Tag: Candace Owens

Candace Owens Supports a Flag Over the Constitution

Jack Parkos | @laissez_faire76

On Saturday, President Trump created a new controversy when he tweeted that it was a “no brainer” to have an amendment that would ban the burning of the American flag.

However, the situation got heated when conservative activist Candace Owens tweeted that she believed flag burning warrants a loss of citizenship.

Continue reading “Candace Owens Supports a Flag Over the Constitution”


Newsflash: Candace Owens Is Not Hitler

Glenn Verasco |Thailand

I have published 132 blog posts thus far (this one is number 133). But I have failed to complete or decided not to publish at least 100 others. Sometimes I lose my train of thought, sometimes my research persuades me to disagree with my initial thesis, and sometimes I fear my words could come back to haunt me if ill-intended people come across them. Still other times, I simply can’t find a way to express my thoughts in a way that I feel comfortable sharing with my readers.

Continue reading “Newsflash: Candace Owens Is Not Hitler”

Twitter’s Terrible Mob Mentality

By K. Tymon Zhou | United States

A defining characteristic of mobs is their irrationality. Self-awareness is lost in an all-consuming group identity. They readily apply double standards without a second thought. Most mobs are monstrous mayflies, spreading disaster momentary.  Unfortunately, a mob mentality can morph into a corporate culture. Such is the terrible tale of Twitter and Candace Owens.

Candace Owens, a conservative activist at Turning Point USA, had her Twitter account banned for 12 hours. Why? Mimicking The New York Times writer Sarah Jeong, Owens made defamatory statements:

Such statements are shocking.  One can readily understand why Twitter would ban a user who made such statements. However, Owens stated she simply used black where Jeong used white. Her intent was clear: to criticize Jeong. Nevertheless, Twitter, falsely detecting hate, banned her. To their credit, Twitter apologized. This begs the question: why wasn’t Jeong similarly banned? The answer lies in the psychological origins of mob mentality and Twitter’s corporate culture.

Mobs are a catastrophic case of conformity.  In 1951, Solomon Asch, a psychology professor at Swarthmore College, conducted a classic experiment on conformity.  During the experiment, students were presented several lines and were asked to compare a line.  Asch separated the students into groups of eight with seven being willing confederates with him. The confederates would give an incorrect answer before the unaware participant. However, thirty-two percent of participants agreed with the incorrect majority.   In mobs, individuals who would otherwise challenge the mob’s flawed assumptions bend to the majority’s will. Asch’s experiment presented only peer influence. In reality, mobs present even greater pressure such as damaging a dissident’s career.   This results in even greater conformity under such conditions.

A corporate culture can similarly create conformity. If a corporate culture is dominated by a particular ideology, individuals from opposing ideologies feel less comfortable sharing their views. Such is the case with several technology companies such as Apple and Facebook. In a survey by the Lincoln Network, sixty-six percent of conservatives and libertarians in these companies shared that they would feel uncomfortable sharing their political views with their colleagues. By way of comparison,  only thirty percent of liberals felt similarly.  This liberal corporate culture can lead to poorly informed decisions such as whether or not to ban an individual from using Twitter. Mo Nohrai, a former Twitter content agent, describes this process:

…if they said this is: ‘Pro-Trump’ I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, ‘Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?

The response of “Mo’s right, let’s go” echoes Asch’s line experiment. In a corporation dominated by liberal ideology such as Twitter, questioning a ban would likely go unrewarded. It would result in exposing political views, something many conservative and libertarian employees find uncomfortable. Instead, they are placed with a stark choice: conform and succeed or dissent and be isolated. Faced with such a choice, remaining silent seems the preferable option, allowing double standards to emerge.

What can Twitter do to resolve this conflict? Altering a culture presents no easy task. By making the banning process more sophisticated, Twitter can avoid embarrassing mistakes such as Owen’s. By decentralizing this process, Twitter could remove the pressure to conform to a content agent’s position.  In any case, substantial reform is needed to control Twitter’s mob mentality. Through such efforts, Twitter can regain its rationality and become the open forum it needs to be.

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Redpillblocked: How Candice Owens Is Tarnishing The Conservative Movement

By Joey Caso | United States

Stefan Molyneux, The Rubin Report, Louder with Crowder, Infowars and even Fox News have contributed to the fame of the young, attractive, black, conservative female by the name of Candace Owens. (More widely known as, Redpillblack). However, when right-wingers arranged to meet her it seemed that her external characteristics were all they had in mind once she made it clear she was a conservative. The truth is that she does not only contribute nothing new to the conservative movement, but she tarnishes it.

