A selection of the editors’ favorite nauseatingly racist comments from our readers.
There’s this fairy tale Americans like to tell ourselves, that we as a nation have overcome the snarling, hateful racism of the past, and moved on to the subtler, quieter racism of the future. “Surely,” we reassure ourselves, “there aren’t still tons of people so outdatedly troglodytic in their worldviews that they will just come out and say that black people are all criminals. Certainly nobody in polite society would say that it’s more hateful to criticize racism than to openly endorse it. For goodness’ sake, people don’t consider being horribly bigoted an inalienable right and something to be proud of, do they? We’ve moved beyond that.”
This comforting delusion lasts exactly as long as it takes to moderate a comment thread on any large website.
We’ve got a fairly open comment policy here at the Good Men Project. Mostly we just ask that you refrain from being a hateful, bigoted troll. You really wouldn’t think that’d be too high a bar to clear, but every day, we get people who defiantly, even proudly refuse to meet so minimal a standard of civilization. Best of all, just lately we’ve been addressing racial issues a good deal, and let me tell you, nothing brings out the ugly underbelly of the id like racial issues. We’ve been deleting and banning stuff so nasty it’d make P.W. Botha embarrassed.
Our comment moderators work very hard, reading this stuff so that you don’t have to, but every so often, we worry that we’re insulating our readers from just how awful people can be, that we’re helping perpetuate that fairy tale about blatant racism being that thing we solved in the 60s. So let’s take a moment to have a look at why we should all be very grateful for comment moderation.
Below are a selection of some of the most… charming comments we’ve deleted in the last couple days. We’re not including the names because the sentiments are what’s important, and also because one day these folks might have a spiritual awakening, or at least we can hope.
“Why is it dangerous? Because propagating the idea that we should be afraid of black men, of black people in general, makes this world dangerous for innocent Americans, as gun-toting fear-motivated people (civilians and police alike) who think this is the Wild Wild West—shoot first, ask later—are going to keep killing innocent people.”
This is ignorant. Period. It is wildly dishonest. It is stupid and I would call it evil if the writer wasn’t clearly such a totalitarian fool. She is merely a clown. Earth to the writer: Large sections of America today are far more dangerous than the Wild West ever was. Open your eyes and your brain (if you have one) and look at the statistics. Young black men in the ‘hood are a danger to any whites they come in contact with. You can’t pretend this away. Why don’t you honestly respond to the below.
Here’s is challenge to all you white fashionably left wing mongers of guilt. You have gathered here (especially this writer) to show only contempt and angry intolerance for those who have the audacity to tell the truth. Why don’t you do-gooders who preposterously claim to know more about life than the rest of us actually go to a black neighborhood? Every major city has one; South Central, Bedford Stuyvesant, or 100′s more. Why don’t you wait until 9-10pm and then go for a walk alone or in a pair, unarmed of course, down the main street in the ‘hood. It’s a simple challenge. No police escorts please. You all know what will/would happen. That’s why you wouldn’t do it in a million years. You may be lying hypocrites here on an anonymous blog, but in real life you know the ugly reality.
If you took my challenge, it is certain you’d be accosted within minutes (two young black men asking “where you from, cracker?” – for example), there would be demands for money and, as is almost certain, you’d be forcibly robbed unless you could physically defend yourself. It happens every day. The reality is you’d be very lucky if you weren’t murdered. You all know this is how America “works” because you would never take the challenge. Your empty opinions are embarrassing. Yet no doubt you are offended by what I have written. Sorry, you all need to indulge in some serious self-criticism. You might start with figuring out why your “truth” doesn’t match real world life.
“Certain,” he says. “You all know,” he says. I think we all know it’s almost certain this guy lives in a gated community that just so happens to be whiter than a glass of milk, and he’s basing this absolute certainty on his own excited paranoid fantasies and a few old Charles Bronson movies.
“Let’s follow Weigel’s logic here: It’s okay if you say something, as long as you’re not the only one who feels that way…”
Let’s follow Schroeder’s logic here, if you can call it that:
It is not OK for an individual to say something if he is the only one that feels But if it remains unsaid how can anybody know if they are the only one that feels that way?
