience the way you think it is.
Next, you give us an example of something you say and that you feel persecuted for saying. The exemplar you provide for “the truth” that “isn’t racist” is apparently the inherent criminality of a race. Now, what you said can be factually true, and at the same exact time what you saying it tells people about you and your views can also be true. At this point, you haven’t lost the people reading your comment, necessarily, yet. The exact point has been made at Snapzu lately, without the unconsciously revealing baggage you bring out in a moment. This feeling of being persecuted by others for plainly stating your views may be something you misunderstand. It could be that your views are repellant.
You‘re on a roll, now. Next up, you want to talk about quote hate speech unquote, because apparently the term bothers you on a basic level. Your heart rate is up, you're getting your kicks now, and you reach deep down and come up with this:
Why do black people protest a black guy getting shot by the police (through his own fault) by vandalizing and looting innocent businesses like a pack of savage apes?
Now, I remember there was some kind of a controversy a while back about the Planet of the Apes movies being recommended by Netflix in relation to other movies that dealt with the civil rights struggle of the Sixties and Seventies. This may have been a sham controversy, because the outrage in the press was to the effect of Netflix’s recommendation algorithm somehow confusing black folks for apes. When, in fact, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes and Battle for the Planet of the Apes are playing off of the politics of the time they were made and substantially are about slave revolt, organized labor, black power politics and the like. There was no need for a controversy over those recommendations.
You, on the other hand, clearly see black folks as what you call savage apes. Sounds like a personal problem. Not interested in helping you with that, especially because you seem really proud of it. Let's not even unpack the other baggage in that sentence, how even your hypothetical police homicide victim deserved being shot, or that the collective noun for black protesters is apparently the word pack, or that the only form of political protest the blacks/apes in your mental world ever mount turns out to be vandalism and looting. I’m just going to let that hang in the air, because I don’t want to breathe any more of it.
The truth you told us wasn’t racist is only getting more, and more, unconsciously bigoted the further you get into this rant.
They do, in fact, vandalize and loot innocent businesses, and that behaviour can be characterized as befitting a pack of savage apes
You're ascribing human behavior to race, and indignant that anyone could take you to be a racist. Here's another way you could think of that. There is a stink to that racism. People shun you when you reveal these attitudes because they stink, in a real way. Nobody minds if you get dirty once in a while, as long as you clean up every so often. If you can’t or won’t shake off your base contempt for people based on their race, guess what? It’s not terribly attractive as mental illnesses go. But you're only getting started:
In reality, the rule about not posting racism or hate speech is just a call for Political Correctness, for self-censorship and for not speaking about things that matter because someone might be offended
I rather think you’ve got that wrong. The rule to do with racism and hate speech is because those are contagious mental illnesses. Racism can be measured by it’s virulence. You’ve plainly confused your racial animosity for some insight you have into how the world is, but now you’re going to lecture your audience on the menace of political correctness? Pal, I’ve seen schizophrenics give better talks on the menace of their antipsychotic meds and the Diebold board of directors.
The reason you’re on about how persecuted you are by political correctness is because you don’t understand that you’re offensive when you’re this way. Enthralled by your ‘insight’ into the nature of your apelike enemy, you call the idea that maybe you wouldn’t embarrass yourself with racist tirades like this ‘self-censorship.’ I don’t know you, but from what I can tell, your combative need to take the fight to the enemy has become, in your mind, “speaking about things that matter.”
Here’s where you’ve gone wrong about the rule against racism and bigotry. It’s not that it prevents you from being able to express yourself and whatever racist notion of truth you’ve got to offer. It protects our right to be offended, and not to have to put up with your undoubtedly agonizing personal struggle with what strikes me as a mental health concern.
I’d say you’re reading way too much into what I wrote, but.. that would be based on the assumption that you’re being sincere.
But I don’t think you are. I think you’re a psychopath who decided to play games with me. Now there’s a claim I can’t prove, but someone who’s familiar with psychos knows that it’s not baseless either.
you make a superiority/inferiority characterization based on race
But they do actually tend to be better dancers. They have bigger penises too. You see, this is one reason why I think you’re a psychopath: We all know those are facts. You know it too, but here you are, shaming me for making truthful observations.
you manage to work in the phrase “us whiteys.”
