Facebook Will Make Policing Anti-White Speech a ‘Low Priority’

by Christopher Paslay

It’s become clear Facebook doesn’t want to get in the way of society’s coordinated disruption of whiteness, white people, or white culture.

Facebook is readjusting it algorithms to police anti-black hate speech more aggressively than anti-white hate speech. According to an article in USA Today:

Facebook bans hate speech based on race, gender and other characteristics. It relies on a set of rules called “Community Standards” to guide decisions about what violates that ban. The standards are enforced by computer algorithms and human moderators. 

According to Facebook’s hate speech policy, derogatory statements about men and white people are treated the same as anti-Semitic statements or racial epithets. 

For years, civil rights activists have lobbied Facebook to change its policy of protecting all groups equally. . . .

And protecting all groups equally — judging whites and people of color by the same standards — is definitely a big no-no in contemporary American woke culture.  

Take, for example, the Associated Press’s new rules for capitalizing the word “black” in its news articles, but not the word “white.” 

“AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black,” the AP writes. “AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses.”

And why don’t white people deserve to have their race capitalized?  

“After a review and period of consultation, we found, at this time, less support for capitalizing white,” the AP states. “We agree that white people’s skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore those problems. But capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.

So when you capitalize “black,” it’s social justice, but when you capitalize “white,” it’s racism and white supremacy.

The idea that so-called “whiteness” and white culture must be disrupted and dismantled is steadily gaining ground in a society infiltrated by wokeness. In March of 2019, The Paris Review published an article by black college professor Venita Blackburn titled “White People Must Save Themselves from Whiteness,” which stated that white people suffer from “cognitive dissonance” and “profit off of gruesome human suffering” while remaining happy.

In June of this year black education activist Nahliah Webber, the Executive Director of the Orleans Public Education Network, published an article in the Education Post titled “If You Really Want to Make a Difference in Black Lives, Change How You Teach White Kids.”  In it she speaks of the “pathology of whiteness,” explaining that whiteness is literally a disease that needs to be cured. Her article was so offensive and radical, that Megyn Kelly pulled her children from the Upper West Side private school that allegedly circulated the article.

In the fall of 2019, New York City Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza held a training for administrators that aimed to end “white supremacy culture in schools,” a training some parents and administrators called “toxic and polarizing.” Carranza was later sued by four white female administrators for racial discrimination after they were allegedly demoted and replaced simply for being white

In July of this year, the National Museum of African American History and Culture published a pamphlet titled “Aspects and Assumption of Whiteness and White Culture,” where white children were taught to confront their “whiteness,” because according to anti-racist dogma, whiteness is inherently racist, oppressive, and provides unearned privileges to whites at the expense of people of color.

In August, the City of Seattle held a training called “Internalized Racial Superiority for White People” for its 10,000 city employees.  

According to an article in the City Paper by Christopher Rufo:

The trainers require white employees to examine their “relationships with white supremacy, racism, and whiteness” and explain how their “[families] benefit economically from the system of white supremacy even as it directly and violently harms Black people.”

Entire academic journals now exist for dismantling  so-called “whiteness,” like the journal “Whiteness and Education.” An article published in October of 2019 was titled, “Unmasking white fragility: how whiteness and white student resistance impacts anti-racist education.”

Robin DiAngelo, whose book White Fragility has sold several million copies, says Whites must be blunt and actively call out the oppressiveness of “whiteness” in order to stop systemic racism. To be “less white,” DiAngelo states, “is to be less oppressive racially. To be less arrogant. To be less certain. To be less defensive. To be less ignorant.”  

Cal-Berkeley now offers a course titled “Deconstructing Whiteness,” which “aims to confront conversations about privilege and positionality to understand where white bodies have the responsibility to be in movements against white supremacy and in solidarity with marginalized peoples and groups of color.” The class will not “coddle white fragility,” the course description states, but will help students “deconstruct and relearn whiteness through case studies, speakers, and critical readings.”

