Slashdot Mirror
Hatemongering Becoming A Problem On Orkut
jaquesparrow writes "Orkut is a well known beta experiment, an invite only environment based on social networks. Recently it has been reported that hate and racism is proliferating on Orkut. Besides the story in the Wilmington Star, the International Herald Tribune also has commentary on the situation." From the article: "For Google, the trouble on Orkut - which is still in beta, or test, form - could easily escalate. A prosecutor in Brazil, where the service is especially popular, has already initiated an investigation into some of the more virulent Orkut sites."
Inevitable as humanity continues to grow and expand. It's not a cause but a symptom of overpopulation.
no one takes the time to stop and smell the Orkuts?
I used to run a website (ThoughtCafe) for writers where they could give feedback on each others work. I had to close it down in the end because a small minority wrecked it for everybody. It seems most "community" websites suffer from the same issue - the possiblity of one "rogue" person to pose as several personalities within the website - basically in order to start an argument with themselves in order to draw others in, and then feed the argument. We never found an adequate defence against it.
Jonathan Beckett http://www.pluggedout.com
....And this is different to real life how?
Hate and racism exists, has always existed, and will always exist.
As much as I hate racism, I don't think that trying to legislate people's beliefs is the answer.
Sure, don't let them act on their beliefs, but if they want to say things, why shouldn't they?
As I understand it from the article, these hate mongering forums on Orkut are invitation only private thingies where people express their private hate mongering expressions to their fellow hate mongers. What exactly is the problem here?
Now if they were to barge in on other forums and express those opinions, it could be considered harassment, and that really is a problem, and probably also illegal is your country, but as far as I know expressing unpleasant opinions in private is considered legal.
Maybe there isn't a technological solution. It's up to each member not to feed the arguments. By not feeding the arguments, I mean a single member shouldn't try replying repeatedly to a thread that's going out of control. One reply is enough, and if someone doesn't listen, that's it.
I dislike bigotry as much as the next person. But... I'll still defend the rights of bigots to say whatever they want. Just don't disturb the peace on my street corner with that crap. At the same time, I expect the bigots to back me up on MY right to tell them their fuckin stupid.
With all the GNAA posts, the randomness and what not if it would be possible to impliment something like a futures market for comments. Where moderation could be done in terms of each user being allowed to carry a limited portfolio of say 10 to 20 comments at any one time with either buy or sell style settings. Then letting a market determine which is good and bad, the writers of the comments would get "points" based on the market consensus as would the people who got in early, where the people who got out late would lose points. If people went bankrupt they'd have to be interesting. Those with positive points would have them carry over some period perhaps quarterly, and the points them selves could be used like raffle entries for a modest Thinkgeek prize budget. The people who maintained the site would be able to perform an SEC like function, (blah blah censorship), and undo/kill abuse as it arises. I think such a system, which would have to be good at killing bots, would be extremely hard to game. While much that a buys site would rather not have would still be present, it'd be confined to the relative obscurity where those who are into it can wallow in it. Not unlike alt.nuke.the-USA and the like.
nah, i think it's _great_ that people set up these sites.
they are identifying themselves to the world and to the intelligence services "come and get me, we're dumb enough to tell you who we are and dumb enough to _write down_ what we _really_ think".
somethingawful.com actually has a great method of controlling this:
1. It's free to browse the forums.
2. If you wanna post/reply - it'll cost you $10
3. Custom Titles & avatars -- another $10
4. If you make a "shit post" (among which blatant racism i.e. "post pictures of black people eating cliche' foods") or even single-word posts will automatically result in your message thread being "gassed" and your account being banned -- resulting in YOU having to pay another $10.
Hey, everyones saying...
"oh i saw them on blogs", "i saw them on site x, y and z"....
No ones noticed that we have this ALL the time on slashdot? How do we fix it? We leave a warning for all, and then we ignore it. Simple as pie.
The fact is racistism, and all *ism's will NEVER go away, but this doesn't mean that you can't choose to not care about them. These people have nothing better to do with their lifes, pity them, they are the ones that become nothing.
