Should Social Media Sites Be Forced To Pull Pastor Calling For War With North Korea?
from the countering-violent-extremism dept
There's been a lot of debate over the past few years about forcing internet platforms -- YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, mainly -- to respond to terrorists (oddly only Muslim terrorists) using those platforms for propaganda and agitation by taking down that content. It's often been discussed under the banner of "countering violent extremism" or CVE. These days, those and other platforms tend to have large staffs reviewing videos, and especially quickly pulling down videos of ISIS promoters calling for attacks on America and Europe. And, in some countries it's now required by law that internet platforms remove such content. And you can certainly understand the gut reaction here: someone calling you evil and encouraging attacks on you is seriously unnerving.
One of the points that we make about this, though, is that while many, many people think it's "easy" to determine which content is "good" and which content is "bad," it's not. The areas of gray are vast and murky. One example we pointed to is that when YouTube was first pressured into taking down terrorist propaganda videos, it resulted in YouTube killing a channel that was documenting atrocities in Syria. Understanding the difference between promoting violence and documenting violence is not easy.
And here's another example. You may have seen the following news clip floating around, involving a Trump-connected Pastor named Robert Jeffress explaining on a news program why the Bible says it's okay to assassinate Kim Jong Un and go to war with North Korea.
.@robertjeffress: "The Bible gives @POTUS the moral authority to use whatever force necessary... to take out an evildoer like Kim Jong-un." pic.twitter.com/UQZTE8fwzS
— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 9, 2017
That video clip is all over the news this week and can be found all over the internet. The copy I'm posting above is from Twitter, but I'm sure it can be found elsewhere as well. But what if, instead of an evangelical pastor, that statement were coming from a Muslim cleric, and instead of North Korea and Kim Jong Un it talked about America and Donald Trump? Would it still be all over social media, or would people be demanding that the internet take it down?
And this question applies no matter what you think of the video above. I'm not making a statement one way or the other on the content of it, even if I have an opinion about that. My point is simply that when we demand that platforms pull down "radical" content pushing for "violent extremism," it's really, really difficult to distinguish between the video above and some of what, say, ISIS releases.
This is a point that I think frequently gets lost in these discussions. People think that it's easy to tell what's "bad" because it's easy for them to determine what is bad in their opinion or bad to them. But setting up general rules that scale across an entire platform is almost impossible. And even if you argue that the context of this video is different from my Muslim cleric example, you're only helping to make my point. Because that would mean that anyone reviewing the video to determine if it stays up or down would have to become knowledgeable in the overall context -- which in this case could require understanding centuries of global religious views and conflicts. I'm sorry, but Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and everyone else can't hire thousands of PhDs in all related fields to review these videos (within hours) with the level of understanding and context necessary to make a judgment call on each and every one.
None of this is to say that the platforms need to leave everything up (or take everything down). But if you're going to require platforms to police content, you need to at least recognize that any "rules" on this stuff will lead to rules you don't like. Rules that say a Muslim cleric's call for war on America is not allowed will almost certainly lead to the video above also not being allowed. Maybe some people are comfortable with neither being allowed, but the situation sure gets tricky quickly...
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: censorship, countering violent extremism, extremism, kim jong un, north korea, propaganda, robert jeffress, takedowns, threats, videos
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In my view the video fits the criteria of "extremism" just like any other ISIS video. It incites violence and direct harm (one of the very few and high exceptions for free speech). It's basically hate speech if you position yourself in a neutral ground.
In fact, if you go past your own bias (and my instinctive answer to the question was yes by the way), one can build a long, long, long list of very bad things the US govt has done in the past and has been doing recently that could be put in the same level of "bad" of what happens in NK, except that mostly it was directed to other countries. There's plenty of evidence that the US sponsored authoritarian regimes all over the world for instance, most of them with high death tolls.
So, would somebody calling for violent interference in the US to stop these bad actions (and I'm not limiting the call to what I mentioned) be wrong? Or would somebody asking for violent intervention in Syria to stop ISIS the wrong one? Or in the end they are both right and we should just treat it as opinion providing means to the community to sort out (but never censor) and move on?
It's not am easy reply. Yes and No are probably not the answer but rather some complex middle ground solution. As for me, I think we should keep the deleting to a minimum and offer tools for moderation like the hidden comments here. How to implement that I don't know but by ensuring all speech has its space as despicable as it may be will only lead to a better world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IF you censor extremist content from X religion, then you damn well better censor it from Y religion too. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite (and possibly illegal).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are other forms of unprotected speech, too: true threats, defamation, incitement to imminent lawless action, and conduct that is essential to the commission of a crime, off the top of my head. Any of those can be legally suppressed by the US government.
Of course, that's just the US; speech laws all over the world are different, and raise all kinds of interesting questions about whether and when providers should obey local laws or break them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe next time try it with a bit less myopia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So how is that any different than "As Muslims we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys like those Americans"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
he did basically say "As Christians we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys like those in North Korea"
So how is that any different than "As Muslims we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys like those Americans"?
Except that the Bible really doesn't say that, it says "love your enemies".
What he said is at best a tenous logical deduction from the bible and seems to correspond to the Catholic "just war Theory". Your interpretation is not a fair summary of what he said.
The so called "just war" theory was worked out some 3 or 4 centuries after the new Testament was written. It was a response to the new fact that Christians were now in the unfamiliar position of having civil power. Once you ARE the civil authority you have to accept that there will be times when violence will be necessary to maintain order.
A quick summary of the "just war theory is the following
(found here as part of an interesting discussion on this issue: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/combatants-non-combatants-double-effect )
The action must be morally good, or indifferent, as to object, motive and circumstances.
It isn't possible from the brief clip to be certain but he could have been saying "according to the just war principles it would be OK fo attack N. Korea" which certainly doesn't amount to saying "As Christians we are good guys and it is totally ok for us to kill 'evil' guys"
and is very different from the Islamic version that you quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My point is that a war being "just" or "holy" is often just a matter of perspective. Those in North Korea have been taught that we are 'evil' and that we want to come destroy them. Look at the actions of Trump lately, he is not really giving them reason to think otherwise.
We see news through a filter of "we are the good guys" but just try and imagine how things look from the other side. Imagine seeing clips of Trump saying he is going to bring "Fire and fury" down on them. Would not take much work to make him look just as crazy and unhinged as we think Kim Jong Un is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
NK is a bit of a weird bird in this situation, but it isn't relevant to taking down rhetoric made by/for NK, or against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But that's circular reasoning. You're arguing that social media platforms should only be legally forced to remove content that they can be legally forced to remove; that's tautological.
We're not just talking about the US here; as the article notes, other countries have very different speech laws than the US does.
Course, I think the point of what we're discussing here is that the First Amendment (and its corresponding legal interpretations) is the way to go, and that America's approach to speech is one that the rest of the world should emulate. I'm inclined to agree with that viewpoint.
Beyond that, though, there's another question -- besides "should they be forced to remove this content?" is "should they voluntarily remove this content?" And that's not an easy question. Twitter, Facebook, et al are, of course, private entities, and are allowed to moderate content as they see fit, but they're answerable to their users, advertisers, shareholders, etc. and those people don't always want the same things. Twitter and Reddit have really struggled over the past couple of years to articulate a consistent moderation policy, and they've lost money and subscribers doing it. Agreeing on a moderation policy is difficult enough on a small site with just a few users and admins; it becomes much, much harder as scale increases.
Most people would agree that some level of moderation is a good idea (we do have one guy here who thinks Techdirt shouldn't have any moderation, even spam filters or a flag button; he is, ironically, the best argument for why online forums should have at least a basic form of moderation). But when your subscribers number in the millions, there are going to be very different and totally irreconcilable opinions on just what content should be moderated and what should be allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, you loaded it up SO sly!
Not tough if one is consistently anti-war. I've noted here that the Afghan / Iraq wars are phonied up out of nothing, murdered a million people -- costing over a million dollars each to do so, displaced millions, stole resources for corporations, and phony too is the Syrian war by proxy, just more imperialism and regime change for no legal cause. That's the fascism we live under, never seen YOU protest it.
Now here's a hot potato for you: are you for making it a FELONY to support the Boycott, Disinvest, and Sanction (BDS) movement against Israel? Is suppressing that speech fine with you? -- Silence = YES, especially after I not only answer one you thought would tangle, but go ALL the way possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, you loaded it up SO sly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, you loaded it up SO sly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, you loaded it up SO sly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, you loaded it up SO sly!
I knew he was, that sick bastard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please show me in the bible where it states it's ok to kill someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One shall do unto others as one wishes and decide what others cannot do to oneself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Taken out of context have we?
Psalm 137:8-9
O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy shall he be who repays you as you have served us! Happy shall he be who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock.
A song of great sorrow by a people who had been enslaved, murdered, destroyed by Babylon. So if you want to pick and choose then make sure you put in context, otherwise you are no better than a hypocrite yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are consequences for all of the choices an individual or a society makes. If you go out to conquer without regard to what you are doing to those whom you conquer, then don't be surprised if in turn you are treated the same way.
This is a warning for all of us today. The bible is full of those choices of man and the consequences thereof. We have been warned and in the same way we have been told how we should be living for the best possible result. Then again, man doesn't listen and so man reaps the results of what he sows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You miss the point."
Et tu. The point was where in the bible does it say it's ok to kill. Psalm 137.9 is pretty damn clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One, Murder and Killing are two different things. You must first understand the different for those times as those words were written. If you use today's understanding of words, you are going to get it wrong!
The bible makes it clear that "murder" is wrong, that is the taking of the life of a HUMAN that has NOT forfeited their life by taking the life of someone else! If you kill someone that has forfeited their life, it is NOT murder.
---"The Bible gives @POTUS the moral authority to use whatever force necessary... to take out an evildoer like Kim Jong-un."---
This is being stretched. No one has the "moral" authority for this proactively. However, America would have the "moral" authority to tell the residents that wish to escape the country that we will physically protect them. Walk into NK and make it clear those following us out of the country will be protected with miliarty might and those wishing to stay will be unharmed.
If we do it just like that... then we have Moral Authority, otherwise, we cannot morally go in guns blazing to save those being oppressed by NK gov.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[inhale]
...false prophets, blasphemers, scammers, anyone who approaches the tabernacle without authorization, people who work on the Sabbath, anyone who looks into the ark of Jehovah - and the nearest fifty thousand men when they do so...
[inhale]
...the children of sinners, the women and children of enemies, the first-born of Egypt, the old men and young women and children and babies of Babylon, the Philistines, Jericho and all the men, women and children in it, the same for Benjaminites....
[inhale]
Etc.
Really, have you ever read it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lest you think the responses here seem a little too focused on the Old Testament, I'll point out that when the US turned into a torture state, Christians had no problem using even the New Testament to justify it. One such instance I thought worth saving:
Jesus can be your torturer/killer in small conflicts...
Or you can invoke him to justify something rather larger:
Air Force Cites New Testament to Train Officers on Ethics of Launching Nuclear Weapons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The thing I find so fascinating about Jesus Christ is that, no matter who you are or what you have done, He provides a way into Life as long as you actually believe him and take up your cross and follow him. You can fall over and over again and He will pick you up. The wonderful thing is that anyone can be recreated anew in Jesus and there is no condemnation then by Him. We are cleansed, we are forgiven, we are remade in His image and this is available to all, to everyone, everyone.
So those who by their fruit are no different to the world around them but claim to be the Servants of the Most High need to take a long, hard look at themselves and repent and turn back to Him who is Life and Love and Saviour. All who call ourselves his followers must stop besmirching His Holy Name and His character.
This world policies are foul, evil, corrupt, wicked and lead only to destruction. All men, women and children are precious in the sight of God and that is why He provides the only to True Life. But it is our choice to follow Him or reject Him. We are responsible for the consequences that follow.
As far as NK is concerned, we as Christians, should be praying for a change of heart for them all that they may have peace and freedom, no less than we should be praying for any nation including our own. We need to be seeking forgiveness, repentance , mercy and blessing for all who oppose Jesus Christ (including ourselves when we fail and oppose Him).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Note, I'm not ranting at you specifically, just the idiots who can't seem to grasp that in cases like this, censoring is not only wrong, but makes it tougher to know who are the bad-guys, and even tougher to deal with them later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, given the universe's 5:4 ratio of dogs to buns I think we can say that given enough time, freedom will triumph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hire them all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hire them all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hire them all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hire them all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hire them all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
List them all
ISIS,
American forefathers vs the British.
The Crusades
China vs Tibet
xxx? vs the Jewish people(to many to list)
Jewish Zealots in Judaea Province
Bosnia
IRA
Colonial Expansionism..
PLO
...
...
...
19th Century
Anarchism, often in league with rising nationalism, was the most prominent ideology linked with terrorism. Attacks by various anarchist groups led to the assassination of a Russian Tsar and a U.S. President
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell no!
Other Christians should be ashamed of the Southern Baptists. They are worse than the Westboro Baptists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hell no!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DONT BE STUPID and SHOW IGNORANCE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DONT BE STUPID and SHOW IGNORANCE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DONT BE STUPID and SHOW IGNORANCE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DONT BE STUPID and SHOW IGNORANCE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DONT BE STUPID and SHOW IGNORANCE
those in Charge of N. Korea NOW..
have/had NOTHING to do with Anyone from the past...
THEY took over after we left..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DONT BE STUPID and SHOW IGNORANCE
And no, it never did end, regardless of official bits of paper or no. Not sure why this is relevant, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3 nations showing OFF their weapons..
JUST LIKE NOW..and every 20 years..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Bush-ism almost seems quaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fun fact: he got it from an early draft of Thing Explainer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real solution here
I was in traffic today and saw a SUV with a bumper sticker (obviously home made) that read "I don't listen to the liberal media" and on the other side a sticker for "INFOWARS". My thought, "Where's the life guard in this damn gene pool?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should Trump go ahead and launch nukes at N. Korea, taking out the threat?
So here is the quandary. If a year from now N. Korea launches nukes and hits LA, Seattle, Denver, Dallas and Chicago, a pre-emptive strike sounds like a great idea. Killing Hitler before he starts WWII.
Course, China wouldn't appreciate us nuking their neighbor, but they would get over it.
So a pre-emptive, good thing or bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Course, China wouldn't appreciate us nuking their neighbor, but they would get over it.
Just like America would get over it if Mexico nuked Ottawa and fallout poisoned Albany.
Yeah, dude, I don't think so.
China has two dogs in this fight.
They don't want the NKPR rejoining the south. They want a buffer between South Korea and themselves.
In any case, it's not a certainty they have miniaturized their warheads to the point of being able to fly them on a missile. I would fear a nuke by UPS or FedEx more at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem is of course that we now have an insane POTUS who is busy engaging in a dick-measuring contest with KJU and who may well order the deployment of nuclear weapons via morning shitter twitter. I would not be surprised if high-level US military officials have used back channels to Beijing to tell them that they won't obey those orders if they're given...because following them would result in retaliation from PRC, and unlike NK, they have missiles and weapons that are known-working.
The Chinese also don't like the fact that NK is tinkering with nuclear-tipped missiles, because their track record is erratic and one that's launched at Guam might come down in PRC. There's also the question of who will control them after KJU is gone. I wouldn't be surprised if they have their own plan for neutralizing them - quietly and deniably.
Worth noting in all this is that this has been going on for decades, because there are no good options for the US. Fault can be found with POTUS 44, 43, 42, etc., but in their favor is that none of them provoked a shooting war. This POTUS clearly needs a crisis not only to allow him to feed his testosterone-bloated ego, but he needs it to distract from the hammer that is about to come down on his entire administration. Wag the dog, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you a professional moron or is it just a hobby?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That includes the US, Russia, China, maybe France and England, but not sure.
Is it worth keeping N. Korea out of that club?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"These are the neccessary birthing pains of this mother earth."
Not quite sure how to parse this comment... Regardless, here's my take. The whole world saw how it turned out for Gaddafi. Gaddafi surrendered his nuclear ambitions to garner a better relationship with The West and ended up being rogered in the ass by a rusty bayonet. In a stinking ditch. Kim, even though he (apparently) does not have an anus, won't want this on his tombstone.
His nukes, and the fact that the USA could only reach a stalemate in the 50's, is what's protecting him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Kim opens the borders and lets waves of refugees through to China, South Korea or Japan, you'll see the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
About just that, or everything in the news? That does change some things.
Anyway, having grown up during the cold war, I'm glad we didn't have such raging morons and pussies as you in charge. The TV would take the piss out of everything from international relations to the threat of nuclear winter, and while the leadership was far from perfect we never actually thought that people on "our side" would push the button unprovoked. Diplomacy was carried out, and we managed the stop the cold war without a single nuke being fired, even if we thought there might be danger of the other guy doing it first.
Now, we apparently have a child in charge of the US who feels like he can bypass all diplomacy and threaten direct action against an enemy who has actually done anything worth of retaliation yet. Meanwhile, his idiot defenders whine about how it's just not fair that those big old meanies on the "other side" in their country are addressing their violent threats with humour and warning caution about antagonising the rest of the world. We should just solemnly follow the orange one into the abyss, apparently.
"Killing Hitler before he starts WWII."
There's one guy who has been getting the full support of Nazis recently, and he's not sat in Pyongyang.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something Wicked This Way Comes*
But what if, instead of an evangelical pastor, that statement were coming from a Muslim cleric, and instead of North Korea and Kim Jong Un it talked about America and Donald Trump?
What if the President of the United States made similar terroristic statements?
The italicized/bold text below from reuters.com is straight from the horses arse (ie commander in chief) a man who is a know-nothing lunatic with control of thousands of deliverable nuclear weapons.
"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen," Trump told reporters at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-usa-trump-idUSKBN1AO28O
Would it still be all over social media, or would people be demanding that the internet take it down?
*Thank you Ray Bradbury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_Wicked_This_Way_Comes_(novel)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't find it a little funny that all of these far left companies (facebook, twitter, google, patreon, etc) ignore far left extremism while constantly make an effort to suppress anyone that is to the the right of the extreme far left?
"(oddly only Muslim terrorists)"
Is it so odd that 95% of all terrorist attacks are conducted by Islamists?
https://storymaps.esri.com/stories/terrorist-attacks/?year=2016
Listen Mike, there's a difference between voicing an opinion and pushing your followers to carry out an attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I swear, you far left idiologues are the spitting definition of cognitive dissonance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But to save these starving North Koreans we should... nuke them? Invade? That will surely be helpful. Or maybe selling them oil (yuck) or helping finish the civilian nuclear power projects we promised as part of the last deal and then abandoned? Hmmm. I just don't know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That would be a win/win for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If only you guys were as creative with real solutions to real problems as you are about spreading lies about brown people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anarco Communists such as antifa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For your crowd, ANY support for civil rights is "leftist" and "communist."
While there are setbacks like Trump, Bannon, Gorka and their neo-Nazi - sorry, "alt-right" - followers, civil rights keeps winning.
Enjoy the dustbin of history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Totalitarian Progressivism is far from have anything to do with civil rights.
Just what exact legislation is missing that is preventing anyone from doing anything they want to doLeftists have opposed multiple civil Rights acts since apparently, identity politics is everything to them:
http://dudamobile.tfdf.org/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftfdf.org%2Fblog%2F2012%2F08%2F30%2Fthe-democrat-pa rty-vs-the-republican-party-who-is-the-true-champion-of-the-ending-slavery-the-civil-rights-movement -and-the-black-community%2F#2725
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also extremely, given how far apart from each other those concepts are on the political spectrum.
Oh, and I'm not clicking on that link, but would that be ones of those screeds that tries to ignore the Southern Strategy that flipped party affiliations in the 60s when the civil rights act passed? The one that got all the Southern Democrats to flee the party and become Republicans in protest? Because you might want to look into that before making a fool out of yourself again, if so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Domestic terrorists killing domestic terrorists is comedy gold!
I'd personally pay to see the klan vs the klan with a tan(BLM), fight to the death.
Fuck them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State versus non-state actions
The pastor wants the US (country) to go to war with North Korea (hermit kingdom). He is not asking individual Americans to randomly pop off North Koreans they meet in the street or anything like that, it's a state on state concept.
Hate crimes are different. It's group on group - the proverbial "kill all fags" mentality. ISIS and other terror organizations work in this manner, they want to inflict pain on random people without discretion. They have no intention by the actions to win a war, it's all about making the other group's life suck a little more.
Religion falls sort of in the same category. It's one the reasons that Trump's travel bans have had such a hard time in the courts, as they are aimed at a religious group that spans the world and exists in no small part already inside the US. If the pastor said "if you meet a muslim you should kill him" it would be unacceptable (and have some legal implications, I am sure).
It is one of the ways that Israel has managed to stay aloof. Being both a country and a religious group, they often seem to be playing with their standing to gain sympathy. When they fight and attack the Palestinians, they are Strong Israelis protesting their country, and when they are attacked, they scream about killing jews. They have managed to put themselves in a unique position where everything negative against them can be turned in to an attack on the poor jewish people, rather than on the state.
So for me, a pastor (or anyone else) encouraging or discouraging war is expressing an opinion as to how their country should be run. There is no reason to shut it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: State versus non-state actions
Techdirt has turned into a very sad, sad, place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: State versus non-state actions
As ever, there's a huge amount. First off, start of your second paragraph:
"The pastor wants the US (country) to go to war with North Korea (hermit kingdom)."
Name calling like that states quite clearly that you're not really interested in just discussing facts. Even if what you say is otherwise true, dismissing one side as not a real country isn't going to get anyone to agree with you.
Then, you go from there to other rambling nonsense, applying opinion as if it were fact, denigrating other people, preemptively dismissing other points of view as if they don't matter. There may be nuggets of truth and real discussion to be contained there, but at every turn you indicate you're not interested in such things.
I can understand why your confused if you genuinely think this is a good way of performing discourse and have a real discussion, but I can assure you that this is not the case.
"Sadly, some just choose to click report."
Your posting history suggests to most readers that "MyNameHere" + "several paragraphs" = "rambling bullshit that's not worth reading".
I agree people shouldn't report without reading it, and not report unless it is genuine trolling or spam. But, this is a grave that you have dug for yourself.
"Techdirt has turned into a very sad, sad, place."
Then why do you insist on returning and repeating the same mistakes over and over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: State versus non-state actions
What you listed was the magic of me expressing my opinion.
I didn't name-call anyone. North Korea is a hermit kingdom by definition, they keep everyone out, it's a single family in power for it's entire current existence, and it doesn't deal with others. It's a kingdom, and it's a hermit.
How you can try to call that name calling is jaw dropping.
As for the rest, it's my opinion. It is no more and no less valid that yours. Clicking report just to shut me up won't work. Haven't you figured that out? Just like Google firing the guy who wrote the memo, every time you click report you have basically proven my point for me.
"Then why do you insist on returning and repeating the same mistakes over and over?"
No mistake. Techdirt discusses issues I find important. I find it incredibly interesting to see at what level the staff (and the comment writers) will go to twist things to come to their desired conclusion. It's entertaining, it's enlightening, and it is certainly a solid indication of why there is such a gulf between groups in the western world.
Even you make it fun, because every village needs an idiot, and you are so freaking good at it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: State versus non-state actions
No, I just respond to bullshit if I'm bored, whenever I see it in otherwise interesting conversations. It's a shame that it's always the same couple of morons attempting to derail the discussion for everyone else, but that's life I suppose.
"North Korea is a hermit kingdom by definition"
Not by everybody's argument (see link below for an example opposing argument), but your need to insert the idea that the US is a "real" country and the DRPK is not in the very start of your argument would be an indication to many that you're not interested in a real debate.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/its-not-a-hermit-kingdom-and-4-othe r-myths-about-north-korea/274488/
"As for the rest, it's my opinion. It is no more and no less valid that yours."
But, you generally refuse to back it up or address the opinions stated by others. You do your fair share of attacking the opinions of others, but rarely agree to get into anything resembling an honest debate.
"Clicking report just to shut me up won't work. Haven't you figured that out?"
Once again, because you're so wrapped up in your self importance to deal with the actual opinions of others - I *never* do that. I always respond to the crap you spew on this site. That's why you always whine about being tired of me responding to you - I *always* respond, never report.
"every time you click report you have basically proven my point for me"
Which is ZERO times. Glad you agree that your points are never proven correct by reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except that other governments have no problem saying that the Jew state should be wiped off the face of the earth.
For others, except that N. Korea could pose a real threat to wipe out millions of people in LA, San Fran, San Diego, Denver, Dallas and Chicago.
Do you let a madman control nukes? (and please, no Trump comments here)
You want to know when Iran is about to obtain nukes? It will be about 2 weeks after Israel bombs the hell out of them. There is no way that Israel will allow Iran to actually produce nukes, no matter how much pressure the US puts on them to not do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not? His mental state is very much pertinent to the conversation, and it has been found lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the pat 1400 years Muslim colonialism has been ravaging the world. They destroyed the birth places of many religioun (including Buddhism) and replaced it with Islam hence the reason why 1.6 billion are now Muslim. And it's not by choice, but by rule of law since it's illegal in many countries to be non-muslim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*Socrates*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If anything, you reinforced his argument...Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]