It’s become quite clear that Facebook doesn’t want to get in the way of the coordinated disruption of whiteness, white people, or white culture. 

“Facebook still considers statements about men and white people to be in violation of its hate speech policy, and users can still report these statements, but the company’s algorithms will no longer automatically flag and delete them, resulting in about 10,000 fewer posts being removed each day,” Facebook said.

It’s good to see that Facebook is living up to its obligations to remain fair and impartial.

Exposing Seattle’s ‘Internalized Racial Superiority for White People’ Training

by Christopher Paslay

Under the banner of “antiracism,” Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights is now explicitly endorsing principles of segregationism, group-based guilt, and race essentialism—ugly concepts that should have been left behind a century ago.

Christopher F. Rufo, the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth & Poverty and a contributing editor for City Journal, recently obtained new documents from Seattle’s segregated “whites-only” trainings, which induct white employees into the cult of critical race theory.

As Rufo writes on his website:

Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights has developed a “race and social justice” curriculum for all 10,000 city employees.

I’ve obtained new documents from the city’s segregated “whites-only” trainings, which induct white employees into the cult of critical race theory.

The trainers require white employees to examine their “relationships with white supremacy, racism, and whiteness” and explain how their “[families] benefit economically from the system of white supremacy even as it directly and violently harms Black people.”

Under the banner of “antiracism,” Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights is now explicitly endorsing principles of segregationism, group-based guilt, and race essentialism—ugly concepts that should have been left behind a century ago.

Clearly, this is a violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which exists to outlaw discrimination based upon a person’s race, color, religion, sex, or country of national origin. It explicitly expands these protections to employment programs. Under Title VII:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training. (42 U.S. Code §2000e-2(d).)

Here are some of Seattle’s ‘Internalized Racial Superiority for White People’ training documents:

This slide below introduces the segregated training based on race, and asks white participants to introduce themselves and name their preferred “pronouns,” callously assuming the participants are even comfortable doing so (or communicating in such a manner).

This slide below, titled “Internalized Racial Superiority,” teaches that all whites internalize a “system of white supremacy,” and insists that all segregated white participants in the room suffer from such stigmatizing things as “cognitive dissonance,” “arrogance,” “violence,” and “anti-blackness,” among a dozen others.

This slide, titled “What We Do In White People Space,” encourages the segregated whites in the room to process white feelings (like sadness, shame, paralysis, confusion, and denial), to accept retraining (to learn new behaviors, concepts, missing histories, and ways of seeing that are hidden from them in white supremacy), and to take action to shift power (get politically active in helping redistribute resources, change who’s in power, and alter situations).  

This slide, titled “Our Relationship With White Supremacy, Racism, and Whiteness in this Moment,” asks the segregated whites in the room to respond to one prompt. Prompt #1 asks: How are you aware of the ways that your family benefits economically from the system of white supremacy even as it directly and violently harms Black people and non-Black people of color and Indigenous people? Prompt #2 asks: How are you aware of your “white silence” (not naming race, racism or the system of white supremacy or taking action to end it) when it comes to comments and actions that cause harm to Black people? And prompt #3 asks: How is your “white fragility” showing up at work? (White fragility is a reflexive, defensive and sometimes deflecting response that we as white people can experience when feeling challenged about our relationship to race, racism and the system of white supremacy.)

It’s unclear whether any Seattle employee has filed a lawsuit against the city thus far.  However, Christopher F. Rufo is planning to file a complaint against Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights. In a July 29 Tweet, Rufo writes:

In the coming weeks, I will be filling an official civil rights complaint against Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights. They have created a new form of “institutional racism” that violates the core principle of “equality under the law.” It’s time to fight back.

It’s only a matter of time before others take Rufo’s lead and stand up against such divisive and polarizing racial discrimination. Proactively advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion is one thing (and should be encouraged and applauded), but reeducating employees with toxic racial bigotry that clearly violates Title VII under The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not be tolerated.