Image 01 Image 03

Twitter suspended Candace Owens after she tested how Twitter would react to Sarah Jeong tweets if targeting Jews and Blacks, instead of Whites

Twitter suspended Candace Owens after she tested how Twitter would react to Sarah Jeong tweets if targeting Jews and Blacks, instead of Whites

Twitter apologized, but this shows how Twitter tolerates anti-White hate coming from leftists.

Conservative commentator Candace Owens, a black woman, wanted to make a point on Twitter and boy did she ever. The New York Times new editorial board member Sarah Jeong has dominated the news cycle these past few days due to her old racist tweets against white people. The left has defended her because, after all, white people cannot experience racism. Duh.

Owens decided to expose the double standard by changing Jeong’s tweets. Instead of white, she used Jewish and black. Twitter immediately suspended her account for 12 hours.

via The Daily Caller

The suspension led to backlash, which caused Twitter to restore Owens’ account. From The Daily Caller:

“Twitter takes reports of violations of the Twitter Rules very seriously,” Twitter’s support team wrote in an email to Owens, who shared it with TheDCNF. “After reviewing your account, it looks like we made an error.”

“This was our mistake and we’ve apologized to the account owner for the error,” a spokeswoman for Twitter told TheDCNF. The spokesperson did not say whether a human content monitor or an algorithm was responsible for suspending Owens’ account.

Owens spoke to The Daily Caller and said the experiment worked:

“The thing is, I wouldn’t have minded if I was locked out, because I actually agree with Twitter that that language is inappropriate,” Owens said.

“My point in tweeting that and replacing the word with black and Jewish yesterday was to show how different that mentality is when you see it in that context and you see talking about Jewish people and predisposed to burning under the sun or black people saying they should live underground,” she said.

“It’s horrifically racist, but somehow we’ve gotten to a point in society where it’s OK to say the exact same thing about white people, and that’s problematic.”

Twitter and Facebook keep facing criticism over supposed censorship of those with conservative views. There’s talk of Twitter “shadow banning” prominent conservatives, which is “limiting the reach of disfavored accounts.” The platform simply removes “your name from from its autopopulated drop-down search box, making it harder to find you.” This tactic has targeted Republican Reps. Mark Meadows (NC) and Matt Gaetz (FL) among others.

Look, Twitter is a private company and can dow whatever it wants, but don’t be shocked when people find your claims of upholding your policy as disingenuous. Double standards suck.

Racism is racism and hate is hate. In my original post about Jeong I asked why it’s okay to have racist views against white people and not blacks or Asians? Why is it okay to hate Christians and Jews, but not Muslims? It shouldn’t be okay to hold any racist or hatred views.

[Featured image via YouTube]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


That was no mistake. Her account was banned by the ban bot exactly as it has been programmed to behave by treating racism aimed at Whites as being ok.

    It’s a little more complicated, but you have the basics.

    From what I understand, minorities have endured years/decades/centuries of oppression at the hands of straight white males, which somehow creates a ‘guilt debt’ in the Leftist bank.

    Minorities (i.e. everbody except SWMs) are permitted/encouraged to withdraw from this bank account as much as they want, provided they direct their ire at SWMs. There is no danger of the account becoming overdrawn no matter how much is withdrawn from it because of *continuing* discrimination on behalf of SWMs, one indication of which is any case where SWMs object to this treatment.

    Now, the types of people permitted to withdraw from the account vary, depending on political orientation, so you can actually have a minority descendant of slaves banished from the ‘bank’ while certain SWMs who have bowed and scraped in the appropriate fashion are permitted to take a few pennies out in loose change if they spend it correctly.

    Sound about right?

      Liberty in reply to georgfelis. | August 6, 2018 at 12:20 pm

      Hmmmm, “oppression at the hands of straight white males”. What the heck does sexual orientation have to do with this post? Obviously, sexual orientation is very important to you no matter what the topic of discussion.

        iconotastic in reply to Liberty. | August 6, 2018 at 3:28 pm

        Not very intersectional of you to refute the intersectionality of whites and males and straights with regard to the anti-white institutional racism that permeates our society.

      kholvoet in reply to georgfelis. | August 6, 2018 at 1:03 pm

      Q: how can you tell if a tweet is racist?A: it depends, true racism can only come from a position of powerQ: how can you tell if it's from a position of power?A: when the tweeter doesn't get fired for it— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 2, 2018

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you that leftists are biased! Double standard? Without it, they would have no standard at all.

And now an all white group of Antifa leftist thugs have harassed her while she was eating breakfast. Her crime–free thinking while black.

What’s “Twitter”? And why should I give a rat’s ass about some fool being hired by The NY Times?

That was no mistake. This is part of a co-ordinated campaign by large entities at the bidding of real, live fascists.

Her account was banned for commenting on tweets by Sarah Jeong, who has a long history of inappropriate tweets. Sarah Jeong is not the only one, and Twitter is not the only social media entity engaged in blatant discrimination against harmless conservatives.

