Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
from the but-will-it-scale? dept
Another "free speech" controversy has blown up at Facebook. "Free speech" in quotes because Facebook is a private company that can make it own rules about speech it's willing to tolerate, much less protect. It's also one that can make up the rules as it goes along and apply them inconsistently. Welcome to the Internet. That's just how things are done.
So, it comes as no surprise that moderators at Facebook attempted to remove Donald Trump's posts as "hate speech." (via Slashdot)
Facebook employees pushed to remove some of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's Facebook posts — such as one proposing the ban of Muslims from entering the U.S. — from the service as hate speech that violated the giant social network's policies, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
To some readers, Facebook's attempts to remove posts by a Republican may seem like business as usual. The social media network has been criticized before for playing politics with its news feeds. But digging a little deeper into the details of the story reveals this mini-debacle starts as most censorship stories do: with the site's users, rather than its moderation team.
Issues around Mr. Trump’s posts emerged when he posted on Facebook a link to a Dec. 7 campaign statement “on preventing Muslim immigration.” The statement called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Users flagged the December content as hate speech, a move that triggered a review by Facebook’s community-operations team, with hundreds of employees in several offices world-wide.
Flagging a policy proposal as "hate speech" sounds very much like certain Facebook users' attempts to create their own echo chambers -- the normal efforts of those who have mistaken the "report" button for Facebook's still-nonexistent "dislike" button.
The problem could have ended there. Moderators could have easily decided this was relevant to the upcoming election and not something that should be declared "hate speech." But it didn't go that way.
Some Facebook employees said in internal chat rooms that the post broke Facebook’s rules on hate speech as detailed in its internal guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.
Facebook's definition of "hate speech" is far too broad. Even CEO Mark Zuckerberg agreed the post violated the company's "hate speech" policy, but overrode moderators and reinstated the posts. The rules will apparently continue to be rewritten on the fly.
On Friday, senior members of Facebook’s policy team posted more details on its policy. “In the weeks ahead, we’re going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest—even if they might otherwise violate our standards,” they wrote.
This is a better interpretation of the rules, but one that should be permanently implemented, rather than just half-assed into place to lower the risk of losing campaign advertising dollars. Facebook has earned a lot of the criticism thrown in its direction over its surprisingly terrible post moderation decisions. So, FB earns a golf clap for deciding to prevent user-generated echo chambers, at least up until the second Tuesday in November.
The other problem is that this decision just isn't good enough for some Facebook employees.
[O]thers, including some Muslim employees at Facebook, were upset that the platform would make an exception. In Dublin, where many of Facebook’s content reviewers work, more than a dozen Muslim employees met with their managers to discuss the policy, according to another person familiar with the matter. Some created internal Facebook groups protesting the decision, while others threatened to leave.
Those that threatened to leave should do so. They're only going to make Facebook an even worse place for the world to get its news. There's plenty of unpleasantness out there that is newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest. Very little of it rises to the level of hate speech -- even in Facebook's broad, constantly-changing definition of the term.
Lot of things Trump has said and advocated for are objectively repugnant and undoubtedly offensive to the races and religions targeted by them. But they are not "hate speech." They are bad ideas borne of worse thought processes. In any event, it's better to know what presidential candidates are supporting, rather than being unpleasantly surprised post-election.
The same goes for "normal" people. Why police "hate speech" in such a heavy-handed fashion? Wouldn't it be better to have those in your social circles out themselves publicly as repellant human beings, rather than discover this during a child's birthday party or other IRL social gathering?
Facebook isn't a free speech defender. It's a private company with a lot of advertising dollars and billions of users with competing interests on the line. It will play it safe and continue its long run of dubious moderation decisions. But what it shouldn't do is continue to expand its definition of hate speech so moderators become nothing more than a heckler's veto extensions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, free speech, hate speech, mark zuckerberg, moderation, newsworthiness
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Completion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You Must
If you disagree with us, we will find a way to link that disagreement with something that is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or bigoted and try to shut you down!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HATE speech
That's why all the pretty, pretty snowflakes in the pre-schools they call colleges need safe zones. Because all the HATE speech.
Remember when people used to argue and express their views in a mature fashion and then agree to disagree.
Now, everyone who can't accept that there are people who disagree with them scream HATE speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is all I really wanna say: "...Lot of things Trump has said and advocated for are objectively repugnant and undoubtedly offensive to the races and religions targeted by them. But they are not "hate speech." They are bad ideas borne of worse thought processes. In any event, it's better to know what presidential candidates are supporting, rather than being unpleasantly surprised post-election..."
Here's my pretext for saying it: "...rest of article..." It's how we do our "work" here it TechDirt. Laterz.
Timmy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Completion
It is definitely possible to go after criminal actions. That includes hate crimes. Criminal actions begin with criminal thoughts, but the actions are externalized, affect other people, recognizable and actionable.
I don't think Donald Trump, or any other candidate should get special treatment on this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm not a member of any group targeted by his words and ideas, and I still find them repugnant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should genuine "hate speech" by a political candidate be allowed to be posted anyway?
Obviously I agree with the article —that Facebook isn't any kind of defender of free speech and isn't obliged to do so— but it seems to me that if there happened to be a candidate running for a particular political office who happened to be a wretched, racist loudmouth with an IQ in the mid/high eighties, a "properly" functioning hate speech filter would serve to artificially protect that person's image and prevent their less palatable, but genuinely held, beliefs from becoming public knowledge by a public that would largely disapprove of those beliefs.
I'm pretty sure that's not a particularly laudable end-game situation to aspire to.
And, oh hey, markdown has finally arrived at Techdirt. Welcome to the mid-2000s, guys. Glad to have ya.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What? WAIT ... people actually get news on Facebook? pshaw.
Never in a million years would I look for news on facebook.
It's usually crap news ... sensationalism at it's worst (or best if you rather).
If I want to read the NEWS I go to a NEWS site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You Must
Facebook or any other platform does not have any obligation to host it.
The beauty of the internet is that everyone has a printing press. You don't have to use someone else's press. You can set up your own. And nobody else should be required to "print" your speech if they don't wish to.
Your talking and communicating isn't in danger. Only your ability to force it upon other people.
I would point out FoxNews, CNN and others as an example. Each of them can publish what their owners want. They aren't forced to publish certain views. And if you don't like what they say, you're not forced to watch it any more than you are forced to go to facebook.
Clue: some of us don't even have FaceTwit accounts and never will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: HATE speech
At least, that's what the speech being discussed is about.
"Remember when people used to argue and express their views in a mature fashion and then agree to disagree."
Indeed. Sadly, one party in the US has shown that they're willing to shut down the entire government if they don't get their way, and will even try to revoke laws based on their own proposals if the other guys gets credit. They certainly do need to find a way to discuss opposing idea maturely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: HATE speech
I think hate speech has a definition. Even the name of it is a very brief definition. If I were to try to sum it up, I would say it is speech that is hateful, threatening or discriminatory towards identifiable groups of people -- whether minorities or not. For example, it is also possible to have hate speech against a majority group.
It has nothing to do with 'right' or 'left'.
If you want to spew hate towards certain groups, then go find your own 'safe zone' to spew it. Good luck trying to get the victims or targets of your hate to come into your 'safe zone'.
You can disagree with people without having to engage in hate speech. If you don't know the difference, then shut up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Like most things on social media, the quality of the news you get depends on the people you follow. If you have liked a lot of pages that discuss or report serious news, it can be an easy source for both collating those sources and generating debate and discussion. It's certainly better than things like Buzzfeed or Breitbart, which some people use for their news input.
"It's usually crap news ... sensationalism at it's worst"
In other words, the same kind of "journalism" as the tabloids and TV channels those people also uses to get their "news"
"If I want to read the NEWS I go to a NEWS site."
