It still isn't a form of racism

A few weeks ago, I wrote that trolls have been twisting the narrative to somehow argue that challenging racism is a form of racism in itself:

http://airnicetolivelands.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/no-it-isnt-form-of-racism.html

Recently, I saw on Facebook somebody claim that bigotry and calling out bigotry are both "two cheeks of the same arse" (a cruder version of "opposite sides of the same coin"). This person was talking nonsense, for opposing bigotry is not at all the same as being a bigot. I don't know how this "you're intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance!" hogwash is spreading - it is not a form of discrimination to oppose those whose aim is to discriminate against others. No one can choose their ethnic group, sex, sexual orientation, etc.; people can, however, choose whether to be or whether not to be jerks towards others.

Needless sarcasm

This afternoon, I was out with a friend to go and see a film at the cinema. After we finished the movie, we walked back to her bus stop, which departs from the Broadmarsh bus station. While the Broadmarsh closes in the evening, there is a "tunnel" through it that is open as a way of allowing access to the station.

My friend and I made use of this tunnel and I should note that she is not a fast walker whereas I am and so I walk at her speed when with her. When we were about halfway through the tunnel this evening, I heard a voice from behind me ask, "Could you walk any slower?".

The words came from impatient person, who could quite easily have either gone around my friend and me (there was plenty of room to do so) or have politely asked us to come through. But no, apparently this required too much brainpower for them; immediately resorting to sarcasm was apparently their only option.

While I ended up letting them through (more like because I moved out of the way instinctively, not because I wanted to let them pass), it wasn't without a comeback of my own. My response was, "Why, yes I can, actually!".

Forgot my phone

A friend and I met up in the city centre this afternoon to have a quick catch up and to go watch a film. Before I even boarded the bus I already had to return to my accommodation: I had my keys, my media player phone and my water but...not my main phone! Despite already being hot and sweaty from the humid weather, I ran back to my accommodation.

Surprisingly, I was able to retrieve my phone and catch my intended bus out in time; my friend and I were both at the Broadmarsh bus station at a similar time, so there wasn't really any delay. I'd also mostly cooled off by the time South Notts 1 had made it to the city centre.

Having to run back and ensure I had my phone with me does show just how much we rely on our gadgets these days.

Phew!

In a lecture last week, I foolishly brought my media player phone (my Galaxy S III) in with its morning alarms activated. So, halfway through the lecture, the phone goes off, complete with the Lady Gaga song I have it set to.

Fortunately for me, my phone was in my bag and that was able to muffle the sound; in addition, my lecturer was talking into the amplifier and I was sat in the back row, as I always am in that particular lecture. My phone's alarm sounded for 30 seconds before switching off automatically and my lecturer did not notice the noise.

It was surprising enough by itself that she didn't hear the commotion but what added to the surprise was that a few minutes later, she politely scolded two people in the front row for talking (she's the type who can tell people off while having a sweet smile on her face and in her tone), as well as scolded two more people for messing around with their phones. In all my lectures so far, this one set the record for the most amount of disruptions and mine wasn't noticed!

In future, I'll be ensuring neither phone goes off in classes, although my Galaxy Note 4 is always set to silent and has only rung in class on silent.

Deflection over Executive Order 9066

Today marks the signing of Executive Order 9066 in the United States. This order was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and led to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. In modern society, the internment camps are noted as a stain on America.

Actor George Takei was interned in one of these camps when he was a child; as a result, he is against anything that remotely resembles them ever returning. On his Facebook page, he often posts about the camps and why it is important for them to never re-materialize in any form. Any reasonable human being would agree with him.

Unfortunately, whenever the internment camps are raised in Internet discussion, there are some people who don't listen to the message that the camps were unacceptable and shouldn't return. These people instead use the camps to deflect from any terrible policies developed by today's Republican Party. Why? Because FDR was a Democratic president and in their eyes, this is enough to dismiss any civil rights progression the Democrats have achieved in the seven and a half decades since.

No one has ever argued that because a Democratic president issued an order to set up the internment camps that the camps were therefore okay. No one. In fact, that a Democrat did issue it is part of the reason why today's Democrats are vocal about how terrible the camps were and why they should never be seen again; the main reason, of course, is that it's morally wrong to isolate and segregate people based on their ethnicity. "A Democrat did it!" is just a childish deflection from developments in American politics today.

The message here? Yes, a Democratic president was behind the internment camps for Japanese Americans in the latter half of World War II but no one today says that it was acceptable because the president was a Democrat; the people who discuss the camps now are doing so to remind others that they were a dark part of American history and should remain in the past.