Slashdot, would be totally, totally ruined (far worse than people claim it is) if people took any notice of the trolls, but the whole fact that we DONT means they dont get anywhere.
People are racist in the streets, some people do it without even thinking about it, and would never do it if they realised they were. It happens, why can't humanity get over it?
Because humanity, wishes to be pefect, when people finally accept that we ARE a flawed race, then we might finally start bonding together.
Someone said "its from the cause of overpopulation". Nope, your wrong... Its from people creating value of other people. Its from people having something, someone else wants. No person really hated someone else for the colour of their skin, they hated them for some other reason, yet people are stupid and they look for hte easilest flaw to blame, which in most cases is the fact that someone has differently coloured skin.
I ware glasses, and people used to use this as a method of getting to me, it was actually the fact that i did damn well in school, even when i had only 50%~ attendance, and they were jelious. Yet the only way they could get at me, would be making jokes about my glasses. They couldn't cope when i made jokes about my glasses too, when i would turn around and use them as an aerial for the radio which wouldn't work. It would confuse them to have someone putting them selfs down.
Im not saying that anyone should go "Hey look, im black, i might as well set my self on fire" or anything stupid like this. This isn't the point, the point is there is many underlying issues, which causes this hatrid, most of the time, the person effected cannot change this either, as they mostly didn't cause the problem in the first place. So they have to look on and say "What can i do? Nothing.... so i ignore it".
it might anger them to see someone writing these things, but its not like they could ever change this person, so why waste time worrying about it. It wont change the world, it wont stop kids bullying others over stupid little things like this.
Ignore it, it might not go away, but at least then it wont effect you?
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
When all other technology is moving to isolate us into our own cozy little worlds, you are surprised?
:)
Blogs give you the news you already agree with. IM has only your buddies. Cellphones let you walk around the world talking to people you already know, avoiding all new people. I could go on.
Cozy isn't it. Problem is, now noone has ANY need for real social skills, personality, or the ability to deal with different views.
Why in my day, we telnet'd into a BBS and met people from all over the world! "Chatrooms" (read: bot nests) only come in local and special interest these days.
At least here on Slashdot all us geeks are safe in our dupe friendly Microsoft unfriendly world
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
People are saying what they want. What's the problem? You don't agree? So debate with them, or start your own Orkut or whatever forums/communities.
And why is this not posted as the usual indignated rant under YRO, instead of this rehash of hysterical mainstream fear-mongering articles?
I'm not agreeing with eg. the IMO nutty racist Iranian gentleman mentioned in TFA, but that doesn't mean I want him to be banned from saying what he wants in his own online communities.
BTW, everyone is welcome to join the Flashback forums, no matter what OPINIONS you hold or wish to discuss. The English speaking forum could use more members too. (Ironically, I seem to have difficulties reaching the site at the moment, but I hope that's temporary. They've had problems with the Swedish authorities before.)
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
Why would anyone want to become member of a small randomly put together community by invitations? What do they discuss? Won't the discussions get more feedback in more open communities? Is it because they feel the added privacy makes it easier to reveal private information? But then you need to trust all Orkut members, and many will have been invited by persons you don't even know.
:-)
Hmm, it just feels like a community for people who wish to be "cool" to me, but regardless how I look at it, I always end up as seeing it as a useless idea?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Here is a post from an insider giving some of his oppinions about what's going on:
http://media.orkut.com/articles/0100.html
someone who cites the bible to legitimate hate and intolerance is a braindead dimwit. period.
its pseudo-religious FUD.
These groups are formed and peopled by people who share an extremist viewpoint. In normal society, extremists are moderated by contact with people who aren't extremists. In a society like Orkut, extremists come into contact with more and more people who share the same view. This could potentially cause them to become even more extreme in their views or even spur them to action.
This is the problem. It's not really about free speech and censorship; it's about what happens when you have a social system which encourages extremism, instead of one which works to moderate behaviour.