It's sad how opposed a large portion of the population are against actually educating themselves with reliable accurate sources. It doesn't matter how good your usual go-to sources are, some people still get their news from Fox and the Daily Fail. That's true with or without Facebook, except at least with Facebook they risk being exposed to actual news through their friend feed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free speech is free speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zuckerberg will do anything for money.
But of course that's already well known.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should posts that violate Facebook's terms be allowed to remain because of who posted them?
Does a presidential candidate's status override the policies of the company? does the need to maintain, even if it is just an outward appearance, neutrality override the rules in place for everyone else?
As you say, Facebook is a private company, they can make these decisions. But if a candidate for Senate, or local Mayor, or wherever is violating standards, why should the get special treatment?
(side note: Facebook's standards are a mess, but that is a different discussion)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I disagree. Those who most vehemently feel the posts should be censored should, in my opinion, stay.
... because they feel most vehemently.
If you push out all dissenting opinions, you get a venue where only approved speech is heard. An echo chamber.
If you push out all who care strongly, you get a group that either simply doesn't care, or one that can be swayed by the slightest whim.
"Actualy leaving" has always been an argument of last resort. While it signals your objection as strongly as possible, you also forfeit any further inside influence upon decisions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If David Duke runs for some office...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Zuckerberg will do anything for money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Hunt
Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.
Gene: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0994344/quotes
The phrase "hate speech" is itself hateful, by its own definition.
Like its cousins ***phobia and *** denier it is nothing more than an attempt to shut down an argument or point of view without having to go to the trouble of addressing it on its merits.
In other words censorship.
Those who seek out examples of hate speech have proved themselves incapable of distinguishing between genuine incitement to violence and mere rational criticism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Concerning refugees, if he had come out and said "Look, there are a lot of people in many parts of the world that don't like us and we need to be able to screen them to make sure they won't come here and hurt us" everyone would have agreed with him. But no, he has to say "no Muslims".
Both of those statements would have resulted in the same thing, but he chooses words that condemns himself.
Trump is the only candidate that Hillary could have beaten.
Just imagine if the primaries were not rigged. Bernie Sanders would have been the next POTUS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You don't have the right not to be offended (and nor do the groups in question).
So what is your point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Indicating your news source bias. You most likely find those two sources don't automatically re-enforce your preconceived world-view, so they are suspect, as is anyone who uses them.
All news sites have a bias. Because people are influenced by their biases, intentionally or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Indicating your news source bias. You most likely find those two sources don't automatically re-enforce your preconceived world-view, so they are suspect, as is anyone who uses them.
All news sites have a bias. Because people are influenced by their biases, intentionally or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Should genuine "hate speech" by a political candidate be allowed to be posted anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You Must
That said, I CAN STILL BITCH ABOUT IT! Is it okay with you if I continue complaining? Or do I need to be a member of YOUR group to do that?
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of them 'deciding' what is an is not offensive here and the fact that their bullshit algorithm seems to fail at context.
"Your talking and communicating isn't in danger. Only your ability to force it upon other people."
Tell that to the people in jail for cracking jokes on social media platforms that had their lives fucked up. Apparently SOME have found a way to "force" their talking and communication "paradigms" on others.
Free Speech is always under assault, it has never not been under assault by someone or some institution, so there will always be a danger in its loss, you are the type of idiot that has to be on the train, on its way to the gas chambers before you realize what is going on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free speech is free speech
While it's true that the 1st Amendment wouldn't apply to private companies even in the U.S.
The reason why the 1st amendement applies to government is because it is a de jure monopoly. However large companies like Facebook are de facto monopolies - more so than traditional newspapers - or even TV channels - so there is an argument for applying it to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Concerning refugees, if he had come out and said "Look, there are a lot of people in many parts of the world that don't like us and we need to be able to screen them to make sure they won't come here and hurt us" everyone would have agreed with him. But no, he has to say "no Muslims".
Actually if he had said what you suggest there would be another republican candidate running against Hillary.
His campaign took off because he said that - up to that point it was just his four yearly "run for president as a publicity stunt" thing.
Mind you, some insiders have it that he didn't really want to run for president and - from that perspective - it was a mistake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gene Hunt
The definition:
"In the law of some countries, hate speech is speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."
You might need to explain how that applies to the term in your mind, because I'm not seeing it.
"Like its cousins ***phobia and *** denier"
Those are usually accurately applied, although there's always people who will apply terms wrongly. If you're hearing them a lot against ideas you support, you might need to consider why - and it's usually not because you're just saying something that the other person doesn't like. Homophobics and holocaust deniers, for example, usually have those labels applied because they're accurate descriptions for what they're saying.
"Those who seek out examples of hate speech"
What about people who don't but are exposed to it anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You Must
Facebook or any other platform does not have any obligation to host it.
But what if their policies are actually racist?
Can they still do what they want without question?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He has millions of followers who will happily vote for an idiot, as they have done in previous elections. Don't get complacent, and make sure you cast your vote.
"Concerning refugees, if he had come out and said "Look, there are a lot of people in many parts of the world that don't like us and we need to be able to screen them to make sure they won't come here and hurt us" everyone would have agreed with him."
Including your current president, since this accurately describes what is already happening. Anyone who thinks that refugees aren't being screened really doesn't understand what's currently happening.
"Trump is the only candidate that Hillary could have beaten."
Not really. She would have beaten most of the clown car, I think. They will have been tougher fights and closer calls, but the majority would have lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Trump is indeed an idiot, but that's not why he's going to lose the election. He's going to lose the election because of big media, under informed voters, and good ole fashioned cheating.
I was a little sad at first, but then I really looked into the positions and started understanding how it impacts my business.
Hillary wants to swing open the doors on immigration, it has nothing to do with "helping the poor", its all about the voters. At first I hated the idea, but after giving it some thought, I changed my mind. The bulk of immigrants are low wage earners. Unskilled labor represents the bulk of my overhead. Keeping a good flow of unskilled labor is a fantastic way to deflate the cost of labor. The more people I have applying for those low wage jobs, the lower I can set the pay, and the more money I can spend on toys. It won't help the 92 million or so Americans that are leaving the workforce, but hell, the Democrats can wear that one... or blame it on Bush LOL.
Hillary also wants the guns. Again, I didn't like the idea at first, but it works out well I think in the end. Those low wage earners will eventually start wondering why they live below the poverty level and will start looking at my 100' super yacht and wonder why they don't have one. They may even decide that income inequality isn't fair and try to reset the scale. The fewer guns they have at that point the better. Lining politicians pockets will only get you so far, especially when the population is well armed. Also; I get the added benefit of yet again increasing my unskilled labor pool because hopefully it will be harder for them to kill each other.
I don't think I really need to get into the whole globalization of the economy argument. It really speaks for itself. You would have to be an idiot to think that's going to help anyone but the rich. LOL.
So meh, it really doesn't matter a whole lot who wins. Both candidates are horrible, but it's really hard to pick which one would be worse or better for the country as a whole. As a big business owner, the answer is obvious. Vote Hillary!!
I'll let you decide if this post was satire or not :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: HATE speech
I would say it is speech that is hateful, threatening or discriminatory towards identifiable groups of people
Maybe - but what do these words actually mean. You haven't defined them anything like precisely enough.
Is criticising the doctrines of a religion (which its adherents wil certainly find hateful) included.
What about publicising doctrines that are themselves hateful. Adherents of the religion in question would find that hateful too - but then again - who started the hating?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Is that OK for me to say, or do you think you have the right to stop me?
"You don't have the right not to be offended"
Good thing I didn't say I did then, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: HATE speech
and by "disagreeing with the left" you mean "proposing ideas that are not only literally the same as the ones used in pre-WWII Nazi Germany, but also targeted against selected group for no reason other than hate".
In a world where many on the so called the left have chosen to ally themselves with groups whose ideas are themselves "literally the same as the ones used in pre-WWII Nazi Germany" your comment makes no sense!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Poe's law - it's hard to tell though I'll guess it was based on this comment ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, I find that they are proven to flat out make crap up, and I don't go to proven liars for factual information. Ditto their regular audience - if they're believing outright fiction, their opinions based on said fictions aren't worth listening to.