In that case, an individual can say something as long as other people feel that way. And it’s socially acceptable. And by socially acceptable that means acceptable to Joanna Schroeder and like minded people.
Good thing we have smart, open-minded liberals like Joanna Schroeder with lots of smart, open-minded friends to properly analyze everything for us and decide proper speech limits. If not chaos would ensue and people might start saying and writing what they actually think. And that would be double plus bad.
Oh, I’m definitely a conservative and probably a racist so just dismiss me out of hand. You know, all in the name of diversity and tolerance.
This is the old “You want to limit what people can say!” routine, which is always a lie. Nobody’s saying you can’t say horribly racist things in public. We’re saying we will hold you accountable for saying them, and criticize you for being a lousy person. What this guy is actually saying is “You want there to be consequences for my actions! How dare you?” They don’t just want to be openly racist, they want everyone else to agree to give them a free pass for it. And we won’t ’cause we’re mean.
Hatred is a bad thing, and there is way too much of it in our society. We need a firm clampdown on it. Starting with those appalling people who go around screaming “racist / sexist / (etc)” whenever someone says anything they dislike.
Okay, how about we just scream “racist” and “sexist” at things that are racist and sexist? Wait, no, we’re already doing that and you’re still whining.
Dear Joanna…must be nice to live in a warm, comfy cocoon of the politically correct where because you’re intellectually and morally superior you can always feel good about yourself. Wonder how you’d feel if, like some I know, you had been raped, sodomized and beaten to a pulp by black teenagers. That happens, you know, and almost never white on white, or white on black. Almost always black male teenager on white. You are a hypocrite because you won’t confront the issue since if you do, there’s no way to feel superior to those who have. Stop pandering to the real racists, Jackson, Wright, and Sharpton. They’re racists for a living.
Cherry-picking your data is one thing, cherry-picking it for vivid images of sodomy that you’re a little too enthusiastic about… that’s something else. Maybe you have some stuff you need to unpack, man.
As a black man, I wish like hell all you annoying white liberals would find something better to do than be offended on my behalf twelve hours a day.
It’s like, what? You want me to give you diversity points for how anti-racist you are?God, black people don’t need you to defend them. We can take care of ourselves, Ms. White Lady.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that if this guy’s actually black, I’m Grandmaster Flash. Derbyshire himself talked about the importance of having a black friend so you can say “I’m not racist, I have a black friend and I assume he agrees with me!” But hey, this is the internet, where you can be your own black friend! Remember, on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog, but everyone can still tell you’re an idiot.
Derbyshire didn’t say what ‘conservatives’ actually believe, he said what everybody actually believes. His beliefs are not ‘bigoted,’ and ‘prejudicial’, they are reasonable. That is what no one wants to admit to; to be ‘prejudiced’ is to have an ‘unreasonable’ fear. His fears are entirely reasonable.
This whole thing got started when some black columnist spoke about ‘the talk’ black parents have to have with there kids, but that’s the problem isn’t it. There are no ‘black parents” only black moms. Derbyshire got fired because he mentioned out loud there there was an elephant in the living room, and all of us were outraged that he should mention it.
I was going to say something else sarcastic here, but I kinda threw up in my mouth a little instead. Wow. Let’s finish on a classy note, shall we?
Johanna,
Less time writing. More time consuming vast amounts of bull semen. Thanks.
Oh, internet. Never change. Stay gold, Ponyboy.
–
image: public domain
–
Read the post that inspired this comment thread: Racist Writings: Should Derbyshire and Weigel Be Fired?
About Noah Brand
Rolling on the floor bull semen laughing! Sweet Jezuz this is one heck of a post, Noah. Thanks for keeping some accountability for what people say here. Cause, lord knows they say some things that are not only shocking in their scope but completely made up to boot.
It’s been quite a week moderating things, Mark. Quite a week.
Certain statements really point out how these people are clearly thinking in terms of stereotypes. I can’t get over the sentence: “There are no ‘black parents” only black moms.” Just because you can’t visualize it doesn’t mean it NEVER happens.
