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
I've seen this in many many paces, and of course if you bothered to look at the links within the Breitbart you would see where they got their evidence from.
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.
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....
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
Roads? Only amount for the 1% of the causes of death; and that also answers Richard's question.
Actually it doesn't.
The statistics don't tell you the cause. They tell you what people at the scene thought the cause was. It is folly to rely ion statistics in these cases.
To blame the road you have to be aware of the road issues that can cause problems - and most people filling in post accident forms aren't aware. Plus the forms themselves don't have clear categories for blaming the road - so it isn't a surprise that the statistics don't reflect reality on that point.
In formula 1 the drivers are all highly skilled and so it is natural to blame road or car design for deaths, which is why fatalities have fallen even more in that domain.
Plus - if you classify death statistics by type of road then you find some types to be safer than others - which more or less proves that the road is, to some extent, to blame all of the time.
Well you can get a good approximation to it just by Googling
police shootings US
In fact there is a US law, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, specifically Section 210402, the U.S. Congress mandated that the attorney general collect data on the use of excessive force by police and publish an annual report from the data. However this has not been done in recent years so the void has been filled by crowdsourcing.
SO who's fault is it that the don't have the data?
Agreed - most people don't have barrels of apples anymore - and so they don't realise that a few bad apples in fact will make the whole lot go off pretty damn quick.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
A felony record will make it a lot harder to maintain good relations and a good job, making you less attractive as a mate and less successful in procreation.
In fantasyland.
Meanwhile, in the real world these people are put into a position where the only recreation they can afford is procreation - whilst the higher achievers are too busy with their careers to bother with having children.
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
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/
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
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.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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....
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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".
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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!
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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?
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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?
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
Re: Should genuine "hate speech" by a political candidate be allowed to be posted anyway?
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
Re:
You don't have the right not to be offended (and nor do the groups in question).
So what is your point?
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
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.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comment
Roads? Only amount for the 1% of the causes of death; and that also answers Richard's question.
Actually it doesn't.
The statistics don't tell you the cause. They tell you what people at the scene thought the cause was. It is folly to rely ion statistics in these cases.
To blame the road you have to be aware of the road issues that can cause problems - and most people filling in post accident forms aren't aware. Plus the forms themselves don't have clear categories for blaming the road - so it isn't a surprise that the statistics don't reflect reality on that point.
In formula 1 the drivers are all highly skilled and so it is natural to blame road or car design for deaths, which is why fatalities have fallen even more in that domain.
Plus - if you classify death statistics by type of road then you find some types to be safer than others - which more or less proves that the road is, to some extent, to blame all of the time.
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Re:
He says they don't have the data
Well you can get a good approximation to it just by Googling
police shootings US
In fact there is a US law, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, specifically Section 210402, the U.S. Congress mandated that the attorney general collect data on the use of excessive force by police and publish an annual report from the data. However this has not been done in recent years so the void has been filled by crowdsourcing.
SO who's fault is it that the don't have the data?
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Re: Not bad apples
On the post: FTC Warns AT&T Court Victory On Throttling Could Screw Consumers For Decades
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agree, its been screwing my posts up too!
Unless you also remember to click the box.
On the post: FTC Warns AT&T Court Victory On Throttling Could Screw Consumers For Decades
Re: Re: Re:
_Agree, its been screwing my posts up too!_
and it doesn't actually work
On the post: Stepdad Goes To Police With Stepdaughter's Sexts, Asks Them To Intervene, Is Prosecuted For Child Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
A felony record will make it a lot harder to maintain good relations and a good job, making you less attractive as a mate and less successful in procreation.
In fantasyland.
Meanwhile, in the real world these people are put into a position where the only recreation they can afford is procreation - whilst the higher achievers are too busy with their careers to bother with having children.
On the post: Stepdad Goes To Police With Stepdaughter's Sexts, Asks Them To Intervene, Is Prosecuted For Child Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The technology is here. The genie is out.
religion played a major role in keeping people dumb and bigoted
The people already WANTED to be kept dumb and bigoted.
Religion pandered to that desire when it should have challenged it.
Next >>