"All news sites have a bias"
They do, and you have to bear in mind the source whenever you read an article, and cover multiple sources to get the whole picture. I don't waste time with the outright propaganda outfits, but sadly some people never hear an opposing viewpoint because they depend on the echo chamber.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Don't kid yourself. She could have beaten anyone in the 2016 Republican primaries.
The only serious competition Trump had was Ted Cruz. Even Hillary makes Cruz look likable and honest by comparison, and she more than beats him on eligibility and experience.
Jeb! was eligible and probably more likable. But the only thing hiding the skeletons in his closet are all the skeletons piled up in front blocking the door. Republicans wouldn't even be able to talk about Hillary's mail server; Jeb! was doing the same thing.
Each of the rest had their own major flaws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
My point was to refute the implication that only the people targeted by the hate speech found it repugnant.
There was no such implication - so there was no need for you to refute it.
He said that the remarks were offensive to the targeted groups. He didn't say that they were NOT offensive to anyone else.
Your comment read as a rather pointless "me too".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Citation needed.
Whereas Trump has, for example, advocated for forcing Muslims to carry special IDs to make sure they're easily recognised. You know, exactly like the Nazis did with the Jews, gays, gypsies, communists and others they wanted to exterminate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Completion
"But once expressed into language, it is possible to protect from hate speech."
You mean possible to oppress others based on what they say that you don't like?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Either way, it is factually true that saying anything against the left sparks and automatic and sycophantic response to call someone a racist. Muslim is a religion, and when people disparage that religion people call it racism anyways thereby proving the point.
If you need a citation for something that blatant and obvious, you need more help than any link on a forum can provide you.
Now, if you remember, America also rounded up the Japanese during WWII by a Democratic Party President. You going to call FDR Hitler too? He obviously has proven to do more than what Trump is just "proposing" and still may not get away with if congress stops him as they should. That said, we should probably stop going Godwin when so many of us have already played our own parts of Hitler in our politics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When you have to make statements like this about any candidate, it doesn't matter who wins. You've all lost.
I hope she wins Roger. I hope the left get exactly what they want. Cheap labor, less guns, globalized economy, less interference from the holy rollers.. it's a big business wet dream :). Even with the whole leftist robin hood mentality, I bet I can make and hide more money from cheap labor and a globalized economy than you can take with your incompetent fat ass government / taxes. It's amazing how one can stall, shuffle, evade and otherwise muddy the waters when one has the money to do so :) I for one welcome our new big business loving Democrats. You can bet your ass I'll be giving them money and voting for them!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: HATE speech
Facebook can do what it likes, but it seems like a weird place to go overboard with censorship, since you can just unfriend anyone who crosses whatever line YOU draw. I recently saw a post that wildly disagreed with my stance on abortion, but it was from someone I knew. (And I'm not going say there's no reason for her stance other than that she hates babies. And I'm not going to claim she supports eugenics just because the founder of Planned Parenthood did, or draw a comparison to Nazi eugenics, or claim she's racist because of the number of abortions blacks get. And I'm not going to report the post to Facebook for advocating hate, even though she literally advocates the right to murder one of the most vulnerable minority groups in existence - the unborn. Because I understand that the other side isn't hateful just because they disagree with me, even if what they advocate is, in my view, destructive.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: HATE speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Citation needed.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/15/white-house-opens-door-to-cair-rep-ign ores-muslim-reformers/
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Amt_anti-Jew_Text.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: HATE speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: HATE speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Link]http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/20/double-standards-leslie-jones-racist-twitte r-history/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indicating your news source bias.
Well, considering that Fox News viewers are less informed, I wouldn't really call that bias so much as being able to recognize horseshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Speech is a societal value
The fact that they have successfully put themselves in the position of playing a key role in public discourse is irrelevant to the free speech question, but relevant to why it matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free Speech is a societal value
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You Must
You should see what it's like if a American went over the Mexico boarder and tried doing anything, like say working.
I'm all for LEGAL Immigration. Get in line like everyone else. A flood of low or no educated Illegals is a huge drain on our system in so many ways including keeping pay LOW because there's so many others to easily take your place. It's a Employer's market. Prices keep shooting up including health care, which is just crazy high and paychecks not going up for the low and middle class.
We're one country. We can't take everyone. It's far better to instead fix their own country's to be a whole lot better so there would not been a need to flee in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The Republicans at least have the advantage of not being able to figure out who or what they are. The country does a pretty good job of running itself, with most important issues being handled at the local level. A useless federal government is the best most of us can hope for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
WTF? Of course he has the right to not be offended. We all have the right to not be offended at any time. Just because something is offensive to you does not mean everyone MUST be offended.
I find your statement to be offensive, but I am not going to tell you that you must now be offended by your own statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Where's Code Pink? Bush drops a few bombs and they're out there in force, Obama has dropped 20 times more Smart Bombs, killing civilians in the process and nothing? Where's Code Pink? Oh wait, it's just political. It had nothing to do with dropping bombs. It was just more Bush hate. Just what Democrats do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who gets to define hate speech?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Whereas Trump has, for example, advocated for forcing Muslims to carry special IDs to make sure they're easily recognised. You know, exactly like the Nazis did with the Jews, gays, gypsies, communists and others they wanted to exterminate.
check up who they learnt those tactics from... I'd say it's a case of what goes around comes around....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free speech is free speech
Free Speech ≠ First Amendment
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Then, they could simply not take down any posts unless ordered to by a court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Free speech is free speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
You raise interesting questions that make things less clear cut. But clearly speech advocating violence or diminished rights against any group should be a problem.
I do think hate speech and political speech are two different things. And neither one should be labeled as the other. Expressing policy ideas can be done in a coherent manner, using complete sentences, and not be hate speech. It's been done for ages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But there are social norms. There are a few, specific reasons that society generally accepts as justification for killing.
There are other norms about what is acceptable speech. Surely an idea, like a policy idea can be fashioned in a way that is not hate speech. That said, others can take offense to anything that anyone says. But again there are norms. This particular post, nor your post above it would be considered hate speech by most people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Zuckerberg will do anything for money.
There are others too. Prenda lawyers. Etc.
Just generalize it. Prostitutes will do anything for money. All the crude "wh" word would be more appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I don't think Trump will lose because of any cheating.
Any cheating that may be going on has probably been upgraded to 21st century standards and techniques.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
There used to be a social norms that put black folks into shackles and whipped as slaves.
Care to use that line again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Zuckerberg will do anything for money.
We just classify them by groups to quickly formulate an understanding about them.
Humanity is default evil, the world is proof of it. Misery, death, and ignorance are the majority factors of life around the world. Those of us beneficial enough to worry about zits on our faces have no idea what it is like to wonder if food will be here next week or if someone will come crashing in out of the blue to shake you down for something, or if I can find help for the pestilence and plague around my life or if I can have running water and where to take a shit.
You don't have to be the one directly conducting evil to be evil, you just have to be one of the many that cannot be bothered to get off their asses to help stop it or at least speak against it. Most people agree with it, which is why most people agree with the concept that everyone is guilty until proven innocent!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: HATE speech
...by calling each other preschoolers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-r eveal-extensive-media-collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: HATE speech
I could care less if someone calls me a dip fucking shit while I am debating them. I will just call them a shit fucking dip in response as I make my case.
The idea that people have to some how be courteous, cordial, or "unoffensive" is a death knell to freedom of expression!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Special treatment is the way of the world. Where trump not a presidential candidate he would be censored and few would give a fuck.