That's not how you debate

I wrote this on Facebook earlier:

 "I was taught that debate goes like this:

1. Person or Group A makes an evidence-backed claim.
2. Person or Group B disagrees but support it with their own evidence.

Not:

1. Repeat step one.
2. Person or Group B disagrees and either yells at A to find evidence to support B's argument or demands that A find evidence for the claim A has already given evidence for.
3. B engages in insults if A points out the absurdity of this.

The latter seems to be increasing in popularity..."

I was inspired to write the post because in the past couple of days, on a discussion I noticed a bunch of people criticising some statistics but they offered no evidence to support their claims, although the statistics had a source themselves. When I politely asked for sources to be provided, the response was the people insulting me and demanding that I provide evidence to support the statistics that they were criticising. I ended up blocking a bunch of them because while for the most part I shrug off online insults, even my patience has limits when it comes to dealing with trolls.

"...but Hillary!"

The United States presidential election has been finished for over two months. Since her defeat, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has effectively disappeared from the news, save from the occasional mention. This is consistent with previous major-party losing candidates.

Despite this, her former opponent's supporters - and even her opponent himself - frequently bring up her name, almost always to deflect criticism from the president-elect. In nearly every online discussion I've seen that involves criticising the president-elect, the only defense of his actions by his supporters is to mention Clinton's faults, or the "...but Hillary!" defense.

To me, this is the opposite of when these people constantly brought up President Obama's "57 states" comment. Whereas in that case, they kept bringing it up because they didn't have anything significant to criticize Obama for, here they keep resorting to "...but Hillary!" because they don't have any good reason to defend the president-elect and have no choice but to deflect. They know their candidate is terrible but aren't at the point yet to abandon him.

As recently as the past 24-48 hours, the president-elect briefly attacked Clinton in his disastrous press conference. Could you imagine if President Obama spent eight and four years, respectively, making snide comments about Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney? At the very least, he would have been slammed for unprofessionalism.

The two course choices

In the days before Dad's death two years ago, my mother and I had been communicating by email about which Access course I would be taking at Central for my then-next academic year. I had made up my mind between two but was heavily leaning towards the one I ultimately chose; a few hours before Dad died, Mum emailed me links to these two courses, not knowing that they were the two I was considering.

This is a mostly-forgotten occurrence from that day, as it was obviously overshadowed by Dad's death. I only remembered because I read my emails from that time and saw that Mum and I had been talking about my next course.

And the choices? Social sciences with humanities or a law course. Mum reckoned I be interested in both of them because of the writing involved. She was correct and I ended up going with Social Science and Humanities, as featured History and Sociology. Law didn't interest me anywhere near as much; I later found out that the Law class was less than half the size of Social Science and Humanities. Having a bigger class was preferable, in this circumstance.

Banning some trolls

Twitter has banned a bunch of alt-right (white supremacist) trolls:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37997864

According to the article, Twitter has not offered an explanation for the move but it wouldn't surprise me if the company enacted the bans as part of a crackdown on hate speech; since the election last week, hate speech and hate crimes are experiencing a massive increase as bigots feel emboldened by the result. The individuals who have been banned join Breitbart News goon Milo Yiannopolous as those struck with the banhammer on Twitter.

The alt-right are fast to whine about free speech whenever they are blocked but it should be noted that a private company like Twitter has no obligation to host bigoted views. No 1st Amendment rights are violated, as no one is being arrested. Also, alt-right types have no tolerance for criticism of them, anyway, opting to call anyone who does so a "cuck" or that they "need a safe space".

As the Southern Poverty Law Center said, "Good riddance."

Argument tactics of the Alt-Right

To follow up on my post from last month about the Alt-Right, this post will focus on the troll tactics used by the Alt-Right during online discussions. While I wrote a significant amount this aspect of the Alt-Right in that piece, I wish to cover it some more. In addition, this post will be the first "work in progress", in that while I will submit it now, I will expand it later; I feel there is more to research about this but I want some content here now.

I should also note that the tactics used by the Alt-Right also overlap those used by the "anti-SJW" crowd; however, as the Alt-Right is by its nature "anti-SJW", for the purposes of this post they are treated as the same entity.

Keywords:

Frequent words used by the Alt-Right to silence opposition are:

"Snowflake"

"Hurt your feelings"

"Trigger(ed)"

"Safe space"

"Sensitive" 

"Cuck"

"White Knight"

"How dare you assume..."
"My soggy knee"

Their uses of "trigger(ed)" and "safe space" are always in a mocking manner, in that whenever an Alt-Right individual is the subject of criticism, they will declare that their opponents have been triggered and in need of a safe space. "Snowflake" is a derisive term for anyone who disagrees with them and they often ridicule others for being "(over)sensitive".