This can be clearly demonstrated in the exposition of her disastrous debate with the moderate-right, transgender Youtuber, Blaire White on the Youtube show, the Rubin Report in early November of 2017. In this “debate” that can only be described as an enraging, soul-crushing, dumpster fire, Candace opens up with something so meaningless, so irrelevant, so, as Blaire later describes, “petty”, it blows the mind of every competent person listening.

She starts off stating that she isn’t comfortable using the “she pronoun”, which is highly suspicious to begin a discussion for a mainstream conservative especially one that was a social justice warrior just a year before. She continues to say, “I think it betrays the audience when you make it sound like this is a petty catfight and there are two girls sitting across from a table, when in fact it is a grown man sitting across from a grown woman.”

It is at this moment when I share all the pain expressed in the disheartened face of Dave Rubin. Listening to her mini-rant was like drowning in a pool of built up tension and pure idiocy. This was the jagged foundation the rest of the hour and a half live-stream debate was built on, things only got worse from there.

I don’t know what was worse, the complete irrelevance and personally aggressive nature the statement contained or the idea that two women having a conversation about public disagreements would be a nonconstructive cat fight. It was at this point in my research of Redpillblack where I became massively skeptical about her political alignment.

To say what she said and then repeatedly and obnoxiously yell at Blaire White while playing the victim card was like watching a manifestation of what a radical liberal thinks a conservative is and what a radical conservative thinks a liberal is, in one person.

This debate was about Candace’s since-deleted site, Social Autopsy, an anti-harassment kick-starter many called out for being fishy, before and after she made her claim to conservative fame. The site collected people’s public information across all of their platforms and put it in one place. It had sections to insert someone’s pictures, first and last name, the city/state they live in, their social media URL’s, the school they go to and even their current employer, with the screenshots of the triggering thing they posted too, of course.

To make a site to hold someone’s feet to the fire when they post a stupid or slightly offensive meme is absolutely ridiculous. As she narrates in the site’s promotion video, she wished to create profiles compiled with the information I mentioned earlier for those who “lob hate speech over the internet.” With all of this in mind, I could have seen her side of the argument, this site could have acted as some kind of cyberspace invisible hand that disincentives bullying.

However, once criticism came her way her argument which she could have stood by was traded for fake ignorance, hypocrisy, and conspiracy theories. In the debate, Blaire White points out that the site could have been easily used for doxxing and according to her, was used for doxxing.

Social autopsy was a database that people used to enter information about others, the thing is that there is no telling if that information is public or not, Candace just assumes so. If you get mad at a friend or co-worker you can post a picture that they did not post online, an address that they kept private, an employer that they did not input into their profiles, etc.

Candace argued this database was “a non-functioning splash page” another point of contention in the debate. Many YouTubers and the “anti” community, like Andy Warski, took Blaire’s side saying the idea Social Autopsy was simply a splash page was unequivocally false.

After that Redpillblack then described all of the people who made videos criticising her dox-inviting database in hopes of getting it taken down, as “bottom feeders”.  She then continues to make the absolutely terrible point that “there’s so much going on in the world today” so its weird to dedicate your time on her and her crap chute of a site and not on terrorism or “everything that has been going on with the Trump presidency”.

Then there were the conspiracies.

In a Facebook video, Candace says that there were conspiracies about her being a government plant which in reality were very scarce. However, many questioned if she was truly conservative which is pretty reasonable considering what I have mentioned thus far. But what she did was make a conspiracy about the conspiracy by calling it a “deep web rumor” which was beyond an exaggeration, it was just plain false.

She then says that she firmly believes Richard Spencer, who agreed with her skeptics, is a “democratic operative”. You might wonder, ‘There must be a surplus of undeniable evidence to make such a claim.’ Well as you would probably guess by now, this is not the case. She provides approximately zero evidence to back up this claim as well as the next claim she spouts in which the conservative accounts criticizing her were apparently just “trolls” that were out to get her.

With all of this deception and overall suspiciousness, one would think it is reasonable to be skeptical of Redpillblack, right? According to her, absolutely not. She said in her Facebook video, “we cannot become skeptics”. So naturally, on my skeptic Instagram account, I commented all of my grievances in a respectful manner under one of her posts.

This was met with a nearly immediate block from her.

Minutes after commenting I could not find her account. So using one of my other Instagram accounts I went back to the post in which I commented to see my comment taken down and an array of endless positive comments, odd for such a contentious character.

So lets recap, Candace Owens is someone who is rude, obnoxious, suspicious and deceptive, who also believes everyone is out to get her and those who aren’t should not be skeptical of her. I don’t know about you but that does not scream conservative to me. But she still continues to climb the corporate ladder at Charlie Kirk’s organization Turning Point, where she currently resides as Director of Urban Engagement. It’s time for conservatives giving her a platform to block her, just as she blocked me.

Image from The Rubin Report.