Take what that means into full consideration, and tell me how any suppression of speech will not result in "special treatment"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't know for sure which is better: that Facebook would censor speech or that they wouldn't. Both have different potential for trouble if not done properly. Only thing I know for sure is that applying inconsistent and arbitrary conditions is the worst case scenario. Deciding that hate speech is not welcome on the site is fine. It's a private business, it's your choice. But deciding that it's not welcome unless brought by a crazy guy who's rich and a presidential candidate clearly spells, once again, that equality is but a word devoid of meaning in reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Godwin's Law is a neat little observation but it doesn't apply everywhere. For example, when someone literally repeats things that Hitler said and did, it's not Godwinning an argument to note that they are literally acting like Hitler.
"it is factually true that saying anything against the left sparks and automatic and sycophantic response to call someone a racist"
So you say, but "because I said so you're stupid if you don't see things exactly the same way" isn't really something we can build a discussion upon. Not to mention you haven't defined "the left" so it's impossible to even see your parameters even if you do take the simpleton's route of pretending everything has to be "left" or "right".
"Muslim is a religion, and when people disparage that religion people call it racism anyways"
Very few people are attacking white, asian or black Muslims, yet Sikhs have been attacked because morons can't tell the difference. There might be a racial element there somehow.
"You going to call FDR Hitler too?"
If I was there at the time to call him out on such a route? Perhaps. But, discrimination on the basis of national heritage during an active war situation and disc
"That said, we should probably stop going Godwin when so many of us have already played our own parts of Hitler in our politics."
Define "us". Even ignoring things like the southern strategy that caused party affiliations to eventually flip (Democrats in FDR's time were the conservatives), very few people having this discussion were around at that time. Almost nobody voting against Trump today would have been voting for FDR, so it's misleading to pretend that they would agree with people who did these things in the past. Plus, we have the benefit of hindsight and knowledge of what the Nazis were actually doing in their camps, which people of that war did not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
One thing right-wingers really need to learn is that saying "he did it first!" like a little child does not absolve their candidate of their own words and actions. Trump is still a despicable human being with toxic rhetoric and terrible ideas even if he's not being original about them.
I'll happily say that people who did bad things before the Nazis were also wrong to do them. But, I'm not the one supporting someone stating that he'll repeat those actions in the modern day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
It's also reactionary, ineffective and causes far more problems than the one it's meant to defend against. The logistic alone are incredible, and that's even without considering all the implications (how do you tell the peaceful Muslims from the terrorists if not based on race or religion. What do you do about the millions of Muslim US citizens? Etc.)
Hate and fear tend to be the easy explanations for why such a wooly and impractical idea seem to be the answers provided, but I accept that there may be other reasons.
"you have to allow the other side to speak. Preferably without insulting them all first."
I've allowed them to speak, and it's their own words I'm criticising.
"Facebook can do what it likes, but it seems like a weird place to go overboard with censorship, since you can just unfriend anyone who crosses whatever line YOU draw"
On your personal feed, sure. But letting this stuff fly around unchecked is a great way to lose users, and therefore revenue, for Facebook. Normal users tend to be extremely bad at fine-tuning their settings to only see what they wish to see, and they often jump ship completely rather than learn - so Facebook step in to control things globally. This is about advertising dollars, not making a personal stand on an issue.
"even if what they advocate is, in my view, destructive"
Assuming you're on the pro-life side of things as you appear, banning abortions completely is also destructive, especially if you're getting rid of sex education, easy access birth control and the other things that usually get culled as collateral damage. It's one of the many issues where moderation is key, the extremists will never get anywhere near what they want on either side. But, I've only seen one side threatening (or carrying out) deadly violence on people visiting a clinic, for example (even ones not visting for any reason related to abortion).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I read it as such so I used my free speech to comment. Why do you feel the need to argue that I shouldn't have exercised that right?
"Your comment read as a rather pointless "me too"."
To you, others will have read it differently. This may be shocking to you, but there can be multiple interpretations of something that are equally valid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We won't even start with the major differences between primaries and elections and why fraud in one doesn't mean it will be even attempted in the other. I'll just start with asking why you believe an anonymous blogger named after a fictional schizophrenic hallucination has the answers and isn't biased in the same way as major sources.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gene Hunt
Oh, so it's OK to disparage or intimidate some people, but not others. So, it's not a question of whether or not it's a bad thing to do, but rather of who you're allowed to do it to and who you're not.
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
- from Animal Farm, by George Orwell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Hpowever I don't really have to look that far. The nature of your own comments on this issue shows that
1) You are broadly on the left politically.
2) You frequently defend Islam.
It follows that you yourself are the evidence that you seek here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: HATE speech
No.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: HATE speech
When you're on the far right, everything else looks left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You Must
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Zuckerberg will do anything for money.
*Some* humans, will do anything for money. If you think it applies to everyone, you may be projecting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Gene Hunt
Yes. It's bad to attack someone based on gender, sexuality, race, disability and other factors they cannot control*. It's not bad to attack someone because they've chosen to be an asshole or became a klan member or something similar within their choice and control. If they don't like being marginalised, they can always stop being a twat. You can ban a Korean guy from your store because he abused the staff, for example, but you can't ban him because you don't like asians.
* Yeah, religion is the exception to that rule, and it's arguable as to whether it belongs depending on your point of view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
I have enough experience with that cesspool to know that there's often no evidence at all, and what there is can often be distorted, re-edited and outright lied about. If the evidence is so clear, there must be primary sources you can link to rather than known con artists.
"The nature of your own comments on this issue shows that "
Well, the nature of your comments show that you take the word of openly biased, often made-up, sources as truth and that you regularly make shit up about other people based on short interactions.
But, hey, whatever reinforces your world view, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gene Hunt
Oh, nooo. It all depends on the gender, sexuality, race, etc.. Male? Go ahead. Straight? Go ahead. White? Go ahead. Straight white male? Pile on!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
One thing right-wingers really need to learn is that saying "he did it first!" like a little child does not absolve their candidate of their own words and actions.
I don't know where you get the idea that I am a right winger from. I am anything but. On 99% of policy issues in the US I would have backed Bernie Sanders.
What is going on today is that anyone calls out on Islamic anti-semitism is dismissed as a Nazi. To equate Trump's proposed temporary muslim ban with the nazis is pretty much a stretch.
It seems to me that the left has held its nose in the face of the extreme right wing ideas that exist within islam on the grounds that it wants the muslim vote.
ON issues like womens rights and homosexuality (not to mention the attitude to those of other faiths and none displayed in islamic countries) islam is just about the most illiberal major ideology in the world.
I don't want to support Trump but on that one point he does seem to recognise this reality - even if his proposed solution is impractical. Other political figures seem to be in a fantasy land that denies the reality of islamic history. I have noted that prominent ex-muslims like Ali-Sina support Trump (even though the ban would impact him personally as an Iranian with an islamic name) though others reject his tactics but still take the main point - see
http://www.exmna.org/follow-bill-mahers-lead-not-donald-trump-theres-a-way-to-critique-ideology- behind-religion-without-resorting-to-hate/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
The boundary ought to be quite easy to establish.
A religion can put forward its doctrines - and adherents of other religions (or atheists) can say what they like about them - however distasteful these words might be to the first religion's believers.
The line is crossed when violence is advocated.
The middle ground here is measures short of violence that disadvantage certain groups (eg Trump's muslim ban - or Saudi Arabia's ban on non-muslims visiting certain areas). I don't know the full answer here -but in time of war western democratic countries have used such measures citing "necessity". In a war it might be acceptable because it is cearly only for a limited time. When such measures are implemented in peacetime (eg McCarthyism) then it does tend to result in injustice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Completion
1. there is no such thing as 'hate speech', that is bullshit for left and right wing authoritarians who want control, NOT freedom...
2. there is no such thing as 'hate crimes', there is crime, and there is hate, but 'hate crime' is a bullshit madeup concept...