Anyway, it seems to me like a successful version of what Orkut should be. I use it almost religiously and it works well because the majority of users are actually rather close to each other (few hours by train at the most in most cases) so we can actually meet in real life. My list of friends is a little small (32 at the moment) but I have met all but 3 of those people IRL. Of those three, one lives in the US, one lives in Hokkkaido (I'm in Tokyo) and the other...well, timing just hasn't worked out yet.
Anyway, the point of my post is that in some cases, these "small randomly put together communities" work quite well and can be an excellent supplement to IRL (note: I did NOT say replacement). I've gotten some good snowboarding buddies, some good music buddies, some good photography buddies, etc. Hell, I even met a really attractive girl that will hopefully be my next girlfriend (2 months without getting any is starting to drive me crazy...broke up last december ;_; )
So, these sites can work. I think Orkut's problem is that it is just too big and unfocused.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
"OK, hatred for Jews is stupid (after all, even Jesus was a Jew)"
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic? Nice logic: by it, you're allowed to hate people you're not forced to relate with.
"Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do."
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay. Since you're the one making the assertion, I have to ask you: Have you ever tried being gay? Or are you so unwilling to try to tread a mile in the shoes of those who you would "save?"
""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
And Jesus was crucified before he was able to do his key "Don't be gay" sermon? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless what you want to have done unto you is... hey, where are these Romans taking me?"
You, as a Christian, have the trinity itself, not to mention the list of prophets, all telling you how to live your life properly and all, none of which really got around to the all-important "Don't be gay" commandment, and so you're giving a collection of these insane Biblical footnotes the same weight, especially when said footnote seems to fly in the face of one of the Ten Commandments?
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
"Is it really "discrimination" or "hatred" if I dare to save them from the hell fire by telling them that what they do is wrong?"
Do they want to be "saved?" According to other major religions, Jesus was a prophet at best and a false Messiah at worst, and these people complete with their own divine set of quotations to back up their assertions. Would you willingly allow others to attempt to "save" you from your own Christianity?
If the opinions of non-Christians don't do anything for you, what about other sects of Christianity? When was the last time you invited into your home a Jehovah's Witness or even a Mormon who appeared on your doorstep and let them go the whole nine yards in their attempt to "save" you, listening politely and never trying to argue?
"I am not discriminating, I am against violence."
Because if the death is "on their hands" (as prescribed by Leviticus), it's not really violence? Oh, and there it seems God is telling you to be violent when it comes to homosexuals, so aren't you going against His Will by falling back on such principles and squeamishness? The Bible tells you that you'd better be prepared to do what God tells you to do despite your personal desires: if he says "Kill your son," the only proper response is "With what weapon?" So are you really as Christian as you claim to be when you are willfully ignoring that part of scripture where you believe He Himself tells you to kill somebody?
"I only want to educate people."
As a Christian, shouldn't you be balancing your wants and desires against theirs?
" I only talk to people, write to people, write articles. Is that really wrong?"
That depends: are you talking with, talking to or talking at these people?
"Is education really the same as the crimes of holocaust? Do we really have to compare education to hatred for Jews?"
Well, many Soviets were sent to the gulags for the cause of "education," so yes, it can be.
Orkut is still around? I mean I guess I still have an account on there, but it's been quite a while since I logged on - mostly becuase the people I knew on orkut were the same I knew from friendster.com who were the same from friendzy.com who were the same from tribe.net...
Jonathan B.
Actually, in a way, the concept of orkut ist facist in itself. Creating artifical borders were there are none. I remeber running into orkut when it was just anounced. After reading what it all was about it came across to me as a very unsympathetic concept of a web community. Very much the kind you find in religious sects or, extremer, in facist communities. Artificially bordering a group of people and in unison with that, blurring the individuals in to one big group. We, the "orkuts", are something special.
I personally react extremely allergic to stuff like that, due to personal experiences with latent synthetic elitism in the past. Weak personalities (which racists and facists usually are) much easier see orkut as their chance to feel special for no true reason whatsoever.