I can understand why U-Tube might have a beef with Milo because he does wrap some of his ideas in incendiary language, but there was no excuse for demonetizing Diamond and Silk and suspending Jordan Peterson.

I have no idea why the hell Amazon could possibly object to Professor Jacobson, either.

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | August 6, 2018 at 11:33 am

    It was a mistake and when it was brought to their attention they apologized. But it points out a huge problem. Owens’s case only came to their attention because she has such a huge following, so her suspension created enough of a backlash to get someone to look at it in order to prepare a response. That person saw what had happened and corrected the error. But how many hundreds or thousands of people posting similar things have been suspended without triggering enough of a fuss for someone with some common sense to look at their cases? It’s like the Duke Lacrosse team; they were vindicated because their parents were rich enough to afford top lawyers, but how many others were dragged down by the same scam without anyone noticing? That’s the real problem. In the Duke case it was (we hope) fixed by Nifong’s fall and disgrace; but at Twitter nobody is interested in fixing it.

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | August 6, 2018 at 11:37 am

    I have no idea why the hell Amazon could possibly object to Professor Jacobson, either.

    We know why that happened. Amazon, recognizing its own lack of expertise on the subject, outsourced its policing to a company it thought was both expert and honest. The SPLC. We know that neither “expert” nor “honest” belong in the sentence as the SPLC, but most people who aren’t paying attention don’t know it. They just assume the SPLC is everything it claims to be, and give it money and power thinking they will be used responsibly. More fools them, but they don’t know any better.

      iconotastic in reply to Milhouse. | August 6, 2018 at 3:30 pm

      Amazon has top men working on the problem of hate. Top….men

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | August 6, 2018 at 9:46 pm

      “…but they don’t know any better.”

      Gullible, foolish, ignorant. Of course they know what the SPLC is and does. Only loony fools don’t know this and Amazon’s leadership are not fools.

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | August 7, 2018 at 8:20 am

        Not true. Most people don’t know the truth about SPLC, not because they’re stupid or gullible but because they’re not paying attention. They know as much about the players in this field as I do about baseball players, i.e. I’ve never heard of any but the most famous players, and I have the vague impression that they’re probably famous because they’re good, but I couldn’t tell you why they’re good. SPLC is famous, it promotes itself as a stalwart fighter against the ever-present menace of bigotry, and it never occurs to most people to question this.

A perfectly good test to flush out institutional anti-white racism at Twitter. But it’s not new. I took part in a similar test fifty years ago. The social and institutional reaction was identical. (Of course we didn’t have Twitter then, but we did have the written English language, and we managed to get by with just that.)

This B.S. was endemic a half-century ago. Pointing out its absurdity and hypocrisy won’t be any more effective now than it was then.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | August 6, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Candace is brilliant!!!!!

God bless you Candace!!!!!!

DINORightMarie | August 6, 2018 at 12:49 pm

Below are some links as to your closing questions, Ms. Chastain. (I go back as far as I can find, 1985 but by no means is this exhaustive or definitive.)

Note: this redefinition of the term and its use is now systemic, pervasive, but evolved from academia and so-called Social Justice ideology, as the following links show:

The steady, subversive redefinition of ‘racism’

Racism – Wiktionary

Redefining Racism in the 21st Century

Racism – Wikipedia

Redefining Racism?

Prejudice plus power – Rational Wiki

Redefining Institutional Racism

Dear White People, Your “Dictionary Definition” of Racism is Wrong

I won’t go on….I think the point is clear. This was being done, started long ago by radicals and neo-Marxists (redundant, I know). Slowly, slowly the definition became accepted, quoted, cited, until the media, social media arbiters, etc. consider it to be THE definition. The Obama era of SJW outrageous outrage sealed it. And those who could stop it were either marginalized or ineffective.

Is there no one in the press curious enough to question the actual and specific people who designed and wrote an algorithm that made “black” or “jewish” a dog whistle for censorship? I would assume “muslim” and “islam” would have also triggered DEFCON 4 in Silicon Valley.

Someone somewhere signed of on this “algorithm” and it’s doing exactly what it is supposed to. Eventually they will stop getting caught.

Twitter was tested, and failed.
Well done Candace for exposing their duplicity!

JohnSmith100 | August 6, 2018 at 2:18 pm

It is ironic that today blacks are probably the most rabid racists in America. Obama’s DOJ, turning a blind eye to black organized violation of people’s civil rights empowered them to be even more aggressive. Unfortunately, American law enforcement is still giving them a free pass.

    B Buchanan in reply to JohnSmith100. | August 6, 2018 at 9:08 pm

    Well JS100, I wouldn’t hold my breath on the police waking up. I asked my nephew, an LEO, if his behavior at work has been affected by what’s happened in the news. He gave me one of those “duh yeah” expressions and said, “I have a wife and four kids. After what happened in Ferguson I’m never going to risk my career to arrest some guy. Yeah, a lot of my fellow cops feel the same way.”

Heck, I’m old enough to remember when folks on the Left worried about large corporations becoming “de-facto” governments by regulating speech and by limiting the things we could buy and do.