Though admittedly I do have a lot of internalized racism towards black people, or rather young black men. It’s more so the idea of a young man trying to prove himself through violence. Being black and having “gangsta” body language makes them downright scary to me. Logically most people who dress or act that way wouldn’t actually attack anyone, but I still feel that way. It doesn’t help that I’ve known almost no black men, and perhaps the one I really got to know had been shot by hoodlums and confined to a wheel chair outside his church. Though come to think of it I never about their skin color…hmmmm.
but but… Free Speech!
So, do you think this whole sh*tstorm around Derbyshire is going to encourage anyone to have frank discussions about race?
“but, but, we can shout down anyone we disagree with.”
I don’t think it possible to have frank discussions about race on the Internet. Too many anonymous trolls who are just looking to stir up the pot. It’s difficult to tell who is expressing their deeply felt racist views and who’s just looking to make trouble for the lolz. Too much talking past each other, too much ad hominem, too much arguing in bad faith. A quick look a the unmoderated swampland that is YouTube comments will bear this out.
So we have moderators who try to keep people in line and discussions on track and sometimes they are too heavy handed or not heavy handed enough but I operate under the assumption that they mean well and like most humans (excepting myself – I’m practically perfect in every way) will make the occasional mistake.
“I don’t think it possible to have frank discussions about race on the Internet….. Too much talking past each other, too much ad hominem, too much arguing in bad faith”
I think its possible but it would involve moderating both the racists and anti-racists for ad-hominem and a lot of effort on behalf of moderators to prevent the discussion from getting derailed. But one thing would be absolutely essential…grossly racist comments would have to be allowed.
I am a little annoyed that the comment which “whined” about people who throw around terms like “racism” and “sexism” got included with the others.
I was repeatedly called a rape apologist (along with sexist, misogynist, and everything else you can think of) back in 2006 when I suggested to classmates of mine that maybe we should wait a bit and get all the facts before condemning the Duke Men’s Lacrosse Team.
If the goal of name calling is to shut down discourse, what’s the real difference between a term like “rape apologist” and a racial slur?
Good point Mike.
We shouldn’t give blanket approval to those who use shaming language. There should be some due diligence to see if the slur has merit.
I saw this persons issue as using slurs to censor people, and I’m not really sure what it is doing here.
The only exception I can see is that maybe the person who stated that also stated some other very racist comments. However, if you look at the comment as a stand-along comment, I agree with your point.
I may start countering peoples racist rants with,
“Why yes it is free ,but accountable speech, so go ahead sparky, but know what also comes with your freedom is mine to shine a big light on your ignorance.
I think these comments should stay so they can be addressed and discussed and maybe smashed. A. Free speech and b it’s good to debate especially with the possibility of victory
i agree with you, caitlin.
i feel only the last bull semen comment should have been deleted. the other comments should just have had the personal attacks removed. with a mod note detailing the reason for the redaction. other commenters would have swatted these bigots ‘thinking’ away.
The problem with that, is that comments like these (even with the personal attacks deleted) don’t create discussion. Instead they create an environment for argument, and then we’ll end up with two (or more) commenters hollering at each other and getting nowhere.
Not to mention, by allowing comments like these to be posted it is implicitly saying that there is something of merit, or something worth saying in them.
James, if you are interested in volunteering to be a moderator (and thus learning how tricky the process actually can be) please email Lisa or Julie (theirname)@goodmenproject.com
when the call went out for mods last xmas, i almost applied. however the thought of being ‘tethered’ to my email box so i could moderate comments or a weekly conference call, made my commitmentphobe hermitlike propensities win out.
i do appreciate and acknowledge the commitment level, and the work of the mods.
The problem with that is even though such bigots may be swatted away they would still win in the end because by taking the time to swat them away the discourse will have been derailed.
Probability of “victory” pretty much doesn’t exist when you engage people like this on the internet
I think that these people are talking about personal experience and that they are very different experience from privileged white progressives that have never seen “the hood” or a police car in real life!
I’d also like to ask, why are these comments signaled out when similar comments made about men in general regarding victimization of women are routine and only very rarely called out by a mod?
Well first, this article was about racist comments. If this article were about sexist comments, and left out anti-male comments, then you would have a point. But this article isn’t discussing gender-related comments.