I meant that in a self-deprecating way, but that doesn’t really matter because it’s you who decides what’s acceptable for me to say, right?
Next, you give us an example of something you say and that you feel persecuted for saying. The exemplar you provide for “the truth” that “isn’t racist” is apparently the inherent criminality of a race.
Now if you were intellectually honest, instead of continuing to shame me (like a psychopath would), you could just dig up some crime American crime statistics (as I explicitly specified, to make sure my claim was true), and see that I was, in fact, speaking the truth.
I’ll save myself the trouble of digging them up for you, because it’s not like that would affect the way you conduct this conversation.
You‘re on a roll, now. Next up, you want to talk about quote hate speech unquote, because apparently the term bothers you on a basic level.
Hey, you actually got something right! The term does bother me “on a basic level”, because it’s mostly just a propaganda talking point for our rulers in their quest to gradually condition us into not speaking up about anything, until the whole world is one big North-Korea.
Your heart rate is up, you're getting your kicks now
That didn’t happen though. I’m calm even now!
Now, I remember there was some kind of a controversy a while back about the Planet of the Apes movies being recommended by Netflix in relation to other movies..
Huh? ”STORY TIME!” .. ? What the hell are you on about?
that dealt with the civil rights struggle of the Sixties and Seventies.
Oh, right. Racism! Black people vandalize and loot businesses that didn’t do anything to them because.. racism! But of course, and that’s also a good way to.. not give actual racists something substantial to point to?
You, on the other hand, clearly see black folks as what you call savage apes.
Now that’s a mighty broad brush. You shouldn’t generalize like that. Generalizations are bad. Think of how it makes people feel when you generalize about them!
how even your hypothetical police homicide victim deserved being shot
Wilson neverthless had reason to believe that Brown, who was six feet, four inches tall and weighed nearly 300 pounds, meant him harm. Physical evidence and witness reports confirm that Brown punched Wilson in the face as the officer sat in his police SUV. Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun and the wound on Brown's thumb are consistent with Wilson's account that he drew his weapon in self-defense, that Brown grabbed it and tried to take control of it, and that Wilson fired at him during the struggle.
I’d say you’re reading way too much into what I wrote, but.. that would be based on the assumption that you’re being sincere.
But I don’t think you are. I think you’re a psychopath who decided to play games with me. Now there’s a claim I can’t prove, but someone who’s familiar with psychos knows that it’s not baseless either.
you make a superiority/inferiority characterization based on race
But they do actually tend to be better dancers. They have bigger penises too. You see, this is one reason why I think you’re a psychopath: We all know those are facts. You know it too, but here you are, shaming me for making truthful observations.
you manage to work in the phrase “us whiteys.”
I meant that in a self-deprecating way, but that doesn’t really matter because it’s you who decides what’s acceptable for me to say, right?
Next, you give us an example of something you say and that you feel persecuted for saying. The exemplar you provide for “the truth” that “isn’t racist” is apparently the inherent criminality of a race.
Now if you were intellectually honest, instead of continuing to shame me (like a psychopath would), you could just dig up some crime American crime statistics (as I explicitly specified, to make sure my claim was true), and see that I was, in fact, speaking the truth.
I’ll save myself the trouble of digging them up for you, because it’s not like that would affect the way you conduct this conversation.
You‘re on a roll, now. Next up, you want to talk about quote hate speech unquote, because apparently the term bothers you on a basic level.
Hey, you actually got something right! The term does bother me “on a basic level”, because it’s mostly just a propaganda talking point for our rulers in their quest to gradually condition us into not speaking up about anything, until the whole world is one big North-Korea.
Your heart rate is up, you're getting your kicks now
That didn’t happen though. I’m calm even now!
Now, I remember there was some kind of a controversy a while back about the Planet of the Apes movies being recommended by Netflix in relation to other movies..
Huh? ”STORY TIME!” .. ? What the hell are you on about?
that dealt with the civil rights struggle of the Sixties and Seventies.
Oh, right. Racism! Black people vandalize and loot businesses that didn’t do anything to them because.. racism! But of course, and that’s also a good way to.. not give actual racists something substantial to point to?
You, on the other hand, clearly see black folks as what you call savage apes.
Now that’s a mighty broad brush. You shouldn’t generalize like that. Generalizations are bad. Think of how it makes people feel when you generalize about them!
how even your hypothetical police homicide victim deserved being shot
Wilson neverthless had reason to believe that Brown, who was six feet, four inches tall and weighed nearly 300 pounds, meant him harm. Physical evidence and witness reports confirm that Brown punched Wilson in the face as the officer sat in his police SUV. Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun and the wound on Brown's thumb are consistent with Wilson's account that he drew his weapon in self-defense, that Brown grabbed it and tried to take control of it, and that Wilson fired at him during the struggle.
---
or that the collective noun for black protesters is apparently the word pack
Right, because that’s what I’d call a group of peaceful protesters holding signs, just as likely as a group of people who just broke into an electronics store and are walking out carrying flat screen TVs.
There's that dishonesty again.
or that the only form of political protest the blacks/apes in your mental world ever mount turns out to be vandalism and looting.
Only, huh? We all know you simply can't reasonably come to that conclusion, and therefore we can all conclude that you're not being honest. Once again, you're just providing support for my claim that you're a psychopath.
You're ascribing human behavior to race, and indignant that anyone could take you to be a racist.
So now you’ve painted that broad brush into my hands!
If I made the claim that “Asian people are shorter than white people”, would you complain that I’m “ascribing characteristics to a race”?
Or would you perhaps just settle for acknowledging that I mean the ones who actually are?
But alright, I think I’ve already wasted too much effort on playing your psychopathic games, so I’ll stop here.
Pro-tip: the way honest people debate others on the intarwebs, is by quoting things they said, and addressing them directly.
But they do actually tend to be better dancers. They have bigger penises too.
There are a few things you're holding as truths here. One is your admiration for dancing black men and their genitals, which you think is an objective fact. Another is that you need to confront us with that because we're not comfortable enough with it. Not surprised you spend a lot of time being sexually threatened that way. Not sure that it's other people's discomfort you ought to examine.
We all know those are facts.
No, we don't. Even if these racial generalizations were true in a loose sense, that would only be a starting place for thought. You can assert that this is so, but it's a coarse generalization, right and wrong about any specific individual. You can say that your opinion that this is so is a fact. What you're claiming, though, is not a fact. It might be the beginnings of some, but that would require you to go further.
You could use this sham insight you have, you know, when you often find yourself thinking about dance, as the basis for some reflection on why you feel that way. You could go into the cultural context of dance and performance in black society. You could delve into the traditions that could explain a historical emphasis on developing an ability to dance as a priority in black culture, the way playing chess is taken seriously in Russian society. Rather than that, though, you short-circuit and come up with it being a racial characteristic rather than a cultural one you've given any real thought to.
You've done yourself no favor with this prejudice. It's not going to be taken as you stating incontrovertible proof. At least in my case, I take it as revealing a mess of pre-occupations.
I’d say you’re reading way too much into what I wrote, but.. that would be based on the assumption that you’re being sincere.
Personally, I'd say you should look further into what you've written above, and I do say that sincerely.
I meant that in a self-deprecating way
What exactly is self-deprecating about you stating your race in co-opted black slang from the early Cenzoic era?
but that doesn’t really matter because it’s you who decides what’s acceptable for me to say, right?
Actually, it is up to me to decide what I'm going to accept. If it just so happens that majorities of people find your pronouncements on race offensive, you may want to consider whether everyone else is wrong and you're on solid ground. Maybe if you climbed down from that race-realist martyr's cross long enough, you might get a better perspective.
Now if you were intellectually honest, instead of continuing to shame me (like a psychopath would), you could just dig up some crime American crime statistics (as I explicitly specified, to make sure my claim was true), and see that I was, in fact, speaking the truth.
You can make a factual claim like that and still screw it up. The context where you're making a personal observation about race determining criminal behavior is part of the way it'll be received. Among the reasons that analytical statement could be taken as offensive include what you've done or not done with that information. The eugenicist's assumption that genetics determine behavior is likely to bother some people, given what horrors have been wrought in the name of that cause. Your refusal to consider historic, social and cultural reasons for the statistical claim, leaving the attribution of guilt to a race without lookin...
But they do actually tend to be better dancers. They have bigger penises too.
There are a few things you're holding as truths here. One is your admiration for dancing black men and their genitals, which you think is an objective fact. Another is that you need to confront us with that because we're not comfortable enough with it. Not surprised you spend a lot of time being sexually threatened that way. Not sure that it's other people's discomfort you ought to examine.
We all know those are facts.
No, we don't. Even if these racial generalizations were true in a loose sense, that would only be a starting place for thought. You can assert that this is so, but it's a coarse generalization, right and wrong about any specific individual. You can say that your opinion that this is so is a fact. What you're claiming, though, is not a fact. It might be the beginnings of some, but that would require you to go further.
You could use this sham insight you have, you know, when you often find yourself thinking about dance, as the basis for some reflection on why you feel that way. You could go into the cultural context of dance and performance in black society. You could delve into the traditions that could explain a historical emphasis on developing an ability to dance as a priority in black culture, the way playing chess is taken seriously in Russian society. Rather than that, though, you short-circuit and come up with it being a racial characteristic rather than a cultural one you've given any real thought to.
You've done yourself no favor with this prejudice. It's not going to be taken as you stating incontrovertible proof. At least in my case, I take it as revealing a mess of pre-occupations.
I’d say you’re reading way too much into what I wrote, but.. that would be based on the assumption that you’re being sincere.
Personally, I'd say you should look further into what you've written above, and I do say that sincerely.
I meant that in a self-deprecating way
What exactly is self-deprecating about you stating your race in co-opted black slang from the early Cenzoic era?
but that doesn’t really matter because it’s you who decides what’s acceptable for me to say, right?
Actually, it is up to me to decide what I'm going to accept. If it just so happens that majorities of people find your pronouncements on race offensive, you may want to consider whether everyone else is wrong and you're on solid ground. Maybe if you climbed down from that race-realist martyr's cross long enough, you might get a better perspective.
Now if you were intellectually honest, instead of continuing to shame me (like a psychopath would), you could just dig up some crime American crime statistics (as I explicitly specified, to make sure my claim was true), and see that I was, in fact, speaking the truth.
You can make a factual claim like that and still screw it up. The context where you're making a personal observation about race determining criminal behavior is part of the way it'll be received. Among the reasons that analytical statement could be taken as offensive include what you've done or not done with that information. The eugenicist's assumption that genetics determine behavior is likely to bother some people, given what horrors have been wrought in the name of that cause. Your refusal to consider historic, social and cultural reasons for the statistical claim, leaving the attribution of guilt to a race without looking at the ways that statistic is deceptive and even part and parcel of oppression, that's also discomforting.
More than any of a host of other problems with that pat claim, personally when it is so often made I consider how honest the claimant is being about why they're bringing it up. It was made fairly eloquently here recently. On the basis of honesty, I don't rate you highly.
I’ll save myself the trouble of digging them up for you, because it’s not like that would affect the way you conduct this conversation.
Conversation isn't you dropping a factoid you feel backs up your racial hostility.
The term does bother me “on a basic level”, because it’s mostly just a propaganda talking point for our rulers in their quest to gradually condition us into not speaking up about anything, until the whole world is one big North-Korea.
Yeah. We could have a whole go round about the use of the term 'hate crime,' but I'm weirdly not interested in your persecution fantasies. What exactly is it you think hate crimes legislation is keeping you from doing that you'd so very much like to do? How is it that you're being silenced by hate crimes laws? Want to pull that out for us so we can all have a look at that?
Black people vandalize and loot businesses that didn’t do anything to them because.. racism!
Appropos of nothing like this, this comes off as you fixating again. Is this like a race war crime you find endlessly provocative and interesting? Does it go somewhere, in your mind, leading to an actual point?
Wilson neverthless had reason to believe that Brown, who was six feet, four inches tall and weighed nearly 300 pounds, meant him harm.
Oh. The police killing of Michael Brown. Which, apparently to you, is some kind of racial Pearl Harbor that's awakened you to the neverending threat of black dance.
Right, because that’s what I’d call a group of peaceful protesters holding signs, just as likely as a group of people who just broke into an electronics store and are walking out carrying flat screen TVs. There's that dishonesty again.
Without knowing that you were free-associating on civil disorder following the death of Michael Brown, I guess your black-people-are-apes 'insight' struck me as grotesquely offensive. Which it still does.
So now you’ve painted that broad brush into my hands!