3. "I don't think it is workable to go after criminal thoughts." well how fucking generous of you, thought-control scumbag...
why do you hate freedom, you fascist, anti-human slimeball ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because Hillary has suddenly acquired morals. We can only just future performance on past behavior and assume the worst. You of course keep drinking the Clinton kool-aid. Get the grape, I hear its good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Should I be scared is the question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
SO that would be sir or madam fucking dip shit.
And manners are NOT a sign of weakness!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gene Hunt
If you don't think it is, you might be an idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
You used right-wing echo chambers as your citations, for a start. Why do that instead of neutral or primary sources if you don't agree with and read those sites?
"It seems to me that the left"
You also seem to spend a lot of time attacking "the left", which would be unusual for someone on that side of the spectrum to do. It wouldn't be unusual for a right-winger who has been conditioned to paint everything he dislikes as "leftist", however. I do apologise if the assumptions I've made based on the evidence you've provided were incorrect.
"To equate Trump's proposed temporary muslim ban with the nazis is pretty much a stretch."
Not at all - you just run find and replace on his comments to replace words like "Muslim" or "refugee" with "Jew" and you pretty much have Hitler's rhetoric repeated verbatim. You also have to remember that even Hitler didn't start out full Hitler. He started small then built to the holocaust over time. I don't trust Trump's word that this would be anything like temporary. I'd fully expect escalation and atrocities - perhaps not by him personally, but he has some dangerous supporters.
"It seems to me that the left has held its nose in the face of the extreme right wing ideas that exist within islam on the grounds that it wants the muslim vote."
Extreme right-wing ideas exist in all religions. There are millions of Muslims who do not adhere to those ideas, so it's a good idea not to pretend they do if you wish for their support or cooperation. Like most religions, there are massive differences in belief, many internal battles (most victims of Islamic violence are also Muslim) and the majority of followers are moderates.
"ON issues like womens rights and homosexuality"
.... there are numerous "Christian" groups in the US who are jealous of theocracies who can treat those people as second class citizens without bleeding heart liberals stopping them. I won't paint everyone in that religion as if they agree with them, however.
"Other political figures seem to be in a fantasy land that denies the reality of islamic history"
Such as? I'll be intrigued as to why you think that other politicians aren't attempting to deal with the issues. I am, however, talking about real issues and not the "every Muslim wants to kill us!" hysteria. I'm also talking about real solutions, and Trump has not only failed to offer any such thing, his dangerous rhetoric plays right into the hands of extremists who wish to believe that there's a holy war between Islam and the West.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Words can be misused in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean that the usage by people who use them correctly should be rejected.
"In a war it might be acceptable because it is cearly only for a limited time"
Well, here's the problem. The "war on terror" is so loosely defined that the US is considered to be in a constant state of war. Terrorism is never going away completely, just as it didn't suddenly start when the WTC came down.
"When such measures are implemented in peacetime (eg McCarthyism) then it does tend to result in injustice."
Here's the thing - it still injustice in wartime. It's acceptable injustice according to the rules of engagement, but the person being murdered, imprisoned or otherwise abused don't really care whether it's because other people decided to fight each other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here are a couple of good summaries.
http://nypost.com/2016/07/22/leaked-emails-show-how-democrats-screwed-sanders/
http://www.t hepoliticalinsider.com/rigging-election-new-email-confirms-team-hillary-rigged-polls-oversampling/
Yo u can dissect the statistics on the workforce all you want. 92 million Americans have left the workforce. Some I'm sure are students, some are retiring.. etc .. etc. You can argue the reasons until your blue in the face, but the number itself is not disputed. That number represents a 3rd, just as you said, of the population. After doing some research, I imagine the "real" number is probably somewhere around 40 million. My point was; why don't we concentrate in getting that 40 million back to work before we throw open the immigration flood gates?
Over 100 million are receiving welfare. These include retired, disabled, children, etc. Here's what you should look at. How many of those people are working AND receiving benefits? Give or take; 23 percent of all welfare recipients have at least one working adult in the household. That means they are working, but don't make a living wage. So were going to throw open the immigration flood gates and flood our country with low wage earners? You don't have to be an economist to see what that's going to do. The only winners are the rich. They get to keep the average wage low because the availability of workers for those jobs are high. Economics 101, supply and demand.
I could sit here and do your research for you, posting citations and statistics from both Democrat and Republican leaning sources to no end but I don't have time. You have google, if it interests you, use it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gene Hunt
you! back under your bridge!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me finish my part of the conversation with this. We can argue statistics of employment and moral high ground of parties in regards to cheating or inter party trickery to no end. The simple fact is; The Democrats are flooding the wage pool with low wage earners. It's a fact. No one denies it, no one disputes it. The only people that helps beside giving an immigrant a less than living wage, is the rich.
Getting rid of the guns and the globalization of the economy are just bonuses. Getting rid of the guns remove the ability of the plebs to rise up and the globalization of the economy will allow us to sap cheap products and labor from abroad.
My entire point was. The Democrats are now the party of big business and the super rich, whether they like it or not.
... and no, I don't think that guy had a clue what you just said.. I LOL'd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What does that have to do with the statement I was referring to?
"It won't help the 92 million or so Americans that are leaving the workforce"
That's an incredible claim, and reeks of certain types of false propaganda I've encountered before. Hence my request for a citation.
"It's a fact. No one denies it, no one disputes it."
Then, you need to provide the evidence, which should be very easy if there's no dissenting voices (insanely unlikely). Looking at the above, when such figures are thrown around, it's usually from people lying with statistics - either they count people who are retired, etc. as if they're part of the workforce, or they're cherry-picking between different types of employment reports to try to pretend the figures are higher.
This is especially true at this moment in time, because people are trying to fool the less-informed into thinking that the current natural reduction in workforce participation (mainly due to the retirement of baby boomers) have something to do with current government policies rather than a statistical anomaly that's perfectly expected.
Once you've cited that, you then have to cite your other claim - this this is directly because of one single party's policies. You're claiming that a single party is responsible for flooding the market with immigrants, at a time when deportations have increased and the opposing party holds congress (s must be involved in some way with most decisions). That's not a claim that can be taken at face value.
"The Democrats are now the party of big business and the super rich"
...and the Republicans are not? At least the Democrats aren't trying to push anti-gay, racist, misogynist, bible-bashing policies and other regressive policies in addition to that.
That's the other problem - supporting Democrats in the current political climate doesn't mean that you approve of all of the Democrats' policies. It just means you recognise that the Republicans' ideas are worse. Give me a choice between a broken leg and having both of my arms cut off and I'll gladly take the broken leg. That doesn't mean I'm pro-broken leg.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/politics/obama-pledge-10000-syrian-refugees-falling-short/
h ttp://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/whoops-congressman-accidentally-reveals-democrats-really-want-amne sty/
.. How about the Democrats own web site?
https://www.democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform
vrs. Trump's web site.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration
The proof is right in their own web site. They want a path to citizenship, Trump wants to build a stupid wall and put America first. How much more proof does one need?
______________________________________________________
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gene Hunt
Congratulations on calling yourself an idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was the entire premise of my post that you responded too.
"That's an incredible claim, and reeks of certain types of false propaganda I've encountered before. Hence my request for a citation."
92 million American's not in the workforce. Over 100 million Americans collecting welfare of some kind or another. So 1/3 of the population is not working, and 25% is receiving some type of benefit from the government. These are taken directly from the census. Reasons aside, it's unsustainable.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97 .html
". You're claiming that a single party is responsible for flooding the market with immigrants, at a time when deportations have increased and the opposing party holds congress (s must be involved in some way with most decisions). That's not a claim that can be taken at face value."
From Hillary's own web site. I would call this indisputable.
"During her first 100 days in office, Hillary Clinton will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship. Her legislation will treat each and every person with dignity, fix the visa backlog, protect our borders and national security, and formally bring millions of hardworking immigrants into the economy."
https://www.democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform
In contrast, Here is Trump's platform;
" Prioritize the jobs, wages and security of the American people.
Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first."
