I'm still trying to work out what "Proper English" means, since, ee bah gum, lad, we've got so many dialects in this country, it's ridiculous, like.
That's Yorkshire. Now go on YouTube and do a search on the following accents: Geordie, Cornish, Bristol, Bolton, Liverpool, Birmingham, Oxford... have fun!
People are getting kicked off platforms for voicing opposition to abortion, affirming the sanctity of traditional marriage, and similar moral viewpoints which are still held even today by a majority of Americans.
If that were true how come National Review's David French is still on Twitter?
Whether you're right or wrong about the number of people who hold those opinions, people get booted for being abusive, not for sharing unfashionable viewpoints. I'm conservative and only ever got into trouble for my decidedly moderate views with one or two militant progressives. I generally try to get along with everyone and that means not being an obnoxious toad when sharing my opinions.
Confirmed correct. When answering the one they did about fracking I had to answer the questions in such a way as to address the problems I have with it. It's almost as if they're framing the questions to get the answers they want.
If you speak to them as people, and genuinely debate the merits of their argument, you will slowly change their minds so they're no longer racist. If you speak to them like untermensch, then they will only further radicalize and may never be able to recover.
Have you had any success with "de-racisting" people?
I find that when you challenge their views you get an elastic band effect; they'll tell you what you want to hear to get the heat off, then snap back to default five minutes later.
Since __ supremacy is predicated on the notion that the beliver is special due to being _____, and therefore this is a default, good luck with changing that mindset. They'd have to come up with a whole new way to "prove" their chops as superior anything. If their self-esteem is built on being better than __, it ain't gonna happen.
By leaving the defamation intact, it becomes a ticking time bomb for those who find it and are foolish enough to repeat it in a way that "reiterates" it in their own words, making them the publisher.
I've had defamatory statements about me repeated by yourself, Jhon, and guess what? No harm done, not even a call to discuss it with managers. The original troll is long gone.
For the umpteenth time, your reputation is predicated on your own conduct, not on what others say about you, which merely causes people to check you out.
Shutting them down just drives them underground, AC. That's why we're all surprised and horrified at the speed of which virulent Nazis have emerged from under their rocks, and, even more horrifyingly, that many of these are people we know. They'd kept quiet for so long in case they were shouted down that now that they feed=l free to speak and act, that's exactly what they're doing. Think "Pandora" and "box."
So what do we do, since decades of counter-speech hasn't really done the job of dissuading people from being downright horrible?
As you mention above, context is important. But, the fact that it's historical material after the fact changes things, as they can no longer be encouraging the killer to do what he's doing in the moment, even if they're trying to recruit new soldiers.
Yeah, but they're encouraging others to do it by recruiting new soldiers.
It's sick either way, but there's an argument to be had that if he didn't have an audience sharing the video and egging him on, the shooter could have stopped early, or chickened out entirely.
True, but I'm also thinking of the audience. People ought to be appalled at this, not cheering it on or scaring their neighbours into thinking that they might be next -- at the hands of the people living nearby.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
A news reporter doesn't say, "You're next, Muzzie boy!" or put dog poop through your letterbox or scrawl hateful messages on your house. They're also not known for spouting hateful rhetoric or showing support for it, as a general rule.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
People who have no interest in “spreading hate” have suffered and continue at this moment to suffer under laws purporting to protect people from “dangerous” content. You ignore this--which is abhorrent--and have the gall to ask “why shouldn't we censor?”
@takitus, no, mate. I have taken context into consideration.
I know about Poland censoring material alleging collaboration with the Nazis during the Second World War on grounds of butthurt, or something. I'm not happy about people being sent to jail for off-colour comments.
What you're not seeing is how the proliferation of hate material for the purpose of spreading hate, not to report atrocities, has a chilling effect on individuals and groups; it is, in effect, a form of censorship because it makes them afraid to speak out. Try being in a target group some time, it's an education.
On the post: ESA Steps In With Amicus Brief In Support Of Activision Versus Humvee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm still trying to work out what "Proper English" means, since, ee bah gum, lad, we've got so many dialects in this country, it's ridiculous, like.
That's Yorkshire. Now go on YouTube and do a search on the following accents: Geordie, Cornish, Bristol, Bolton, Liverpool, Birmingham, Oxford... have fun!
On the post: ESA Steps In With Amicus Brief In Support Of Activision Versus Humvee
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It only makes sense when the "h" is silent, like in herb.
Yeah, that's another thing someone from England might disagree with you on.
Or Ireland. We pronounce the "h" in "Herb."
On the post: Pennsylvania Legislators Quickly And Quietly Passed A Law That Strips Power From Its Reform-Minded DA
Re: They hate our freedom
Confirmed correct. I've seen right-wingers refer to the Constitution as the "Con-stitution." They don't like the rule of law.
On the post: Why Is The Washington Post Publishing Blatantly False Propaganda About Section 230?
Re:
People are getting kicked off platforms for voicing opposition to abortion, affirming the sanctity of traditional marriage, and similar moral viewpoints which are still held even today by a majority of Americans.
If that were true how come National Review's David French is still on Twitter?
Whether you're right or wrong about the number of people who hold those opinions, people get booted for being abusive, not for sharing unfashionable viewpoints. I'm conservative and only ever got into trouble for my decidedly moderate views with one or two militant progressives. I generally try to get along with everyone and that means not being an obnoxious toad when sharing my opinions.
On the post: Once Again, Russian Internet Propaganda Efforts Shown To Be Much Bigger Than Originally Believed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: stunned
As I've noticed.