You're one to talk.
If I made the claim that “Asian people are shorter than white people”, would you complain that I’m “ascribing characteristics to a race”?
Yes. Had you worked the phrase 'tend to be' into there, maybe that crude generalization could be made to evaluate as true rather than glaring racial prejudice. Even then, though, with progress in nutrition, standards of living, and genetic diversity, people in Asia are getting to be taller. You fail when you make absolute statements about race, over and over again. Maybe you're after convenience or simplicity when you keep doing that, but what you get is a reeking odor.
Or would you perhaps just settle for acknowledging that I mean the ones who actually are?
No, I won't. This is crudity in your thinking. Not some honesty you think you're endowed with. Let that sink in.
Pro-tip: the way honest people debate others on the intarwebs, is by quoting things they said, and addressing them directly.
Racial animosity is all-too-common. You could work through some of that by not using race as a convenient mental shortcut. The goal you could set for yourself, and I hope you do, might be finding some unity with the individuals you are trimming out of your overbroad, noxiously coarse racial generalizations. You know, like the ones you just left out of your blacks-as-apes pathology above. Less time fixating on race enemies would give you more time for things you'd rather be doing. Like dancing.
Well, your fun little past-time here is pretending to have a civil and intellectual conversation while actually just spewing your poison. You've taken it to a whole new level though, so I guess other psychos would be impressed.. at least if it were working on me, that is.
You should move on now though, and find someone more innocent to play with.
People say awful things sometimes. What matters more is how they treat people. Hopefully in real life you treat them as the unique individuals they are.
No one is forcing you to be part of this community. You join-you agree to the terms imposed by the site. If you decide you don't agree you are free to find an alternate site that might be more suited to your needs with rules or policies that you find appropriate. Many of us are here because we prefer these rules over sites that don't have them. Some of us choose to interact in communities where racism and hate are not condoned. Each to their own.
A. I disagree that blacks are better dancers than "us whiteys." It depends on the dance.
B. Have you ever seen a pack (troop, actually) of apes loot a business? No, I haven't either. So why would it make sense to compare a group of people to apes while they do something which is unbefitting of that animal? Would it be because there is a history of comparing that race of people to that animal?
Your argument works in a vacuum. If you ignore the centuries of context then comparing groups of black people to apes is no more offensive than comparing them to giraffes. But if you choose to have a conversation in public with other people on this planet who are familiar with the same histories as you and I, and still insist on comparing black people to apes, you're probably going to be called out on it.
Considering what you're saying and who you're saying it to isn't horseshit, it's common sense.
I can't tell what you're trying to say. Centuries of "context"? Would that be.. Slavery?
As for A and B, I'm not interested in bickering about semantics or choice of words here. Anyone gets the idea. People express themselves in various ways, depending on the circumstances.
Why are you throwing out a stereotype and claiming it's the truth? Can you show me a scientific study performed that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that black people are better dancers than white people? Your claim is exactly the same as the claims "All Asians are super intelligent", "All Americans are fat and lazy", and "All Mexicans are rapists." None of these are true. All of these are stereotypes. And if you quoted said stereotype to a person of it's associated race/class/gender/sexual orientation/etc you would very likely get eyes rolled at you and a diatribe as to why you're wrong.
I can't see this not causing a huge mess over there, but when you get down to it, we should applaud reddit reviewing their content policy. (Assuming they shut down offensive/obscene/"reprehensible" content")
I say that because all of us here, signed up fully knowing about Snapzu's Rule 8: Don't post racism or hate speech.
It's not the content policy change I have issue with. I fully agree they need to clarify and straighten shit out. The issue is the constant fuzzy answers. When your user base can find you saying the direct opposite of what you just said in less than 20mins... something's seriously off and you don't have the nerve to admit it.
Not actions that encourage trust of a site, if you get my point.
Oh yeah, you're totally right there. Everything the showrunners over there say is as clear as mud.
If you're going to make a change that goes against what's been previously stated, then you need to come clean on that and admit it's a new course of action.
Problem is, everyone's definition of offensive/obscene/"reprehensible" content is different. Where do you draw the line?
Exactly. If the content is legal, let the weirdos who like to do their weirdo things stay in their own little corner. Reddit's problem is that the professionally offended crowd don't want things they don't like to even exist.
Are you going to censor /atheism because it offends /christians?
/liberal because /conservative doesn't like it?
Who draws the lines? Is only "popular" content going to be allowed? Good luck with that.
This upcoming AMA may make the Jesse Jackson one look like a puff piece.
It's sad that I still get this semi-obscure Reddit reference.
The beauty of those rules is their renewed ambiguity. They can still do what the fuck they want. Basically nothing says "change," it's just reworded. They can just sit on the new rules until something comes along they don't like or too many users whine about. Then suddenly it falls under the new rules. Calling it now.
It's reddit, they'll draw it around SRS no matter what...
I'm pretty sure they've been on the down low since this whole thing started.
It's a slippery slope, which is the whole issue with any kind of content filtering/censoring system. There is no easy answer, because everyone has different thresholds as to what they find inappropriate.
I think the best that they can do is establish their own guidelines, make them clear, and apply them equally across the entire site.
And then the Ex-CEO Yishan comes in to clarify some things
This is a mess.
A beautiful mess. Reddit has become my soap opera. All they need to do is for the next episode is make Anita Sarkeesian a mod of /r/gaming.
This singular comment has actually just solidified my decision to get the hell away from Reddit. For a former CEO and co-founder, this post reads more like a random shitpost on reddit than anything spoken in an official capacity... nevermind that it's full of constant nonsense. It doesn't clarify anything except that the admins seeming are constantly screwing each other over at every opportunity.
So you got Pao as a temp CEO, make some changes you knew would irritate your userbase, give zero clarification at any stage (with FPH or Victoria)... let a witchhunt form for Pao despite sitting on knowledge that would completely diffuse it... then AFTER you boot her out, you unveil that it was all basically a massive con (because remember, we actively withheld information to fuel a witchhunt, and now we're even stating that we've been a 'bastion of free speech' for 10 years against our will), and villainize your entire userbase...
For a major corporation behind one of the most influential sites on the internet... this is fucking unacceptable. Conduct, transparency, practices... you name it. Just... wow. I never actually expected a site I hung out on for gaming content/communities would actually make me feel betrayed.
Seriously, that's what I said the whole time. Those guys literally sit next to each other in one big office and then they post random half-baked comments and have to re-explain all the time. They should seriously just hire a few PR people and use the admin accounts just for... administrating. Or perhaps an experienced lawyer that can think up solid rules. And they seriously need canned responses for any user interaction, nobody needs that snotty attitude. Good grief.
I have no way to trust if the person answering questions is the real and actual CEO or if it is just some publicist answering for him. They should have some kind of liaison that helps smooth over issues such as this.
That's a silly and counter-productive rule, by the way. For example, most people don't see that truth isn't racist.
So if I point out that black people are better dancers than us whiteys, people agree. But if I point out that black people are vastly overrepresented in American violent crime statistics, people want to crucify me.
Let's talk about "hate speech" while at it. Why do black people protest a black guy getting shot by the police (through his own fault) by vandalizing and looting innocent businesses like a pack of savage apes?
Did I just commit the crime of "hate speech"? -Why? They do, in fact, vandalize and loot innocent businesses, and that behaviour can be characterized as befitting a pack of savage apes. So what's the problem? Football hooligans tend to behave like packs of savage apes too, but is pointing that out "hate speech"? I'm guessing it's not, and the difference is race, of course.
In reality, the rule about not posting racism or hate speech is just a call for Political Correctness, for self-censorship and for not speaking about things that matter because someone might be offended. That right there, is complete fucking horseshit.
What is wrong with expressing your opinion and arguing a point by actually being respectful? Believe it or not individuals can communicate their point without having to resort to racist name calling, threats against others or hate speech. Obviously, it's a little more effort, and people may disagree with you which is acceptable as usually the goal is to have a discussion in the first place. As for "censorship", we dont go around "censoring" unpopular opinions about anything, we don't care what you wish to discuss, we don't care that you have a difference of opinion or that you wish to argue a point about religion, race, politics, bubble gum flavour or the best time to drink coffee. We just care that you do it with respect to the rest of the community, and we don't think that's bullshit, we think its being a good host.
Well said ! There is nothing wrong with healthy discourse if it is done in civil and respectful manner. It's also what makes snapzu special and in my opinion is the most crucial thing we need to try and preserve at all cost especially with the recent influx of new users.