Bottom line:
Orkuts basic concept actually is an emotional and spiritual groundwork for facisim and thus flawed. Google would be best of shutting it down or dropping the concept of 'invitation only'.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Maybe there isn't a technological solution. It's up to each member not to feed the arguments. By not feeding the arguments, I mean a single member shouldn't try replying repeatedly to a thread that's going out of control. One reply is enough, and if someone doesn't listen, that's it.
As a long time internet troll I couldn't agree more. I don't troll because I like to write (I do like to write but that's not enough). I troll because I love to read responses. And that's pretty much all. No responses, no fun. Real trolling is all about reading, not writing. For example I might write a pro-creationism post to observe the heated reaction of atheist nuts. Next day I would write an anti-religion post to observe the reaction of religious nuts. It's all about a balance and subtlety to attract the right kind of nuts because readng their texts is interesting, especially if they do exactly what you want them to do. Trolling is power. Aristotle new it and I know it. Reading idiotic texts of people who think they are smart (be them Jesus lovers who don't know the bible or MySQL funboys who don't know the relational model) is amusing. It really is.
I was running BBS's in the 80s.
There is always a few clowns who like to post crap - they get real tough safe in their rooms. I call it 'modem machismo'.
The way to handle this is to hammer the offensive message immediately. No need to kick the guy, unless he is incorrigible.
Works for flame wars too. (Which must be discouraged immediately)
It's a little like being the bouncer in a bar. How long do you think the bouncer would tolerate a punch up?
Mumia Abu-Jamal is *laughably guilty*. Check the evidence.
What the hell, I edited the mistakes in that post on a preview, resubmitted, and it posted the OLD VERSION with the mistakes in it?!? Dammit. Here we go again:
People will find some characteristic other than race to single out and harass people. E.g. they'll single out fat people, or skinny people, or smart people, or whatever. They already do, just look at any classroom in which everyone is white.
Have you ever noticed though that the people who do this, i.e. harass other people based on some arbitrary characteristic, are invariably useless people .. i.e. they are usually people who have nothing special about them, no special skills, and are not able to contribute anything useful to the world. These "nazi types" are usually from the low classes in society. I think the reason these people tend to cluster in groups around a hate-based ideology is because it gives them some kind of magic "free ticket" to feeling "special", without having to do anything other than be a certain race or look a certain way. It's like the ideology calls to them by saying something like this: "Hey, nothing special about you, never achieved anything? Well we say that just being (race XYZ) makes you special by default, because (race XYZ) is superior, and (race XYZ) achieved all sorts of things." So someone with nothing special about them now feels they have something to be proud of, something that makes them special/superior to others, and they feel that they "belong" to something.
Look at class bullies, most of them are losers who are going nowhere in life. By picking out and alienating someone else who is smart or whatever, they get to feel better about themselves. Going further, a more subtle example is television: Most sitcoms have an extremely dumb or nerdy character ... the idea is to make a character that is so dumb or nerdy, that even your dumbest/nerdiest viewer gets to feel better about themselves by being able to say to themselves "ha, look at that guy, he's so stuuupid, ha ha". Because nobody wants to be the stupidest or nerdiest person in a group. So the sitcom creators lower the bar so much that all viewers are raised above it. The idea is to make a show so stupid that the viewers feel better about themselves, it's a cheap feel-good manipulation trick that usually works. It's the same thing with racist groups - when you belong to such a group, you feel better about yourself because you define/depict another group as being inferior, even if you've never accomplished anything in your life. Don't know how a TV works? Who cares, you can say stuff like "we invented TVs". Don't know how a car works? Who cares, you can say stuff like "we invented cars". As if saying "we" somehow makes you part of some "group" that supposedly invented TVs/cars, which is obviously not quite correct.
If you were so "good at school", why exactly is that you misspell:
- everyones (everyone's)
- racistism (racism)
- lifes (lives)
- Its (it's)
- ware (wear)
- i (I)
- jelious (jealous)
- them selfs (themselves)
- Im (I'm)
- hatrid (hatred)
- wont (won't)
(and I did not consider the typos).Did you go to Yale and sit next to Dubya? Or are you simply trolling|karmawhoring?