Second, as Julie has pointed out, all comments that violate the commenting policy are moderated and removed. This includes any anti-male comments.
Thank you Heather, yes. This post was focused on the heat of the Derbyshire piece. As such, the comments were purely from that thread. And as noted, their are numerous comments deleted from either pole of misandry and misogyny. And misandthropy too, come to think of it.
Yes, but this webpage is supposed to be about men, and only about race as it relates to men’s issues.
The fact that this kind of page beat an anti-male comment page shows where the editors minds are at, don’t you think?
It shows that even those who are trying to make things about men, can’t help but fall into the old paradigm that if something bad happens to men, it is because of that specific man’s issues, not about what is happening to men in general.
When something bad happens to men, it is never seen as a men’s issue:
* If he dies on the job, it’s because he works a dangerous job (not that it is male role to risk danger)
* If a black man is at much higher risk of violence it is because he is black (not because he is a man, even though black men are at much higher risk of violence over black women)
* If he is homeless it is because he lost his job (not because men make up 90% of the destitute homeless, i.e. society has less care and consideration for men who fall on hard times than women)
* If he doesn’t get an education or flunks out, it is because he is troubled not because the education establishment is anti-male
Bringing this web-page up BEFORE a page showing anti-male comments (and there have been some DOOZIES) says a whole damn lot about the editors, the commenters, and society still has a lot of mold-breaking to do when we talk about empathy for men.
I have seen some anti-male bigoted comments against men that put these to shame quite frankly.
Off the top of my head, the commenter who told Eric M that he wishes his wife would kill him comes to the top of the list. Despite Eric M being a black male, somebody was wishing violence upon him because of his maleness, not his blackness.
Heather,
I’ve seen some doozie anti-male comments too. I think there could have easily been an article posted highlighting the anti-male comments sifted from the 1 year of comments of tgmp too.
To my opinion, the fact that a racist column beat a misandry column speaks to me and says exactly the following.
That when something bad happens to a group of men or a single man, they are rarely called simply men and it is very rarely called a men’s issue.
Whenever something bad happens to a man, it is never tied to his gender (the way it is for women). It is always attached to some other quality.
If a man is injured or loses his life on the job, it is because he works a dangerous job (not because men are socialized into risk-taking)
When black men are at the highest risk for violence it is because they are black, and never because they are men (even though black men even significantly pass black women in rates of victimhood of violence)
When boys overall are being less educated at significant rates than girls, it is because they are black, or poor, or video games (it’s not because the education establishment is anti-male, and the solution is never for ALL boys, but to target only select boys like minorities).
This tells me that even the editors here at tgmp (who I hold in high esteem) who are trying their best to break old molds aren’t always successful.
Right, but from 1-2 days of comments? Plenty of comments slip through the moderation over a year, but these were all comments on a single post in the time span of less than 48 hours.
Nick,
I don’t know how long you have been here, but there used to be a lot of manhating women posting here. A lot of them left after the twitter-gate blowup between Marcotte and Matlack.
I specifically remember a female commenter who said she wishes Eric M’s wife would murder him. And that comment was allowed to go through.
John if you could please help us identify where that comment was, we’d appreciate it. We’ll do a search.
GMP started working intently with comment moderation around that time of the blowup. We don’t want man hating or woman hating or people hating comments.
For the record, a comment like that would never have been “allowed” to go through. NEVER. In recent months, we have put together a team of comment moderators who work round the clock. But even they cannot catch every comment. We are up to over 7,000 comments a month.
Yes Lisa. I found it, deleted it and will also ban the user. It was long before I started moderating, that’s all I can say.
Lisa,
I retract the claim that it was allowed.
I accept your explanation that the comment was not caught, rather than having tacit approval.
As stated before, we’ve radically changed our moderating to cull out any comments that are anti human, period.
That comment was made a long time ago on the post “Bash Patriarchy, not men”
My point was simply that everybody is fallible, and there could have easily been a misandry post long before there was a racist post.
Once again, it seems the primary dynamic in society is that men can’t get sympathy AS SIMPLY MEN for harm that befalls them. When harm befalls men their gender is typically obscured by and the harm to them is keyed on other factors (like race, or poverty) PRIMARILY before their gender.