Note that there's a difference between me ranting about black people behaving like savage animals, and not being civil towards whomever I'm talking to.
You started off well, there, with that line about “the truth isn’t racist.” Then you went to illustrate what you mean by ‘the truth,’ and it’s fairly repulsive.
Opening with what you think will be an anodyne statement, you make a superiority/inferiority characterization based on race, and because that's not awkward enough yet, you manage to work in the phrase “us whiteys.” Point of future reference: no, that’s not endearing you to your audience the way you think it is.
Next, you give us an example of something you say and that you feel persecuted for saying. The exemplar you provide for “the truth” that “isn’t racist” is apparently the inherent criminality of a race. Now, what you said can be factually true, and at the same exact time what you saying it tells people about you and your views can also be true. At this point, you haven’t lost the people reading your comment, necessarily, yet. The exact point has been made at Snapzu lately, without the unconsciously revealing baggage you bring out in a moment. This feeling of being persecuted by others for plainly stating your views may be something you misunderstand. It could be that your views are repellant.
You‘re on a roll, now. Next up, you want to talk about quote hate speech unquote, because apparently the term bothers you on a basic level. Your heart rate is up, you're getting your kicks now, and you reach deep down and come up with this:
Now, I remember there was some kind of a controversy a while back about the Planet of the Apes movies being recommended by Netflix in relation to other movies that dealt with the civil rights struggle of the Sixties and Seventies. This may have been a sham controversy, because the outrage in the press was to the effect of Netflix’s recommendation algorithm somehow confusing black folks for apes. When, in fact, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes and Battle for the Planet of the Apes are playing off of the politics of the time they were made and substantially are about slave revolt, organized labor, black power politics and the like. There was no need for a controversy over those recommendations.
You, on the other hand, clearly see black folks as what you call savage apes. Sounds like a personal problem. Not interested in helping you with that, especially because you seem really proud of it. Let's not even unpack the other baggage in that sentence, how even your hypothetical police homicide victim deserved being shot, or that the collective noun for black protesters is apparently the word pack, or that the only form of political protest the blacks/apes in your mental world ever mount turns out to be vandalism and looting. I’m just going to let that hang in the air, because I don’t want to breathe any more of it.
The truth you told us wasn’t racist is only getting more, and more, unconsciously bigoted the further you get into this rant.
You're ascribing human behavior to race, and indignant that anyone could take you to be a racist. Here's another way you could think of that. There is a stink to that racism. People shun you when you reveal these attitudes because they stink, in a real way. Nobody m...
Read FullCheap shot.
I woke up this morning and as the haze cleared, knew this too.
I’d say you’re reading way too much into what I wrote, but.. that would be based on the assumption that you’re being sincere.
But I don’t think you are. I think you’re a psychopath who decided to play games with me. Now there’s a claim I can’t prove, but someone who’s familiar with psychos knows that it’s not baseless either.
But they do actually tend to be better dancers. They have bigger penises too. You see, this is one reason why I think you’re a psychopath: We all know those are facts. You know it too, but here you are, shaming me for making truthful observations.
I meant that in a self-deprecating way, but that doesn’t really matter because it’s you who decides what’s acceptable for me to say, right?
Now if you were intellectually honest, instead of continuing to shame me (like a psychopath would), you could just dig up some crime American crime statistics (as I explicitly specified, to make sure my claim was true), and see that I was, in fact, speaking the truth.
I’ll save myself the trouble of digging them up for you, because it’s not like that would affect the way you conduct this conversation.
Hey, you actually got something right! The term does bother me “on a basic level”, because it’s mostly just a propaganda talking point for our rulers in their quest to gradually condition us into not speaking up about anything, until the whole world is one big North-Korea.
That didn’t happen though. I’m calm even now!
Huh? ”STORY TIME!” .. ? What the hell are you on about?
Oh, right. Racism! Black people vandalize and loot businesses that didn’t do anything to them because.. racism! But of course, and that’s also a good way to.. not give actual racists something substantial to point to?