On the post: Once Again, Russian Internet Propaganda Efforts Shown To Be Much Bigger Than Originally Believed
Re: Re: Re: stunned
The whole thing is now a laughingstock
Yesh, right: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury
On the post: The UK's Entire Approach To 'Online Harms' Is Backwards... And No One Cares
Re: Re:
Wishful thinking, bearing in mind how things are going.
On the post: The UK's Entire Approach To 'Online Harms' Is Backwards... And No One Cares
Re: Re: Think of the children
UK resident here. Confirmed correct.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: The Case Of YouTube And 'Hacking' Videos
Re: Re: Re:
Ask any nursery worker. And if you need guns to make society polite, there's something very badly wrong in your society.
On the post: The UK's Entire Approach To 'Online Harms' Is Backwards... And No One Cares
Re: Flags
Confirmed correct. When answering the one they did about fracking I had to answer the questions in such a way as to address the problems I have with it. It's almost as if they're framing the questions to get the answers they want.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: The Case Of YouTube And 'Hacking' Videos
Re:
"An armed society is a polite society."
If that were true the gun-related body count would be a hell of a lot lower.
You can't just stroll into Tesco and buy a gun over here in the UK and we are generally a polite society.
US gun deaths this year alone: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deaths
UK gun deaths 2017-2018: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales /yearendingdecember2018#offences-involving-knives-or-sharp-instruments-are-still-rising-while-firear ms-offences-decrease
Even allowing for population differences access to firearms is the issue. It's much easier to defend yourself against a knife than a gun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverhampton_machete_attack
On the post: Self-Described Feminist Loses Lawsuit Against Twitter For Banning Her Account
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In mine, it's insanity -- or ignorance. It's usually a mix of both.
On the post: FBI Serves Incredibly Broad Warrant To 8chan, Demanding Info On All Users Who Responded To A Shooter's Post
Re:
If you speak to them as people, and genuinely debate the merits of their argument, you will slowly change their minds so they're no longer racist. If you speak to them like untermensch, then they will only further radicalize and may never be able to recover.
Have you had any success with "de-racisting" people?
I find that when you challenge their views you get an elastic band effect; they'll tell you what you want to hear to get the heat off, then snap back to default five minutes later.
Since __ supremacy is predicated on the notion that the beliver is special due to being _____, and therefore this is a default, good luck with changing that mindset. They'd have to come up with a whole new way to "prove" their chops as superior anything. If their self-esteem is built on being better than __, it ain't gonna happen.
On the post: Senator Hawley Proposes Law To Force Internet Companies To Beg The FTC For Permission To Host Content
Re:
The words "copyright," "Net Neutrality," "free speech," "guns," "cops," and "Section 230" all seem to have that effect, AC.
It's like a dinner bell to trolls, they all come running to spout their nonsense.
On the post: Senator Hawley Proposes Law To Force Internet Companies To Beg The FTC For Permission To Host Content
Re: Re:
By leaving the defamation intact, it becomes a ticking time bomb for those who find it and are foolish enough to repeat it in a way that "reiterates" it in their own words, making them the publisher.
I've had defamatory statements about me repeated by yourself, Jhon, and guess what? No harm done, not even a call to discuss it with managers. The original troll is long gone.
For the umpteenth time, your reputation is predicated on your own conduct, not on what others say about you, which merely causes people to check you out.
On the post: Senator Hawley Proposes Law To Force Internet Companies To Beg The FTC For Permission To Host Content
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shutting them down just drives them underground, AC. That's why we're all surprised and horrified at the speed of which virulent Nazis have emerged from under their rocks, and, even more horrifyingly, that many of these are people we know. They'd kept quiet for so long in case they were shouted down that now that they feed=l free to speak and act, that's exactly what they're doing. Think "Pandora" and "box."
So what do we do, since decades of counter-speech hasn't really done the job of dissuading people from being downright horrible?
On the post: AT&T Lays Off Thousands After Nabbing Billions In Tax Breaks And Regulatory Favors
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Corporations don't need to be super-people do do all that.
It's the part about having all the rights but few of the responsibilities that I have the problem with.
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As you mention above, context is important. But, the fact that it's historical material after the fact changes things, as they can no longer be encouraging the killer to do what he's doing in the moment, even if they're trying to recruit new soldiers.
Yeah, but they're encouraging others to do it by recruiting new soldiers.
It's sick either way, but there's an argument to be had that if he didn't have an audience sharing the video and egging him on, the shooter could have stopped early, or chickened out entirely.
True, but I'm also thinking of the audience. People ought to be appalled at this, not cheering it on or scaring their neighbours into thinking that they might be next -- at the hands of the people living nearby.
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
A news reporter doesn't say, "You're next, Muzzie boy!" or put dog poop through your letterbox or scrawl hateful messages on your house. They're also not known for spouting hateful rhetoric or showing support for it, as a general rule.
Thanks for playing.
On the post: New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
People who have no interest in “spreading hate” have suffered and continue at this moment to suffer under laws purporting to protect people from “dangerous” content. You ignore this--which is abhorrent--and have the gall to ask “why shouldn't we censor?”
@takitus, no, mate. I have taken context into consideration.
I know about Poland censoring material alleging collaboration with the Nazis during the Second World War on grounds of butthurt, or something. I'm not happy about people being sent to jail for off-colour comments.
What you're not seeing is how the proliferation of hate material for the purpose of spreading hate, not to report atrocities, has a chilling effect on individuals and groups; it is, in effect, a form of censorship because it makes them afraid to speak out. Try being in a target group some time, it's an education.
Next >>