Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
I suggest you read the actual history.
Hitler was not "permitted to incite attacks against the Jews leading to Kristallnacht by free speech laws" because Hitler had already engineered the abolition of free speech laws five years earlier.
In fact free speech was an impediment to Hitler - not an enabler.
Plus - the Jews were not Hitler's first targets - his first targets were the communists.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING: there are crimes, and there is hate: if someone murders me, do i really care if they loved me or hated me ? ? ? oh, you love me ? oh, okay, then murdering me was ok then... love you too ! ! ! xxoo
don't be daft, punks...|
Reminds me of the "Life on Mars" episode
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?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
but Hitler started out with just speech. He convinced everyone Jewish people a problem, and anti-Jewish sentiment rose until it reached a breaking point.
and in many other instances in history that starting point has not led to what followed in Hitler's case. You are going a bit "pre-crime" here.
The problem is that there are no "good guys" and "bad guys". As Solzhenitsyn said “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
not everything that Hitler said or did was evil - and even less of it needed to be punished by the law.
Unfortunately the law really should wait until the violence has actually happened - or at least until there has been a really clear and credible incitement before swinging into action -otherwise the law itself risks becoming guilty of a "hate crime".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
We must taken action based on someones action NOT their garbage faced words.
Actually there is a narrow category of words that do need to be legislated against - these are words that specifically threaten or encourage illegal violent acts.
Name calling, or even making accusations against a group does not remotely qualify for this but if you stand up in front of a crowd and incite them to lynch someone then that does go beyond that which should be legal.
violence targeted against civilians for political ends
No, I think one has to be more specific than that.
Terrorism is violence done to achieve an aim by instilling fear that is disproportionate to the actual effect of the violence and used in circumstances where direct violent means are not possible.
The patent is directed to the equipment found in and around a 1990s television (such as VCRs, cable converters, satellite tuners). It does not even mention the Internet.
GREAT!
Now I can copy the whole patent, add the words "on the internet" and sue far more people than they can with this one!
some commanders accusing him of refusing to consider their input.
Well, when you consider that what he was trying to do was precisely to take account of the input of those that they deal with (the public) it seems that these commanders don't get irony.
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.
_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._
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.
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.
_ The idea that CAIR is a hate group is like saying BLM is a hate group._
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.
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.
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.
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.
To me the problem is that phrases like "hate speech" can be used to label political speech that you disagree with.
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.
On the post: Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
Hitler was not "permitted to incite attacks against the Jews leading to Kristallnacht by free speech laws" because Hitler had already engineered the abolition of free speech laws five years earlier.
In fact free speech was an impediment to Hitler - not an enabler.
Plus - the Jews were not Hitler's first targets - his first targets were the communists.
On the post: Take Note: Copyright Troll Gets Stiff Response From Someone It Tried To Bully, Immediately Runs Away
Cry-bullies
It should be well-known by readers of this site that copyright trolls are essentially bullies.
Actually they tend to be "cry-bullies", that is they carry out their bullying whilst all along pretending to be the victim.
On the post: Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING: there are crimes, and there is hate: if someone murders me, do i really care if they loved me or hated me ? ? ? oh, you love me ? oh, okay, then murdering me was ok then... love you too ! ! ! xxoo don't be daft, punks...|
Reminds me of the "Life on Mars" episode
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?
On the post: Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
but Hitler started out with just speech. He convinced everyone Jewish people a problem, and anti-Jewish sentiment rose until it reached a breaking point.
and in many other instances in history that starting point has not led to what followed in Hitler's case. You are going a bit "pre-crime" here.
The problem is that there are no "good guys" and "bad guys". As Solzhenitsyn said “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
not everything that Hitler said or did was evil - and even less of it needed to be punished by the law.
Unfortunately the law really should wait until the violence has actually happened - or at least until there has been a really clear and credible incitement before swinging into action -otherwise the law itself risks becoming guilty of a "hate crime".
On the post: Prosecutor Shuts Down New Orleans Cop's Attempt To Charge Arrestee With Hate Crime For Insulting Responding Officers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
We must taken action based on someones action NOT their garbage faced words.
Actually there is a narrow category of words that do need to be legislated against - these are words that specifically threaten or encourage illegal violent acts.
Name calling, or even making accusations against a group does not remotely qualify for this but if you stand up in front of a crowd and incite them to lynch someone then that does go beyond that which should be legal.
On the post: Chinese Police Dub Censorship Circumvention Tools As 'Terrorist Software'
Re: Re: by instilling fear that is disproportionate to the actual effect of the violence
Either way the rest of us pay for it!
On the post: Chinese Police Dub Censorship Circumvention Tools As 'Terrorist Software'
Re: “Terrorism” Has Become A Meaningless Term
violence targeted against civilians for political ends
No, I think one has to be more specific than that.
Terrorism is violence done to achieve an aim by instilling fear that is disproportionate to the actual effect of the violence and used in circumstances where direct violent means are not possible.
What is the Chinese government so scared of?
On the post: Why Is Your Bigoted, Luddite Uncle Crafting Internet Policy In Europe?
His US Counterpart
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Changing The Channel
Copycat
The patent is directed to the equipment found in and around a 1990s television (such as VCRs, cable converters, satellite tuners). It does not even mention the Internet.
GREAT!
Now I can copy the whole patent, add the words "on the internet" and sue far more people than they can with this one!
On the post: In Leaked Recording, Austin Police Chief Tears Into Commanders For Fatal Shootings, Use Of Excessive Force
Irony
some commanders accusing him of refusing to consider their input.
Well, when you consider that what he was trying to do was precisely to take account of the input of those that they deal with (the public) it seems that these commanders don't get irony.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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!
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
Next >>