Now that’s a mighty broad brush. You shouldn’t generalize like that. Generalizations are bad. Think of how it makes people feel when you generalize about them!
http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/doj-report-makes-a-strong-case-that-darr
---
Read FullThere are a few things you're holding as truths here. One is your admiration for dancing black men and their genitals, which you think is an objective fact. Another is that you need to confront us with that because we're not comfortable enough with it. Not surprised you spend a lot of time being sexually threatened that way. Not sure that it's other people's discomfort you ought to examine.
No, we don't. Even if these racial generalizations were true in a loose sense, that would only be a starting place for thought. You can assert that this is so, but it's a coarse generalization, right and wrong about any specific individual. You can say that your opinion that this is so is a fact. What you're claiming, though, is not a fact. It might be the beginnings of some, but that would require you to go further.
You could use this sham insight you have, you know, when you often find yourself thinking about dance, as the basis for some reflection on why you feel that way. You could go into the cultural context of dance and performance in black society. You could delve into the traditions that could explain a historical emphasis on developing an ability to dance as a priority in black culture, the way playing chess is taken seriously in Russian society. Rather than that, though, you short-circuit and come up with it being a racial characteristic rather than a cultural one you've given any real thought to.
You've done yourself no favor with this prejudice. It's not going to be taken as you stating incontrovertible proof. At least in my case, I take it as revealing a mess of pre-occupations.
Personally, I'd say you should look further into what you've written above, and I do say that sincerely.
What exactly is self-deprecating about you stating your race in co-opted black slang from the early Cenzoic era?
Actually, it is up to me to decide what I'm going to accept. If it just so happens that majorities of people find your pronouncements on race offensive, you may want to consider whether everyone else is wrong and you're on solid ground. Maybe if you climbed down from that race-realist martyr's cross long enough, you might get a better perspective.
You can make a factual claim like that and still screw it up. The context where you're making a personal observation about race determining criminal behavior is part of the way it'll be received. Among the reasons that analytical statement could be taken as offensive include what you've done or not done with that information. The eugenicist's assumption that genetics determine behavior is likely to bother some people, given what horrors have been wrought in the name of that cause. Your refusal to consider historic, social and cultural reasons for the statistical claim, leaving the attribution of guilt to a race without lookin...
Read FullWell, your fun little past-time here is pretending to have a civil and intellectual conversation while actually just spewing your poison. You've taken it to a whole new level though, so I guess other psychos would be impressed.. at least if it were working on me, that is.
You should move on now though, and find someone more innocent to play with.
People say awful things sometimes. What matters more is how they treat people. Hopefully in real life you treat them as the unique individuals they are.
No one is forcing you to be part of this community. You join-you agree to the terms imposed by the site. If you decide you don't agree you are free to find an alternate site that might be more suited to your needs with rules or policies that you find appropriate. Many of us are here because we prefer these rules over sites that don't have them. Some of us choose to interact in communities where racism and hate are not condoned. Each to their own.
A. I disagree that blacks are better dancers than "us whiteys." It depends on the dance.
B. Have you ever seen a pack (troop, actually) of apes loot a business? No, I haven't either. So why would it make sense to compare a group of people to apes while they do something which is unbefitting of that animal? Would it be because there is a history of comparing that race of people to that animal?
Your argument works in a vacuum. If you ignore the centuries of context then comparing groups of black people to apes is no more offensive than comparing them to giraffes. But if you choose to have a conversation in public with other people on this planet who are familiar with the same histories as you and I, and still insist on comparing black people to apes, you're probably going to be called out on it.
Considering what you're saying and who you're saying it to isn't horseshit, it's common sense.
Edit: formatting!
I can't tell what you're trying to say. Centuries of "context"? Would that be.. Slavery?
As for A and B, I'm not interested in bickering about semantics or choice of words here. Anyone gets the idea. People express themselves in various ways, depending on the circumstances.
Why are you throwing out a stereotype and claiming it's the truth? Can you show me a scientific study performed that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that black people are better dancers than white people? Your claim is exactly the same as the claims "All Asians are super intelligent", "All Americans are fat and lazy", and "All Mexicans are rapists." None of these are true. All of these are stereotypes. And if you quoted said stereotype to a person of it's associated race/class/gender/sexual orientation/etc you would very likely get eyes rolled at you and a diatribe as to why you're wrong.
You might want to note that I didn't say ALL. That would certainly be a false (and idiotic) claim to make.