Yes, the comment cited was part of a conversation happening in November, before the stringent moderation was in place. Even so, with few moderators things can and do get lost and we attend to things as soon as we know about them.
If it hadn’t been brought to anyone’s attention I am convinced absolutely nothing would have been done about it. Isn’t that the point, that it needed to be pointed out in the first place? Has misandry been addressed to anything like the degree that racism has?
Can someone give me some specific examples please.
It’s also blindingly evident that the offending comments are not generally assessed at an objective level. There is a glaring absence of propositional reasoning and actual, factual refutation and a lot of ad hominems and emotive personalising that shoots the messenger as opposed to actually demonstrating how and why they are wrong.
Are you volunteering to be a moderator? If so email me and we can set up a training session, your hours and how our moderation team works.
What does me volunteering to be a moderator have to do with anything?
Is sarcasm the best you can manage? Are you serious?
I don’t see a clear distinction between moderating and censorship personally so for the record I don’t think I would do it in any case. Do you think I’m attacking moderators, because I’m not interested in that, I was commenting on an attitude or behaviour and this is merely an example.
You have completely avoided the points I raised which is exactly what I pointed out in the first place. I don’t believe in moderation, I believe in bringing things out in the open and debating it directly and honestly.
Or even comments made about women made by men that were also not very nice.
There are a lot of comments that don’t see the light of day Eoghan. And we have a volunteer team, do our best to call things out either behind the scenes with an email or in the body of the text. We’ve blocked women in the past and called out many.
I remember a female commenter posting wishing that Eric M’s wife would murder him.
I don’t remember any equivalent the other way around.
I think you could have had a lot more (and much worse) material to display hate against men versus what you have shown against blacks.
It just goes to show that hate against men very much falls under the radar, even for those who should know better
GMP mod.
I don’t doubt that some misandrist comments get deleted. My point here, albeit clumsily made is that this publication and Noah Brands blog are both known for supporting misandry. And I’ve never seen feminists being called out and quoted for man hating here in this way. I’m aware that it came to ahead when Tom dared to question it at its extremes, but general misandry has always been allowed here.
Complaining about how vile and despicable your readers are… interesting tactic.
I think that these people are talking about personal experience and that they are very different experience from privileged white progressives that have never seen “the hood” or a police car in real life!
And if they were to keep it on that track without getting into the offensive commentary I would be more than willing to hear them out. I’m not white but I am a man and I have plenty of experience with being told that parts of my existence either did not happen or they are some one off anamolly (along with the obligatory “yeah that sucks but….”) so I have some idea of what these white people are talking about.
But that doesn’t make it okay to spew insults. I understand that some of them have been mistreated to the point that they gave in to hatred but hatred still isn’t the way no matter how comforting it feels.
“.. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that if this guy’s actually black, I’m Grandmaster Flash ..”
I think you are wrong, Noah. But lets get past that.
Based on what this person says, you think you can divine his race and ethnicity? Do you realize how profoundly prejudicial it is to determine ethnicity and race from writing? What part of his language convinces you that he must be white?
I think (s)he’s green. As in a Troll.
“I think that these people are talking about personal experience and that they are very different experience from privileged white progressives that have never seen “the hood” or a police car in real life!”
Uh, huh. Calling bulls**t on that one.
I was attacked in my yard with a knife by three latino kids about twenty years ago. When I (barely) got inside and slammed the door on their fingers, the oldest kid turned and stabbed my Golden Retriever who had never even bothered to get up from where he was laying in the grass. Later, I testified against this kid in a court of law.
I DON’T tell people that Latino’s are all violent criminals. Because I have the capacity to differentiate between individuals and large swaths of the human race.
Mark,
Your comment seems very naive.
When we talk about “life experience” we’re not talking about how you were able to escape one mugging, once, where there actually was a police response, and where you had a home to retreat into from a back yard.
I live on the south side of Chicago for years. I lost track of the number of times I was targeted because of my skin color (targeted by pan handlers, muggers, people with generalized grievances who felt I could stand in for “every white person ever,” people who thought I just didn’t belong, etc.).
