309
Elon Musk Wildly Attacks The ADL As One Of ‘The Biggest Generators Of Anti-Semitism’ In Reply to Notorious White Nationalist (www.mediaite.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Based on the current flutterings about the social media site formerly known as Twitter it would presumably be because virtually anything seen as pro-white is a hate symbol, as well as various seemingly innocuous things. The most notorious being the OK hand sign, largely because it being pushed as a white supremacist hand sign was literally started as a 4chan prank (dubbed "Operation OKKK") whose purpose was to make the sort of media types actively looking for hidden crypto-fascist signaling from people look like absolute loons by just bathing them in false positives.

For example, the numbers in your username manage not to be a hate symbol, but had they been 2316 instead of 2215 they would be a hate symbol according to ADL because W is the 23rd letter and P is the 16th, therefore 2316=WP=White Power.

Numbers that are hate symbols include: 100%, 109/110, 1-11, 12, 13, 13/52, 13/90, 14, 1423, 1488, 18, 211, 21-2-12, 23, 23/16, 28, 311, 318, 33/6, 38, 43, 5, 511, 737, 83, 88, and 9%.

I keep waiting for some modern neo-Nazi group to use the ASCII codes instead of position in the alphabet so that list can suddenly be much longer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean, 88 is actually a hate symbol... they're are plenty of tattooed white guys on google images with it.. the rest I'm not so sure about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    Not always though. It's also for example the number of keys on a piano, which led the Flintstones to create a character called 88 Fingers Louie, a piano thief. Then many years later, a Chicago hardcore band took the name for themselves. They're not coded racists, they just didn't know. I love the number 88, I think it's aesthetic, it divides nicely, it's not square or a 10- factor but it's even and an 11-factor so it stands out. I'm damned if I'm going to let neonazis take away fucking numbers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sure. It and the other numbers I listed are literally the list of hate symbols that start with a number per the ADL database of hate symbols.

    I've always found the 13/52 and 13/90 ones particularly interesting because they fall into the rare category of "hate facts" - that is things that by our best measurements are true, but are also hate speech.

    If you group that same data by sex instead of race however it ceases to be hate speech and becomes entirely valid to base views on broad swaths of people based on their immutable characteristics using the data.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Well, let's think on that one.

    Consider the counterfactual - that homicide perpetration is evenly distributed and thus actual homicide perpetration should match share of general population. How then do we arrive at FBI UCR stats being what they are?

    The easiest possibility would be the FBI disregarding what is reported to them and just making up numbers, but then you'd need a reason why bean counters tallying crime stats would bother and also it would be straightforward to test with a FOIA request.

    Maybe the FBI is accurately reporting the numbers they are given, and a large number of police departments are simply reporting a bunch of black folks committing homicide when that's not happening? That could also be tested using public records (comparing numbers reported to FBI against actual cases), but would be a more involved process unless you have particular districts that you feel are more likely to be fudging the numbers.

    Maybe it's racially biased over/underpolicing? Except we're talking about homicide, and it's hard to overpolice homicide (you've only got so many corpses to work with), which means underpolicing when white folks commit homicide. But by the same stats 4 in 5 homicides have killer and victim of the same race, which would mean police just ignoring it when white people are killed, which doesn't sound very white supremacist of them.

    Maybe there are white people killing black people and successfully framing other black people for the crime? That could happen, I guess. It would require massive incompetence or overt racism on the part of police, and have to stay secret, and have to be happening at a truly massive scale (we're talking thousands of cases every year for as long as we've been keeping the stats). Which feels unlikely just in sheer scale.

    You know what I think is likely? That the stats gathered are accurate, and more homicide is done both by and to black folks because a lot of homicide is gang violence and at a national scale the prime gang recruiting demographic is poor young black men. There are statistical methods by which this too could be tested, but it would be more of an ordeal than the others, and merely admitting that law enforcement statistics regarding race might be accurate probably denies you funding outright.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I think your approach is decent but you've perhaps downplayed a thing or two in your analysis of the counterfactual.

    • The rate goes from 50% to 40% when the "race: unknown" cases are removed included.
    • A black person is 7 times more likely than a white person to be wrongly accused of homicide.
    • The US police force (including the FBI) are unfortunately, institutionally, foundationally racist.
    • Most crucially, the 50% refers only to arrests made, not convictions. This is especially interesting when taken with the above points (though coming up with corrected figures is too much hard work for me today)

    Finally, if we were to assume the numbers are true and accurate, what would that actually tell us? White supremacists would have you believe it's proof of some kind of genetic inferiority. I could get into why that argument is utterly retarded but it would be a wall of text so, unless you ask. I think what it points to are two things: systemic racism in policing and crime reporting, and a race-biased wealth gap causing greater crime in African-American communities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    White supremacists would have you believe it’s proof of some kind of genetic inferiority. I could get into why that argument is utterly retarded but it would be a wall of text so, unless you ask.

    Of course it's utterly retarded. Like I said, I would predict it's due to the largest target demo for gang recruitment being young black men. Combine endemic fatherlessness with poor socioeconomic options and you have a demographic that is ripe for recruitment by groups that offer money, male bonding and a kind of sex appeal but also results in being a root cause for a lot of violent crime. It's basically the black version of tradcon alt-lite recruiting - you offer pseudo-paternal figures, a route to money, and a claim to be able to attract women and fatherless, sexless young men with no real purpose will flock. The main difference is that the alt-lite groups for the most part aren't dealing drugs and shooting at each other, their game is marginally more subtle and longer term.

    The rate goes from 50% to 40% when the “race: unknown” cases are removed.

    How does that work? If a category is some share of the whole, and I remove some number from the whole but not from that category, how can the share go down? Or am I misunderstanding what you are getting at? It's not like UCR numbers count anything with an unknown race perpetrator as having a black perp.

    A black person is 7 times more likely than a white person to be wrongly accused of homicide.

    I'd be curious of this: Out of cases where a person is wrongly accused of homicide and arrested, how often is the correct person later identified and more importantly, how frequently is the correctly identified person a different race than the wrongfully arrested one? Because (ignoring the injustice of wrongful arrest for a moment), arresting the wrong person for a crime done by a person of the same race isn't going to have an impact on your racial breakdown of perpetrators.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    How does that work?

    Sorry, I meant "included", not removed. Edited.

    I'd be curious of this

    Here is a secondary source, with info to link to the primary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Sorry, I meant “included”, not removed. Edited.

    That makes a lot more sense. I tried to figure out what you were doing math wise to make that happen and I couldn't come up with anything coherent.

    Here is a secondary source, with info to link to the primary.

    Interesting, nothing I'm really surprised by (the criminal justice system in general fucks you over if you are poor, black or male and the effects of all three compound) but it doesn't hit the million dollar question, which is how often wrongfully convicted people are convicted in place of an actual perp of a different race? I don't know if the data even exists to answer that one, though I suspect the set of cases where both the wrongly convicted killer and the actual killer are both known is probably too small to do anything useful with.

    If you don't see what I'm getting at, if a black man is wrongfully convicted of a murder committed by another black man, that doesn't impact the racial breakdown because it doesn't change what group the perpetrator belonged in. Is the implication that there is a number of black men wrongfully convicted of homicide where the actual killer was white large enough that it would have a meaningful impact on the stats?

    EDIT: Fixed formatting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I see what you're getting at. Cleaning up the statistics, researching the answer to your question and finding upper and lower bounds for actual figures is beyond what I've got time or patience to do though. There also remains the problem that the FBI stats are self-reported by officers working in a fundamentally racist institution, so it would be likely a biased (and therefore useless) sample and therefore a pointless waste of time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent