Show post

MindGeek #racist #sexist dailydot.com

‘Border Patrol Sex’ is the lowest of the low in online porn

Art has never imitated life so disgustingly.

One of the biggest pornography companies in the world has launched a webseries called Border Patrol Sex that features American border patrol agents catching undocumented Mexican and Central American immigrant women attempting to cross the border, arresting them, handcuffing them, raping them, and then sending them back to Mexico.

The reality of the series is too close for comfort. A recent Fusion investigation revealed that 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. from Mexico are raped during their journey.

“Women and girl migrants, especially those without legal status traveling in remote areas or on trains, are at heightened risk of sexual violence at the hands of criminal gangs, people traffickers, other migrants or corrupt officials,” read a 2010 Amnesty International report that Fusion cited in its investigation.

For many women coming to America, rape is the price paid to advance in their journey. Women and girl’s bodies are traded like currency to buy a few extra miles northward. Assailants are rarely caught or prosecuted.

Border Patrol Sex isn’t the diseased brainchild of random misogynistic nativists with video cameras. The site is operated and owned by MindGeek, a European company that owns most of the biggest porn sites on the Web, including YouPorn, Pornhub, Xtube, RedTube, SpankWire, and dozens of major porn sites.

MindGeek established Border Patrol Sex earlier this year, around the same time that news stories circulated about sexual assault of female migrants. In the videos, sex is a punishment to be endured before being deported.

“Watch these guys hunting the illegal female immigrants and giving them a lesson on why the law should be obeyed,” Border Patrol Sex’s website states. “Cruising in their SUV, agents catch these college girls in the field and fuck them really hard. Getting fucked by border patrol agent is one thing, but these girls don’t know that this doesn’t really mean they get to pass the border afterwards. The harsh school of reality!”

Show post

Amos Yee #fundie dailydot.com

Amos Yee, the Singaporean vlogger who was granted asylum in the U.S. last year, has been suspended from Twitter for his pro-pedophilia views.

The 20-year-old’s YouTube channel was removed earlier this year after he used the platform to defend pedophilia, and it appears he transitioned over to Facebook and Twitter to continue promoting those views. More recent posts were circulated and reported last week in an effort to get Yee suspended. Yee posting an image of a young girl with the caption “How does one not become a pedophile?” might have been the deciding factor for Twitter finally banning him on Saturday. However, his Twitter bio had long declared, “I defend Pedophiles publicly on the Internet.”

He was also urging followers to join his “pedo-friendly” Discord server, though according to a Facebook post, that server was taken down, as were the accounts of people in that server.

Yee’s Facebook page and Patreon account also appear to be down. Complicating matters even more, the U.S.-based activist who helped secure and finance Yee’s asylum status, Melissa Chen, now wants him to be deported. Yee was originally granted asylum after criticizing Singapore’s late president in 2015. Last year, when his pro-pedophile views started becoming public, Chen disavowed him.

On Tuesday, she released a statement writing, “Legitimizing pedophilia and organizing/promoting it generate negative externalities that involve the welfare of children, and they should not be given free reign. Being in America is a privilege and not a right. #AmosYee has abused that privilege. Deport him.”

Show post

Rachel Dolezal #racist dailydot.com

Rachel Dolezal, former African-American studies professor and NAACP branch president, thinks she faces more stigma against “racial fluidity” as a “transracial” person than transgender people do for gender fluidity.

In an interview with Salon for her new book on racial identity, Dolezal, who was outed as a white woman presenting as black in 2015, compared her racial identity to Caitlyn Jenner, who publicly came out as trans shortly before Dolezal’s bust.

“There was kind of this comparison [between Dolezal and Jenner.] What’s not similar is the stigma right now. There was stigma in the past for sure, and that still perpetuates to a degree. But there’s more stigma for race fluidity than gender fluidity right now, and I don’t think anybody would deny that,” Dolezal said.

She then went on to explain how transgender and gay people were once medically diagnosed as crazy for their identities. But, you know, never mind the fact that gay conversion therapy camps still exist and transgender people are abused and murdered for existing—according to Dolezal, that ship in history has sailed. And she hopes that inclusion can extend to “transracial” people, too.

Dolezal also told Salon that she’s not the only “transracial” person in the world, offering anecdotes of conversations with black women and biracial women who have told her that they also struggle with their racial identity, too.

“I get a lot of direct messages on social media. I have heard from many black and biracial women,” Dolezal said. “They say, ‘I constantly was told I wasn’t black enough, and I finally gave in and identified as Latina for my adult life, or let people see me as white, and didn’t bother correcting them anymore—just lived however people saw me.'”

Again, but just forget that colorism polices how “black” a black woman is or isn’t, and that being multiracial comes with its own struggle of feeling too insufficient to represent any race. Nope, these kinds of struggles with racial identity are definitely “transracial” issues. Definitely.

Show post

Indiana legislature #fundie dailydot.com

On Tuesday, the Indiana Senate approved a measure that would forbid pregnant minors from obtaining abortions without first attempting to legally notify their parents.

According to the Associated Press, the measure would change the state’s existing judicial waiver process for minors seeking abortions, which allows a minor to secure a juvenile court order that would bypass the state’s requirement to get a parent’s approval for an abortion.

The bill would require that at least one of the minor’s parents be served a legal written notice that the minor is seeking an abortion through the waiver process. Only once the notice is served could a juvenile court hearing occur to approve the minor’s waiver. The bill would also allow parents to testify if their daughter is competent enough to decide for herself if she can have an abortion.

Several lawmakers and abortion activists, Republicans included, said the bill would be deemed unconstitutional since it effectively eliminates the minor bypass. Critics also say the bill makes the process of obtaining abortions via parental bypass more difficult in cases of rape and incest and could put minors at risk of physical harm.

“This is essentially and fundamentally going through, around, and getting rid of the whole point of judicial bypass,” Democratic state Sen. Karen Tallian said, according to AP. “It puts the parents back into the mix, when the whole purpose of the bypass was to keep them out of the mix.”

However, supporters say the bill would protect teens from being coerced into having abortions, noting that it doesn’t allow parents to veto their child’s decision to get an abortion if granted the bypass—just that it would let parents provide evidence on the maturity of their child to make that decision.

According to the Indianapolis Star, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana, Jane Henegar, has said the bill violates current case law, and that they will sue Indiana if the bill becomes a law.

Research organization the Guttmacher Institute reports that of the 36 states that allow minors to pursue judicial waivers, none require parents be notified of the bypass. In addition to circumventing the bypass, the bill would also allow parents of minors who have had abortions to pursue legal recourse against individuals who helped the minor get the abortion without their consent.

Decisions on the parental notification bill came just a day after the Indiana House approved a bill requiring abortion providers to tell patients about a possible “abortion reversal” procedure, which hasn’t been scientifically proven to work. The bill would require that abortion providers tell women about the procedure, where they can get it, and include a disclaimer that it’s not scientifically proven.

A medical abortion requires two medicines to be taken over the course of a few days, but advocates of this bill say that the abortion can be reversed halfway through if patients are given a high level of progesterone. Opponents, including those who are against abortion, say the bill provides women with conflicting information and is far-reaching.

The parental notification bill has been sent to the House for further consideration, while the abortion reversal bill has been sent to the Senate.

Show post

Derrick Clifton #racist dailydot.com

9 clueless things white people say when confronted with racism

As people who benefit from racial privilege, whites can support the leadership of people of color by first challenging these deeply-ingrained myths about racism before entering into a conversation about it, especially with people of color:

1) “You’re racist for making this an issue of race.”

More often than not, when a person of color brings up racism, chances are there’s something problematic happening. It’d be naive to assume that people of color simply exist as opportunists who pounce on any single chance to make a big deal about racism. If you’re tired of hearing about racism, how tired do you think people of color are from having to live surrounded by racism in the first place?

2) “I don’t see race. I only see the human race.”

While this may sound revolutionary, so-called color-blindness is actually part of the problem. Not “seeing race” is simply a lazy coded phrase for deliberately ignoring the lingering elements of racism that actually need to be fixed and reinforces the privilege of being able to bypass the negative effects of racism in the first place. As the saying goes, “You can’t erase what you cannot face.”

3) “Talking about issues in terms of ‘white people’ and ‘white privilege’ is reverse racism.”