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Although the model of Orkut depends on everyone being a real person (and an adult as well), release from jail seems to occur automatically even for fake accounts.
If you punish users for moderation rather than encourage it as /. does, and if you tolerate bogus identities in a social networking system (i.e. many miscreants don't get kicked out, as it does not really matter if they play by the same rules as everyone else), it becomes too easy for malicious participants to keep their hate speech visible on equal footing with honest, real people, while hiding behind forged profiles that are no better than anonymous avatars.
Actually, some apparent "fake users" have been allowed to exist for long enough on Orkut to see "fan" or "hate" communities being set up for "themselves".
In other words, on ./ and in real life (or even Usenet for that matter), the simple rule is this:
Whether you are using your true name or not, if you choose to be a troll, expect no better than to be treated as a troll.
On Orkut, everyone is expected to use their true identity and stand by their opinions, but because none of this is sufficiently well enforced, trolls have surprisingly little to fear.
There is no better way to undermine the moral standards in a community than allowing this to happen.
Defusing mean jokes is great, but you were lucky. The jokes would have hurt more if you had been beat up or had the glasses grabbed and stomped.
Does happen and that is the problem with hate talk.
As a Latino, I find it funny that only Anglos gets scorn for racism, but the second a Black or Asian does it, no one says a peep. Want proof? Just look at most Black sitcoms or films, there's almost always a pointed anti-White tone to it all. Jokes that get directed towards Whites would garner instant outrage if the situation were reversed.
Until ALL racial groups get equal scorn for commiting racism, I seriously could care less about racism right now.
Point it, there are a lot of Black hate groups out there, yet we never hear anyone speak up against them. Why?
Look at the history of interference with peacable assembly for a clue as to why the Founders put this clause as the first of the rights they considered most likely for the government to usurp from the people.
Yes you read that right... the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of the rights guaranteed to the people by the government -- but an enumeration of the rights that the people possess by "the laws of nature and nature's god" in the order most likely to be usruped by government.
Moreover, what this means is that the Bill of Rights is a declaration of natural rights meaning that if any government violates them that government cannot be considered consistent with the laws of nature.
This is an "extremist" stand. Indeed, any stand of integrity means adhering to the principles stated in the face even of death. That is the essence of "extremism". Can you think why powerful people might consider any integrity exhibited by those without power as "extremist" and seek to have "extremism" suppressed through social, cultural, legal, economic, police and any other means necessary?
Indeed, when weaseling courts mockingly refer to "the penumbra of the Constitution" what they are in fact saying is that the government is like the light of the Sun itself and the people's rights are like the shadow of the moon on the earth during a total eclipse of the sun -- absolute only at a single point.
Well, if there is a single point to the Constitution, it is reflected in the first paragraph of the document forming the foundation for the creation of the Constitution:
It is clearly stated:
The whole point of freedom, the single point made by the whole of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights, is recognition of the primordial freedom to choose those with whom one will associate.
Seastead this.
Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space .
Suggestions include:
The rest of the list is also quite good, including a comment onI don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Sheesh, solved a cultural problem that had injured an killed countless. How about, beat up on the weak, then steal their property? Maybe opportunistic sociopaths using ignorance to rabble rouse? There are many reasons, all bad, all wrong, all pathetic.
The founder of that group, Kiarash Poursaleh, who described himself in his profile as an 18-year-old living in Tehran, also listed "Mein Kampf" by Hitler as a favorite book...
You know, I'm more worried about the rise of organized groups, such as the German NPD or the Russian democratic party. Gentlemen such as Mr. Poursaleh somehow, deep down, seem to missing a somewhat fundamental point about how the people whose policies he's advocating might view his own particular ethnic group.
Crackpot pseudoscientific about racial biology and what defines "aryan", as a sometime student of history I'm not aware of Mr. Hilter & his merry gang of pirates ever planning to set up an division of Persian SS stormtroopers...
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Alright - screw my karma - I'm disgusted by the sheer level of anti-religious groupthink that occurs on this web site, and also by the tactics that are used to suppress religious views.