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration
"At least the Democrats aren't trying to push anti-gay, racist, misogynist, bible-bashing policies and other regressive policies in addition to that."
"supporting Democrats in the current political climate doesn't mean that you approve of all of the Democrats' policies. It just means you recognise that the Republicans' ideas are worse."
Nice strawman. I never said the Republicans were better, I just said that the Democrats are now the party of big business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gene Hunt
*sigh* Yes, they are. The protected class is, for example, race, not "anything but white". If you're attacked because of your race, you are the victim of hate speech as surely as if you were black.
There's a lot of political, sociological and cultural reasons why that might be treated differently b y the world at large but the definitions do not say "but hey, if you're in a majority it's fair game". Ditto everything else. If a group of gay guys attack you because you're with your girlfriend, that's also a hate crime, it's just far, far less likely to happen than it would to a gay guy out with his boyfriend.
"Congratulations on calling yourself an idiot."
You're really struggling with the English language, aren't you? I said that if you disagree with the idea that protections apply equally to all races, you might be an idiot. You'll notice that this therefore makes my position the exact opposite of the one I called out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course you have the right to be offended - or not - that is down to you.
What I meant was you don't have the right to prevent others from saying something on the grounds that it offends you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I find that they are proven to flat out make crap up, and I don't go to proven liars for factual information.
IN that case you would have no sources of information left.
In my experience, when the story is something I have first hand knowledge of just about every news source I have seen can be observed doing that. (It's called journalism...)
What sensible, unbiased, people do is to check each story from multiple sources and try to get back to primary sources if at all possible.
Just dismissing some sources because of particular past experiences is way too close to dismissing sources because they violate your preconceived notions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gene Hunt
Homophobics and holocaust deniers, for example, usually have those labels applied because they're accurate descriptions for what they're saying.
Holocaust deniers might be an accurate description but it is still a cheap argument. If your arguing with someone who denies the holocaust then you surely should not need to resort to name calling.
Homophobia is NEVER an accurate description. A phobia is an instinctive irrational fear. Someone who suffers from a fear of (eg) spiders is not being nasty to spiders they just melt down into uncontrollable fight/flight reactions in their presence. If you have never suffered such symptoms it is easy to use the term as a term of abuse but it looks pretty bad to anyone who has.
A genuine homophobic is someone who would have a panic attack in the presence of a homosexual.
Use of the term "homophobia" is actually offensive to genuine phobics.
Phobic-phobia would describe in in its own terms!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
I have enough experience with that cesspool to know that there's often no evidence at all, and what there is can often be distorted, re-edited and outright lied about.
Well maybe I was being lazy - I have seen much evidence from many different sources for this - I just quoted the one that came top of the google search - and I checked that there WERE linked sources - within it - that were not being significantly distorted.
you regularly make shit up about other people based on short interactions.
OK, which of the things I said were wrong?
Are you NOT on the left politically?
Did you NOT make this comment (amongst many)
Extreme right-wing ideas exist in all religions. There are millions of Muslims who do not adhere to those ideas, so it's a good idea not to pretend they do if you wish for their support or cooperation. Like most religions, there are massive differences in belief, many internal battles (most victims of Islamic violence are also Muslim) and the majority of followers are moderates.
For a start it is a stretch to say that extreme right wing ideas eist in all religions. It may be true that extreme right wing ideas exist amongst the adherents of all religions - but that is quite different.
Making that statement is a classic "tu quoque" argument commonly used to defend ISlam from accusations that relate to clear statements in its holy texts and the behaviour of its founder.
So yes - you defend islam.
I'll ignore you insults against me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
The government of the UAE has designated CAIR as a terrorist group. I don't think they - or an equivalent goverment have said any such thing about BLM.
The objective CAIR is to sell a sanitised image of islam in the US - it seems to have worked with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
You used right-wing echo chambers as your citations, for a start
Unfortunately the right (not all of them though) seems to have woken up to this issue rather quicker than most on the left. That pains me somewhat - but I can't do anything about it.
You also seem to spend a lot of time attacking "the left",
I'm not attacking the left for being left - I'm attacking them for being fooled by Islam. That causes me great sadness. Some even in my own church (who really should know better) have made the same mistake and that saddens me even more.
you just run find and replace on his comments to replace words like "Muslim" or "refugee" with "Jew" and you pretty much have Hitler's rhetoric repeated verbatim.
That sounds good - but I don't think it is actually true.
Lets try it:
"I Adolf Hitler am calling for a complete halt on Jewish immigration until the Reichstag can work out what the hell is going on"
Nah - doesn't sound like Adolf to me.
Incidentally, whilst I think Trump has identified the problem more clearly than most US politicians I also think his proposed solutions are too selfishly US centric. They do nothing to help the millions of Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Yazidis, Hindus, Atheiasts - and for that matter members of genuinely peaceful minority islamic sects like Ahmadis who have the misfortune to live in countroes where mainstream Islam dominates the political system. It is these people whose fate bothers me. The threat in the US is actually minimal at present.
Like most religions, there are massive differences in belief, many internal battles (most victims of Islamic violence are also Muslim) and the majority of followers are moderates.
The belief that the majority of muslims are moderates may be comforting - but it is not exactly true.
Most muslims that you meet in the west are genuinely moderate - however most of them are also nominal. They haven't studied their faith much - they just take whatever their local Imam says as true. In muslim majority countries it is different. Although most are still, in a sense, moderate, the minority that are not now amounts to a really substantial number of people. Look at Pakistan for example. A few years ago a Christian woman was arrested for blasphemy on the accusation of local muslims. She was sentenced to death. A major national politician called for her release and the repeal of the blasphemy laws. He, in turn, was murdered for taking this stand and the culprit was tried and hanged. This hanging provoked huge demonstrations - not on the grounds that hanging was immoral as might have happened elsewhere but on the grounds that the killer was performing a public service on behalf of the prophet. I'll not quote any sources on this- you can look up Asia Bibi on Google and you will find plenty - maybe even some that meet your criteria of not being a rightwing cesspool.
The point is this most muslims are moderate (they just want to get on with their lives) but when islam is in the ascendancy they won't/can't stop the extremists from getting their way (after all they just want to get on with their lives) - and the more muslims there are the more extremists there will be.
there are numerous "Christian" groups in the US who are jealous of theocracies who can treat those people as second class citizens without bleeding heart liberals stopping them but they'll never get their way - because the bleeding heart liberals are also Christian and can quote the bible back at them. UNfortunately this doesn't seem to work with the Koran because there are no suitable texts in there.
extremists who wish to believe that there's a holy war between Islam and the West.
I don't think anyone wishes to believe that.
Unfortunately my reading of the Koran http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/sura8.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
When I said war I meant war. The war on terror isn't a war so much as a misuse of language.
_Here's the thing - it still injustice in wartime. It's acceptable injustice according to the rules of engagement, but the person being murdered, imprisoned or otherwise abused_
I did exclude violence from being acceptable even in wartime. The only things I thought acceptable would be limitations to freedom. You can put people into a cage temporarily - but it does have to be a comfortable one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Words can be misused in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean that the usage by people who use them correctly should be rejected.
When misuse of words becomes common it becomes difficult to remember what they really mean. In another comment on this topic you seem to have forgotten what a "phobia" actually is for example.
I would argue that just about all recent use of the phrase "hate speech" is misuse, there isn't any correct use to unjustly reject.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I responded to a specific part, where you were claiming that there were 92 million workers leaving the workforce. I asked for a citation, you responded with "it's the Democrats' fault!". There was a slight move of the goalposts there.
"92 million American's not in the workforce."
Including retirees, full time students, etc. Are there 92 million WORKERS out of the workforce, or 92 million people who are simply not working? There's a huge difference between those things.
Your contextless graph means nothing without context, and participation rates do not necessarily reflect who is looking for or wanting work. If you're including retirees, then the largest generation that put more workers into the workforce than any in history is now getting to the age where they are retiring. Unless you're considering that, any conclusion you reach will be questionable.