About that reverse racism thing... it doesn’t exist. It’s no secret that it is humanly possible for a person of color to be prejudiced against whites. Sometimes, it’s an attitude that develops over time because their experience with racism has drawn them to the conclusion that no “good” white people exist in the world. And although there’s a lot of healing that needs to happen in that much more seldom instance of prejudice, the attitude itself doesn’t come with an entire system of benefits and institutional power that being white affords in America. That’s the difference between racism and prejudice, because racism at its root is about supremacy.

4) “You [person of color] clearly don’t know what racism is. According to Webster’s Dictionary...”

Don’t do it. Step away from this infantilizing situation to avoid being a white person dictating how racism works to a person of color, despite their actual lived experiences with it. As for how Webster’s and other dictionaries defines the issue? The oversimplification is a topic that merits an entire thesis.

5) “You [person of color] said something about white people doing racist things, so I demand you explain this to me right now.”

People of color are not on-demand racial justice educators, especially if they have no relationship or affinity with someone seeking the knowledge. In the age of the Internet, if you don’t know someone from a particular community you can speak with, you can likely find those voices on blogs, on Twitter, or even in columns and news articles, talking about the very things you’re seeking to understand. Instead of taxing the already tapped reserves of people of color when dealing with racism, try self-educating before knocking on someone’s door.

6) “But my [person of color] friend said it was OK if I did it [racially problematic thing].”

Still, it’s not the best idea to apply that relational dynamic with one friend to an entire group of people, many of whom have a different relationship with certain words, phrases or actions. Would you touch the hair of a black female stranger just because your black female friend allows you to touch hers?

7) “Stop attacking me for having privileges just because I’m white. It’s racist and hurtful.”

When people critique racism and white privilege in America, they’re speaking generally about a system and not the individual. Unless, that is, an individual instance merits the person being held accountable for their actions (i.e. Donald Sterling, Paula Deen, Iggy Azalea).

8) “I’m sick of pretending that [people of color] need special rights and programs just because they aren’t white. We have problems too, you know.”

To have problems in life is an inherent part of the human condition. But it takes humility, grace and empathy to take the time and space for reflection and self-examination to truly understand that some of us have it much better than others—despite our often half-hearted efforts to ensure equal opportunities for everyone, especially blacks and people of color. Yes, whites can be poor, or female, or LGBT, or immigrants, or have white skin but actually be multi-ethnic, the list goes on. That’s why intersectionality matters, and it includes an interrogation of racial privilege.

9) [Insert tear-filled expression of white privilege guilt or denial here.]

First, it’s okay to have emotions and to feel genuinely remorseful when it’s clear that a cruelly reprehensible system has been perpetuated in a word or an action. Emotional policing isn’t cool, and people of color know it all too well. However, more often than not, when the tears flow, they correlate with an outright rejection of the idea that whiteness in America is privileged and normalized in virtually every social and institutional structure. In this instance, instead of centering the many, intensely hurtful experiences of people of color, the person has derailed the conversation and made it completely about them.

It not only shifts accountability in a way that’s been historically dangerous, it also reinforces the very privilege being interrogated: Because these white tears and white feelings are often prioritized above the lived struggles of non-white people.

Show post

WikiLeaks #racist dailydot.com

image

...

"The Wikileaks account subsequently tweeted some explanations of what the offending tweet meant, suggesting that “neo-liberal castle creepers” had appropriated the racist-turned-anti-racist solidarity gesture, turning it into “a tribalist designator for establishment climbers.” A clarifying tweet also misspelled “gesture” as “jesture,” which further stoked accusations of witting anti-Semitism.

...

Wikileaks ultimately defended the decision to delete the tweets, saying they’d been intentionally misconstrued by “pro-Clinton hacks and neo-Nazis.” It’s also been maintaining a pretty aggressive public relations posture regarding these latest leaks. It threatened MSNBC host Joy Reid for tweeting that she planned to discuss an “affinity” between the group and the Russian government on her show, saying “our lawyers will monitor your program.”

...

So, again, not the best tone for a group dedicated to prying open closed organizations, regardless of their desires. It also responded to an article by Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall, investigating alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin, accusing him of “weird priority” for focusing on the method of the correspondences' release rather than the data dump itself."