"Cuck" usually refers to conservative-leaning people whom the Alt-Right considers to be sell outs or weak. An example of this is a Republican in the United States who is Christian and, as a part of their Christianity, adopts children from other countries. As the Alt-Right is centered around white supremacy, this sort of person might as well be on the Left, as they are bringing foreigners into the country. "White Knight" usually refers to a man who speaks up for women but it is also used to dismiss a white person who stands up for non-whites.

"How dare you assume..." is a mockery against people who identify as a demographic group they were not born as; this is usually an attack on the transgender and genderqueer communities, such as people who were born male but change sex and identify as female or those who don't identify as any gender. This form of attack usually descends into absurdity: for example, if you suggest to an Alt-Right individual that they as a white non-transgendered man from a high-income background might not understand the perspective of minority groups from poor backgrounds, such an individual often replies with "How dare you assume my identity! I identify as a black, lesbian, disabled, vegan and Muslim transwoman* who is a Disney Princess and was born on Neptune! YOU NEPTUNE-HATING, DISNEYPHOBIC RACIST!"- even though the person obviously does not at all identify with such a demographic and is using them as a shield.

(*Transwomen who are black, Muslim, disabled, vegan and lesbian are not an absurdity in themselves as they do exist and they should not be used as a punching bag for trolls. By "absurd", I was referring to the behaviour of the Alt-Right individual(s).)

As for "my soggy knee", that's a dismissive play on the word "misogyny". Alt-Right individuals sometimes deride users of the word by talking about "my soggy knee(s)".

Deflections:

This is a placeholder; I will expand later.

Feigned ignorance:

See previous section. 

Conclusion:

That's it for now, so the conclusion is currently limited. Again, I will be expanding the post at a later time and will note any major changes to it.

An atrociously undesirable source of praise

In the highly unlikely event that I were to receive praise from white supremacists, I would say "Whoa!", take a step back and then wonder what terrible thing I had said to attract acclaim from such an awful source. What I wouldn't do is ignore it or make any sort of overtures to them; this is not a group with which I want any sort of association. In fact, taking a step back, re-evaluating yourself and then rejecting such praise should be the default position for any reasonable person. Anything other reaction will be viewed by the giver as an endorsement or a promotion of their ideology. That's how they think.

Didn't do the walk (2)

Yesterday marked the third day (and second this week and month) that I did not walk to the neighbouring town and back. The reason this time is because I spent several hours in the afternoon speaking to a long-term friend and fellow blogger via Skype; by the time we finished, it was the early evening. I instead went out for an hour to walk but not out of this town.

Still, it was last summer when my friend I and last Skyped; I think having a several-hour-long Skype chat with a good friend is more than worth missing one long walk.

Moon landing hoax countering

I was recently shown a link to RationalWiki - a pro-science and anti-pseudoscience wiki, which also covers a host of other topics, such as politics and debate. RationalWiki serves as a counter to wikis that post extremist and/or fringe nonsense. One excellent article I came across on the site was about the conspiracy theory that the Moon landings are a hoax:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax

I think the article provides an accurate account of the origins of the conspiracy theory as well as gives good counter-arguments against it. My favorite would have to be the part about the US "propping up" the Soviet Union was simultaneously wanting to "humiliate" it - that alone shows the absurdity of how the hoax advocates sound. That, and it's ridiculous to think the US bribed every single country to keep quiet. The obvious explanation is: The Moon landings were real.

(Note that RationalWiki is not connected to Wikipedia. Both sites are wikis, however; see Wikipedia's definition of a wiki for more information.)

The lyrical reminder

In the early morning, I was listening to "Strong" by Robbie Williams. Now bear in mind I've listened to this song at least a couple dozen times; however, on this occasion, the following lyric stood out to me:

"And that's a good line to take it to the bridge"

It reminded me of something someone said to me over nine years ago, which was "step away from the bridge" (I was interacting with a troll on the Internet). Back then, I thought the person was advising me to remove myself from a metaphorical helm, like on a ship; however, when listening to "Strong", I realised that the person was making a clever reference to Three Billy Goats Gruff - the fairy tale in which a troll living under a bridge is defeated by goats.

Either way, I was being asked to remove myself from the situation but the metaphor was more clever than I had initially realised. A shame it took me over nine years to work out - and with the help of a song I'd heard several times!