"OK, hatred for Jews is stupid (after all, even Jesus was a Jew)"
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic? Nice logic: by it, you're allowed to hate people you're not forced to relate with.
Hey I have a great idea - how about arguing against what he said and not words you decide to put in his mouth. For instance, stealing from people is wrong, but stealing from your parents is plain stupid - you are likely to be hurt in the process. By saying that I do not imply that it is OK to steal from someone because "you are not related to them." You don't like what this guy is saying, how about not putting words in his mouth?
"Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do."
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay. Since you're the one making the assertion, I have to ask you: Have you ever tried being gay? Or are you so unwilling to try to tread a mile in the shoes of those who you would "save?"
I'm sure he wants to save criminals too - does that mean he should try doing things he feels are wrong (i.e. violating his conscience) just to gain a better understanding? That's insane!
""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
I think you'll find out that things like rape and incest (things we feel are bad still today in modern society) were also offenses of similar magnitude - do you really think a list of 10 things can meaningfully cover all possible "really bad" actions?
And Jesus was crucified before he was able to do his key "Don't be gay" sermon? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless what you want to have done unto you is... hey, where are these Romans taking me?"
The vast majority of Jesus's sermons did not focus on what not to do but on having the correct heart attitude. Once again, he didn't say "don't rape people" but yet that's still an important part of the religion (and society). I don't know why he felt it was unnecessary to say this (or that those recording it did not record it) but perhaps people of the time already knew that was wrong?The new testiment, however, does contain several warnings against homosexuality.
You, as a Christian, have the trinity itself, not to mention the list of prophets, all telling you how to live your life properly and all, none of which really got around to the all-important "Don't be gay" commandment, and so you're giving a collection of these insane Biblical footnotes the same weight, especially when said footnote seems to fly in the face of one of the Ten Commandments?
I do not understand how this illogic gets modded up. You have created a false dichotomy - Ten Commandments vs Stuff Not In The Ten Commandments. Maybe the Ten Commandments are just the Ten most important - notice there is no dietary law etc - yet many Jews to this day still observe it.
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
The *ENTIRE* message of Christianity is that it is possible to have a direct, personal connection of God - through the revelation provided in the Bible, and through personal prayer. Whether that's true or not, who's
Again, RTFA. Nobody says Google has to do this or that; quite the opposite. Google is one of the parties telling people what to do - namely, to honour the TOS they agreed to.
The other party who's telling people what to do is the Brazilian police (and, thus, the Brazilian government), and as long as they're regulating what Brazilian people are allowed to do, it certainly is within their rights to do so.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Keep in mind that "hate and racism" is covered by the first amendment, no matter how tasteless. These people have a right to what they're doing and thinking.
I worry that this recent witch hunt trend against racist movements will supercede the country's recognition of the Constitution.
These people have a right to their thoughts and ideas as long as they aren't harming others, killing, assaulting, etc.
If you want to properly combat these people, you are going to have to listen to their concerns. I believe that they have legitimate concerns that are skewed by blanket ideology and a fascination with nazism and ephemera. Shunning them only makes them stronger.
Diversity counselors are well-versed in this, as they're always lecturing us about this shit, but seem unwilling when the tables are turned.
Shouldn't this be a "Your Rights Online" post?
Hate Messages on Google Site Draw Concern.
Linux at home
In direct contrast with Google's rock-solid reliability, Orkut works for me approximately 1 in 10 times that I try to use it. And by "works for me" I mean just the most simplistic, basic functions like returning a page instead of a server error. They've had this problem for months, and it only seems to be getting worse.
Why people are using this service and not some of the alternatives, I have no idea. Were I google, I'd jettison it quickly before it more seriously erodes my brand.
Are you insane, or just provincial?
Look, in countries with real ethnic tensions---Yugoslavia, Iraq---a large proportion of the people will, every so often, get up and kill their neighbors, who've lived next to them for centuries.