As for welfare - yes that *is* a problem. But there's many factors there - people still not recovering their income to the same levels as they were before one of the biggest worldwide recessions in history and needed temporary assistance. Major corporations such as Wal Mart gaming the system so that the taxpayer foots the bill rather than them offering a liveable wage. Constant opposition to raising the minimum wage. A corporate culture that has provided a couple of generations of increase in productivity, but that not being passed on to workers whose wages have remained stagnant taking into account inflation.
But, you just say "it's the Democrats' fault". Simple arguments are great for simple people but they don't work in the complex real world. Especially since the opposing party are either responsible for a lot of those problems, or have stated policies that promise to make them worse.
As for your welfare link:
"Approximately 52.2 million (or 21.3 percent) people in the U.S. participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012"
"Who Participated in 2012?
Children under age 18"
So, a long way away from 92 million, and certainly not composed of just workers.
"Nice strawman. I never said the Republicans were better, I just said that the Democrats are now the party of big business."
Look up the definition of strawman, because you're misusing it. Again, Democrats might well be the party of big business... but so are the Republicans and they pile on far worse thing on to that platform.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who said they should?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's degrees. Every source has biases, every source has had issues with putting spin on information, omitting information, etc. Knowing and understanding their biases is important.
But, sources like the ones I mention have been observed literally making shit up, reporting on things that don't exist, events that never took place. That makes them invalid sources. It's not the rabid spin they put into every story that's the main problem, even though that would make them unreliable as well.
"What sensible, unbiased, people do is to check each story from multiple sources and try to get back to primary sources if at all possible"
Yes, they do. But why would you go to the fiction section when doing so? If I want to check the current state of politics in Maine, I'll pick up a reliable local newspaper or web source, not check the latest Stephen King novel, even if he does accurately portray daily life there sometimes.
"Just dismissing some sources because of particular past experiences is way too close to dismissing sources because they violate your preconceived notions."
So, I should trust people are known to outright lie to me on the off chance they accidentally do so one day? You might have the time to congregate among liars, I prefer proven reliable sources. If that means I miss the time when the con artists accidentally tell the truth, so be it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Gene Hunt
I'm sorry their feelings are hurt when they're accurately called what they are. Perhaps they should try not being such ignorant, despicable human beings if they're that delicate.
As for the rest, hatred of homosexuals certainly is often rooted in irrational fear and they have been known to violently panic if they think they're being hit on or offended in some other way.
Which label would you prefer to be applied to such bigots to distinguish them fro m other bigots?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
You're right, that is lazy. It's a poor way to source an argument. For one, it means that you don't have known reliable sources that you're depending on for information, you'll just accept the first thing that's thrown at you. Secondly, considering that Google will adjust search results based on previous searches, what you see at the top will be skewed toward the type of content you usually look at. That they're top of a Google search means something about their SEO and how popular they are among people who read their brand of crap, it doesn't mean they're reporting accurately on anything.
Sorry, but when I asked for a citation, "here's the first blog that agrees with me" is not good enough.
"I checked that there WERE linked sources"
You see, when a source is known to lie constantly, distort facts to an agenda and feed a hugely negative aspect of society, I'm not going to go to their site to get them hits and ad revenue. I don't care how well-sourced a Stormfront article is either, I'm not going there.
If primary sources are available, I will happily go to those without aiding a pit of vipers on the way. The commentary of known liars does not add value.
"For a start it is a stretch to say that extreme right wing ideas eist in all religions."
Not really. Certainly all the mainstream ones have them.
"So yes - you defend islam."
I defend any group that's being attacked unjustly. I'm sorry if extending human compassion and understanding to innocent people offends you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Or, they're wrong about the issue and are being fed propaganda to pave the way for actions that would not normally be acceptable in a civilised society, like the Germans before them.
"That sounds good - but I don't think it is actually true.
Lets try it:"
I didn't say all comments. Try one of the ones I was referring to, it makes more sense.
"They haven't studied their faith much - they just take whatever their local Imam says as true."
Again, that applies to any religion. Most Christians I know would be shocked at some of the things in the bible if their priest/preacher hasn't pointed it out to them. Plus, you're undermining your own argument - if many Muslims do not believe in the extreme stuff, then treating them as if they do makes no sense. If you accept that most Muslims are moderate, why include them in your attacks on the extremists?
"Incidentally, whilst I think Trump has identified the problem"
Which problem? There are many, many problems, and treating moderate Muslims as dangerous criminals isn't going to stop extremism. In fact, it will feed it.
"but they'll never get their way - because the bleeding heart liberals are also Christian and can quote the bible back at them"
Except an increasing number of people aren't religious at all. Because their groups often reject other sects of Christianity (the number of times I've heard a Baptist claim that Catholics aren't Christians, for example..). Some of these people are already violent, and as the saying goes you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
The real protection is that you don't live in a theocracy. If one were to rise in the US, the end result wouldn't be much different in terms of how minorities and women are treated. Iran used to be a secular society as well, it was foreign interference and the rise of a theocracy that changed that. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's Islam that's the problem.
"Unfortunately my reading of the Koran"
The Old Testament has a lot of that crap too. Plus, like any religion, Islam has a lot of sects, some of whom take the thing literally, some of whom interpret in different ways. Half the problem in the middle east is fighting between different sects of Islam. Assigning blanket beliefs to all Muslims is as idiotic as pretending that all Christians believe exactly the same things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
Oh, I'm sorry. If you want exact language, you're in a "state of emergency" not a war.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/09/obama-extends-post-911-state-national-emergen cy-16th-year/90004960/
The same problems apply, however.
"The only things I thought acceptable would be limitations to freedom"
Yeah, that never leads to violence, especially when done for an undetermined indefinite period to innocent people. :rolls eyes:
"You can put people into a cage temporarily - but it does have to be a comfortable one."
Those internment camps sure looked comfy last time, let's do it again, no problems can possibly arise!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
I would argue that it isn't. But, hey, if you can reject the opinions of other people because you decided the words they use aren't valid, you can ignore the issues actually being discussed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly my point. That was all I was trying to say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll agree with you if you say to me that the whole system is an issue and needs to be reformed, it's just when you're specifically blaming Democrats using faulty data that I have a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You Must
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't make it right does it? You can try to spread the blame like jam. Point at the Republicans, Bush, whoever... but at the end of the day Democrats will STILL be the party of big business.
"blaming Democrats"
LOL? Your joking right? I'm not blaming them for anything. I simply quoted directly from their website. There's no blame to be had. I didn't say it was wrong that they are the party of big business, I simply pointed out that they were in fact the party of big business. The Democrat platform provides businesses with a steady flow of cheap labor. It's right there on the Democrats own web site.. read it if you don't believe me, I'm not making this up.
"using faulty data that I have a problem.".
Are you insane? The data was from the Governments OWN web site. You can interpret it however you want but 2 facts are indisputable according to the census. 100 million American's don't work because "reasons", and 110 million (35% of the population) receive government subsidies because "reasons". Interpret however you want, those are the facts. Understanding those two facts, and IMO, it's not sustainable as apparent by our 20 trillion dollar national debt.
I was simply pointing out that we have Americans not working, and that the people that we want to allow to immigrate will be competing for those jobs. What exactly am I saying that is not true? Help me understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: HATE speech
As it is, the Far Right have managed to convince enough people that what they believe is conservatism that a lot of people now believe this, which makes rational conversations difficult, if not impossible. Result: your echo chamber v my echo chamber. It's classic divide-and-conquer strategy and t'other side is doing it too.
The trick is not to get stuck in the echo chambers in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please indicate where I said it did.
"at the end of the day Democrats will STILL be the party of big business."
As will the others. Your point?
"I'm not blaming them for anything"
Then why did you say things like this:
"It won't help the 92 million or so Americans that are leaving the workforce, but hell, the Democrats can wear that one"
Sure sounds like you're blaming them, and only them, doesn't it?