Barack Obama at the 2016 Democratic National Convention

I watched the speech that President Barack Obama gave yesterday at the Democratic National Convention. Once again, it was a speech I was happy with but I was also pleased to see a return of the President Obama we knew and loved in 2008 and 2012 - with his no-nonsense yet unifying speeches filled with hope rather than fear.

Obama was wise to remind his audiences of the achievements he and his administration have made since taking office, such as the pursuit of greater environmental protection, marriage equality and dealing with Iran's nuclear program via the use of diplomacy. These are promises he made back in 2008 and, in one way or another he has delivered; Hillary Clinton is expected to carry on with Obama's legacy and the case is being made that if Americans are happy with such progress, they should vote for her. Like Bill Clinton in his speech, Obama was sure to note Hillary's achievements, such as the healthcare program she helped bring about for children.

His speech was a stark contrast to that made by the Republican nominee, whose speech was designed to instill fear. Obama's focus on what all Americans have in common with each other and the rest of world was a welcome change from all the hatred that's constantly in the media. Yes, people might be of different ethnicities, sexualities and religions but at the end of the day they're all still Americans and all still people;

And finally, I thought it was absolutely wonderful when Obama tied together the important of supporting downballot races in with Bernie Sanders. A brief mention of the persistence of Sanders' supporters along with telling the crowd to "feel the Bern" was an excellent way of strengthening party unity. A Hillary Clinton presidency will be trapped if she is left with a Republican-controlled House and Senate; as President Obama himself said, "Don't boo, vote."

The transcript of his speech can be found on the Los Angeles Times.

"No, you're the racist/sexist/homophobe!"

Over the past few months, possibly longer, I've observed a particularly noteworthy and troubling deflection tactic when calling someone out for their bigotry. It goes like this:

1. Person A says something bigoted; for an example, they've been racist.
2. Person B argues that Person A has been racist and explains why, then says Person A should take back their comment and apologise.
3. Person A declares that they're not racist and that Person B is the "real racist" because Person B, by speaking up, is assuming that the ethnic group in the discussion cannot defend themselves and that they never asked Person B for help, anyway.

As a result, Person B ends up going on the defensive, so even though Person A makes the racist comment, Person B walks away as the "real racist".

It's a completely nonsense defence and it's abhorrent that it's advanced as much as it has. Speaking up for a particular person or group does not imply you think said person or group cannot speak up for themselves; provided that your motives are genuine and you're defending them because you're a decent human being, you've done nothing wrong and it doesn't demean them. You're just an extra voice and someone who has come to them in a time of need; if anything, we should be encouraging each other to help more rather than let the naysayers and trolls dominate the discussion.

Oh, and "they never asked for your help" is nonsense, too - you can still lend a helping hand even if someone doesn't ask and they can always decline your offer.

CollegeHumor's early internet commenter videos

I came across these two ancient CollegeHumor videos, both of which were released nearly nine years ago and parody Internet commenters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzgEi_u9-88

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAGxK7i2E4g

Internet commenters have changed little in nine years, although most CollegeHumor videos often feature in their comments sections people trolling about how funnier the channel was years ago compared to now.

Mocking a non-native speaker

I posted this to Facebook earlier:

"It is inappropriate and unfair to be angry with or mock someone who doesn't speak English as their first language and thus, occasionally makes an error or has to research a word or two or more while communicating. Such a person has taken the time to learn the language; the correct course of action is to help them if they desire help rather than moan at them for not being able to speak it properly. They want to learn! Can't ask for more than that."

I followed it up by saying that I was in no position to be a critic of a non-native speaker of English given that I only know a small amount of another language and all that knowledge comes from a computer game.

The man in the rain

While I was riding the Indigo bus line through Toton this afternoon, a massive rainstorm had materialised. To be fair, thunderstorms had been forecast for the weekend but the rain was a paradigm shift from the sunny weather that had occurred in the morning.

Through the rain, however, I saw a man acting as human billboard for a pizza chain. There he was, standing in the wet weather, promoting reduced prices on pizza. I do hope he receives a bonus; standing out in the rain wearing a billboard can't be that fun. Then again, considering it had been hot before, perhaps the rain cooled him somewhat.

The library survey

My college's library was running a survey today for feedback about how to improve it and its services. The included the standard questions about staff service, the computers and the books available; my response was to rate all highly, as the library has been a massive boost to me this academic year, and to include an optional comment, which consisted of me personally praising the staff.

One of the librarians mentioned that the survey was so popular that they nearly ran out of survey sheets for students to fill.