I can say, with 100% certainty, that there are important questions that need to be asked about the nature of subcultures which happen to be defined by race. At a point it is no longer about the actions of individuals, but about the actions that are tolerated, and even promoted, by the larger subculture.
Until you can recognize this fact, that sometimes behaviors stem from information handed down within the subculture, rather than spontaneous generation by individual volition, then it is you who are lacking in capacity to see the larger picture.
You know, Mike.
In my woefully under informed opinion, you jump to conclusions about people. Apparently, LOTS of people. You might want to consider looking at the world as something other than a lot of foregone conclusions, cause ultimately, you make the world you expect to see.
Mark,
This is a true story. I was on a train car on the Red Line in Chicago, a few stops before Garfield. A man, who was not white, approached me and told announced, in a loud voice, that he should beat the sh*t out of me because I was white. Multiple other passengers on the train car cheered him on. I was the only white person there.
Am I jumping to conclusions, or just making a pertinent observation when I say that there is something wrong with the subculture that allows cheering on the threat of a hate crime?
Or am I just “jumping to conclusions” instead of sharing my experiences?
I guess it’s easy to dismiss other people, isn’t it?
Mike,
Peter Houlihan posted this on another thread but it bears repeating here:
“There’s a few people in this thread speaking about how black neighbourhoods are dangerous, and that it’s justified for white parents to tell their kids to stay away from it.
I don’t think we should ignore that, or tell them to shut up. It’s a real problem when there’s a certain street your kids can’t go down because they might get shot. Next to that (trying to keep your kids alive), an appeal not to hurt someone’s feelings is is grotesque. But what I would like to say to those people is that while you have every right to be concerned and every right to tell your kids how to keep safe, you are doing harm by telling them that the problem is with black people.
I live in Ireland. I can’t find any statistics off hand about the ethnic breakdown of the country, but its almost all caucasian. Well over 90%.
And yet we have those areas too.
We don’t have the rampant gun crimes that the US does (over here people get mugged at knifepoint and needlepoint instead) but we have high crime areas. We have streets where its not really safe to walk at night, we have gangs of kids who kick people heads in because they looked at them the wrong way and our jails are packed with young people who steal cars and destroy them for no better reason than they’re bored.
I’m not going to pretend I have all the answers, I don’t, but if the problem is with black people then can someone explain how violent crime still happens here, where there’s barely any?”
Your capacity to differentiate appears to abandon you when it comes to priviliged white males, that’s a generalisation you based an entire article on isn’t it?
Here’s a thought regarding Trayvon Martin.
In which scenario would it have been more likely the Trayvon had survived?
If he had been a black female named Trish Martin, or if he had been a white male?
I would hypothesize that Trayvon would have had a lower chance for survival if he had been a white male, then if he had been a black female.
Chances are Zimmerman suffered more from a puffed up idea of his own importance, more so than racism. We see the racism, but not the gender simply because it’s same gender on same gender.
This is exactly the same mentality that keeps any press or civil rights leaders saying exactly zero about the fact that black males have 11 times the rate of being murdered over white women and 94% of the time his murderer is another black male.
It absolutely is possible to be oppressed by somebody of the same gender and same race as yourself. Strangely, when we discuss female victims the empathy is there regardless of the assailant (many feminist groups have a strong talking point over honor killings and breast ironing and FGM in other countries even though the assailant in the overwhelming majority of cases is the mother).
I wish we could stop having disclaimers to talking about male victimhood. Where are all the articles about the hundreds of black males dead at the hands of other black males nationwide since the Trayvon Martin story broke?
I’ll agree that one thing that bothers me is that most of the conversation on Martin’s death was kept focused on race as if that is the only factor here. I truly think that if:
Martin were a black girl gender would be just as hot (if not hotter) topic than race.
Martin had been a white boy this story would have never made it to high profile and Zimmerman would have just been written off as a random gun nut that went too far.
Martin were a white girl Zimmerman would already be on death row and politicians would be tripping over themselves to get on board some “Martin’s Law” bandwagon.
I absolutely agree that Travyon was shot because of walking while male, but walking while black was definitely a part of it. White guys just don’t get attacked as often as black guys.