In America, once a group of funny-speaking immigrants (Bosnians, Irish, whatever) has been here for two generations or so, they're just as white as everyone else. Our remnant bigotry comes from the notion of race, which is sort of like "ethnicity for dummies", as it depends on being able to identify someone from fifty paces.
And I should point out that we have racial tensions in big cities which are thickly developed, and which are frequently (Los Angeles) terribly segregated. Note that Los Angeles was the site of the most recent significant civil unrest in America.
America may have bigotry, but we do not have bigotry like they have in other places. It's more dumbed-down. How predictable.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Not to defend this idiot, but the name Iran is derived from the word "arian" and Iranians are far closer related to the original arians than Germans (and North Europeans) could ever be. The persian language Farsi(as well as several Indian languages) are also Indo-European. So in short, he probably has more of a right to call himself an Arian than Hitler ever had.
I remember reading a story about Jew growing up in Shah era Iran (for all its flaws, Iran had actual religious and ethnic tolerance under the Shah) and reciting, each day in class, some sort of a national pride song which went something along the lines "we are the proud arians".
Bigots will use whatever rationalization they can to justify their hatred. I'm saddened to see people continue to use religion as a rationale for ignorance.
If you were a true Christian you'd know that the New Testament is a new Covenant between God and Man. All the hatred found in the Old Testament are historically interesting but irrelevant if you believe in Jesus Christ. As Christ never preached hatred or intolerance, you do him a diserve by using his name to justify your sin.
Hate all you want, but don't blaspheme by bringing God into the picture.
You can pretend that these thoughts don't exist all you want. But they do exist. And you, like everyone else, have them.
Speak for yourself. I've noticed that many racists try to justify their hatred by claiming that everyone feels the same way. I suppose people just want to feel "normal" and not the exception. Well, let me tell you something: You are the exception. Racism is a learned behavior and you are a part of an increasingly small minority of indoctrinated people.
Your "science" is also horribly flawed. Here are a choice quote from the AAA:
Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions.
After all, I am strangely colored.
You know, I've recently begun to think of trolling as more than just trying to get a rise out of people. The truly successful trolls get people to betray their principles. This is why they're so often found in places like this, where folks have hoity-toity principles just waiting to be popped.
Klerck was a successful troll, even though all he did was crapflood with that stupid "page widening" stuff. But it was because of him that the lameness filter was added.
The Wikipedia article on the GNAA (which mentions the structural changes the GNAA made to Slashdot by their trolling) has been put up for deletion more than any other article. If the article is deleted, they "win" by making Wikipedia betray its principles. If the article stays, they "win" by being advertised on Wikipedia.
At least, that's what trolling seems like to me. As a troll, what's your take?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
While I think that to a certain extent you have a point, I also think it's pretty silly for you to imagine you know what every other person thinks.
I'm sure there are in fact a number of people out there who are to some extent racist and hide their true feelings because those feelings aren't popular. There is likely a whole spectrum of racist attitudes from very minor to very extreme. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that there aren't ANY people who truly aren't racist.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
Orkut tries to maintain an air of "exclusivity" by having reference-only membership. People then think that they have the right to say anything because they were "invited". Lack of any overall moderation lets people become extremists. I was in Orkut for a short while and found the anti-Brazilian hate-mongering to be too much to put up with. Some Americans seemed to be the worst of the bunch - they thought they had more "rights" to be on Orkut than anyone else since Orkut was "American" (although written largely by a Turk), and objected to the Brazilian language being used.
Its the same reason people focus on men being sexist towards women, or straight people being homophobic towards gays as opposed to the reverse.
Its not a level playing field and until it is these ism's just aren't equal. Just like its incorrect to assume that sexism and racism are the same, you can't assume that white racism and black racism cause the same amount of damage. The group with power is the one with the responsibility.
Its like that tired racist arguement "How come there are all black fraternities, but if we had an all white fraternity people would call us racist?". I hate it when people (particularly white people) say that they don't think about race... its because they (we) don't fucking have to. You don't need a white fraternity because chances are you live in a predominately white neighborhood, your group of friends are all white and so are your coworkers.