"The data was from the Governments OWN web site."
Yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it says, making it faulty for the use you're trying to apply to it. All that participation graph shows, for example, is that the rate is changing. it doesn't say why, nor is the change surprising when you understand demographics.
"100 million American's don't work because "reasons""
Again, what are the reasons? Context is vitally important here. If they're not working because they're retired, disabled or full time students, that's a different issue to if they're all unemployed workers. What's the context? Welfare is a problem, but who is claiming? Unemployed people or the working poor? Are they simply claiming Medicare or are they claiming in multiple areas just to afford to live? Are they willing to work longer hours to avoid welfare but refused the opportunity by employers trying to avoid giving them the same rights as full time workers? Different answers to those questions require different solutions.
"I was simply pointing out that we have Americans not working, and that the people that we want to allow to immigrate will be competing for those jobs"
As a I've heard many a comedian say - if your job is being stolen by an uneducated illegal immigrant who can barely speak English, you have bigger problems than whether the guy competing for your job is Jim from down the road or Jose from Guadalajara. If you're a skilled worker, I think the solution is to look at employers who are gaming the system to get cheap employees (or outsource them completely) and filling any skill gaps than scapegoating the guys who are offered jobs. Those immigrants are coming in part because they know there's jobs - go after those offering the jobs. I personally prefer it when you address the actual underlying issues rather than pretending everything will be OK if you build a wall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'll let you decide if this post was satire or not :)"
Did you miss the ending were I eluded to a heavy dose of satire? I was actually making fun of the way Republicans think... guess you missed that.
Your entire explanation of the census could be spot on, that has nothing to do with my point. My point was, REGARDLESS of the reasons, it's not sustainable as apparent by our ever increasing nation debt.
" I personally prefer it when you address the actual underlying issues rather than pretending everything will be OK if you build a wall."
WTF does that have to do with anything? As I said before, the why could be interpreted however you want, but the results are right there on the governments own web site. Want to break down the numbers? Is that what you want? Will you accept the breakdown if it comes directly from the census?
Tell you what, will you accept politifact?
"Out of the 93.8 million Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age. Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)"
53.2 million people when you add all the exclusions together. So that means, based on the quote above, 40 million people over 16 years of age, people that are of working age have left the workforce.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/31/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-us-has -93-milion-people-out-work/
40 million is about 11% of our current population right? So 11% of the people of working age have left the workforce. So we have whatever unemployment is right now, and on top of that, we have roughly 11% of the working age population leaving the workforce. Can we agree on that? Can we agree that per the ever increasing national debt, it's not sustainable?
If not, you throw a number out there and support it with some kind of proof because that' all I've got.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the scary and most insidious thing is how often their lies are sprinkled with a tiny amount of truth so that people doing a cursory check will corroborate some basic facts. A great example was presented to me here once - someone was claiming some bollocks about there being no-go areas for police due to Muslim control. I asked for a citation, and the predictable Fail link was given to me. The headline and the opening paragraph did indeed tell a tale of Muslims setting up a no-go area.
But, I know how to read these things and cut through the misdirection. Sure enough, after paragraphs of scary claims and ties back to other anti-immigrant and anti-Islam stories, the truth was there in the final paragraph. The story was about a single Imam who put up some flyers claiming a no-go area. They were up for a few hours, then taken down by the local council when they were made aware of them. Not even remotely newsworthy outside of the town it happened, and certainly not something that should be cited internationally as proof of wrongdoing by an entire religion. This is their typical m.o. - print the lies, then either retract the next day after the damage is done or put the retraction where people won't bother to read.
The problem isn't so much that the Daily Mail are proven liars with an obvious dangerous agenda. The problem is that so few people read down to the point where they admit they're full of shit.
But, at least I know how seriously to consider anyone who present them as an honest reliable source.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, which is why I stated as such in my first reply to you. It's only when you doubled down that I seriously treated your words as real. If you don't like this, maybe you should be clearer about when you're joking and when you're not. You did continue to blame Democrats and them alone after you appeared to trying to talk seriously.
"WTF does that have to do with anything?"
What does addressing the actual underlying issues have to do with fixing the problems? You're seriously asking me that?
"40 million people over 16 years of age, people that are of working age have left the workforce"
So, less than half your original claim, which I was mainly questioning because the figure was stupidly high. That's fine, why didn't you say so earlier? By the way, that 92 million is a figure I've heard before, and is known to be bullshit, which is why I pushed for a citation. If you'd have started with 40, no red flag would have been raised.
"So 11% of the people of working age have left the workforce"
How does that compare to previous administrations? How quickly is it going up? What are the factors causing them to leave? Have the methods of gathering this statistic changed? Have they gone up or down since the current administration increased deportations? What were the changes in previous eras where there were major immigration issues (such as the 80s, before Reagan granted amnesty)?
You see, when you're honest, you can ask further questions to arrive at what the reality is, and work from there on how best to fix things. Once you know what's causing things, you can apply solutions that will actually work rather than simply going "immigrants!" and trying a knee jerk response.
"Can we agree that per the ever increasing national debt, it's not sustainable?"
We can agree that there's problems, but also be honest about who's to blame and the workable, effective solutions that are necessary. Here, if you work out exactly what's causing the change in participation rate first, you can see if it's a trend likely to continue and determine what types of solutions are required. If it's likely to plateau and not require urgent drastic solutions, you can go for something that's not as risky or divisive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the sake of this conversation, I don't care what the underlying issues are. I was focusing on the outcome. As in; regardless of the why, this is our current state. Flood the country with new cheap labor, IMO, won't fix the current state.
"So, less than half your original claim, which I was mainly questioning because the figure was stupidly high. That's fine, why didn't you say so earlier? By the way, that 92 million is a figure I've heard before, and is known to be bullshit, which is why I pushed for a citation. If you'd have started with 40, no red flag would have been raised."
Ok.. full stop on this conversation. Your a fucking idiot. 94 million people have left the workforce. All i did was break down the number for you. That doesn't change the fact that 94 million people left the workforce. That number is a fact.
"How does that compare to previous administrations? How quickly is it going up? What are the factors causing them to leave? Have the methods of gathering this statistic changed? Have they gone up or down since the current administration increased deportations? What were the changes in previous eras where there were major immigration issues (such as the 80s, before Reagan granted amnesty)?"
Apparently they have been collecting the data the same way since 1918, and we are at a 38 year low.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/94513000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rat e-remains-38-year-low
You know what, were just going to have to agree to disagree.. I don't have time for this anymore.
I was trying to simply the problem down to a simply economic principal, you are trying desperately to bend it into a sociological / partisan issue.
We have a real unemployment (U-6) rate of right at 10% or so. I got that number from a liberal web site and I'm tired of posting my sources so look it up yourself if you don't believe me. IMO we have no business importing labor until we get that number under control. I don't care how we got to that number, I don't care who's to blame. That number is not economically sustainable and importing millions of workers is not going to help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Your a fucking idiot"
"I don't have time for this anymore."
Shame, you did seem to be interested in an intelligent conversation and I was hoping that by pushing you toward dealing with reality, rather than bullshit inflated figures, you'd begin to consider all the facts. Instead, you give up and revert to the echo chamber where "blame immigrants" and "fear Clinton" are the easy answers that make you feel better.
"We have a real unemployment (U-6) rate of right at 10% or so"
This is true. You know what else is true? It was at nearly 17% when Obama took office.
"I got that number from a liberal web site"
You could have tried a non-partisan primary source:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
Unlike your previous link from there, this has context and a full overview of the period needed. It's taken time, but it's been returned to a pre-financial collapse level after years of fire-fighting the mess that was left. But, you hate the Democrats for the figure, for some reason.
"I don't care how we got to that number, I don't care who's to blame"
But, you're happy to blame Democrats and immigrants either way. Pretty sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]