Slashdot Mirror
Hatebase Tries To Scan For Precursors of Genocide In Language
An anonymous reader writes "Hatebase, a new crowdsourced database of multilingual hate speech from The Sentinel Project, is an attempt to create a repository of words and phrases that researchers can use to detect the early stages of genocide."
Fuck that.
So you could also scan for precursors of the next POTUS from twitter and facebook?
Ah! I bet you won't!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
My expectation is that this will be used for political infighting, much like the genocide it purports to try to head off.
The "crowd" will include activists for one (or more) sides of contentious political disputes, who will feed the database with typical word choices of their enemies, in the hope of branding them as potential genocide perpetrators. The result will be a produce far more false positives than true ones (if it produces any of the latter at all).
Indeed, the very phrase "hate speech" is such a faction-specific term. It is used by the US left wing to attempt to suppress politically incorrect free speech - especially politicall speech - of those with whom they disagree.
For an example of what I'm talking about, look at the Southern Poverty Law Center's pronouncements - including especially their advice to law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security that displaying bumper stickers supporting Ron Paul during the presidential primary, or any of a number of other pro-Constitution or Tea Party political position messages, was a sign that the driver was a terrorist.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Now instead of just laws requiring data retention to prevent child pornography, we can now also use genocide prevention as an excuse. And then of course just use it to go after copyright infringers.
If you want to learn about genocide speech, go to stormfront.org, there's no need to build a new database when somebody has already created one for you.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
So... they will immediately run smack-dab into Godwin's Law... ... and, picoseconds later, cease to be relevant!
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Precrime!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...the name of the Dalek mainframe?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
Sweet. We finally reached the point where we're just looking for thought crimes.
It's only bad when it's called genocide.
From hatebase.org:
"Language-based classification, or symbolization, is one of a handful of quantifiable steps toward genocide.
To support Hatebase, please contribute to our database, either by adding vocabulary or by logging sightings and citations.
My submission:
Language: Beltwayspeak
Vocabulary: "senior operational leader", "enemy belligerent", "imminent threat", "organized armed groups"
Source: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Set your phasers on "funky"!
1) They are missing most Chinese-language racial slurs, and are apparently not searching for Chinese characters. I think the results would be predominantly Chinese otherwise. I mean, how could they miss "waiguolao"? In China, hearing that word was my red flag to get indoors or to a cop as soon as possible. 2) I could find you literally thousands of websites calling for genocide in China (either against resident minority groups or towards immigrants in China) which don't use any ethnic slurs. Most of the ethnic slurs in China are condescending more than hateful (except those directed at the Japanese), and using more neutral terminology gives pro-genocide Chinese an air of legitimacy. I can remember when "nanlaowai", for example, was quite a popular blog, but their didn't use any racial slurs in spite of the constant demands for the ethnic purification of China. Chalk it up to cultural difference I guess.
If you think "ethnic cleansing" sounds good, then you probably work for Marketing.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I read that as "hatebook".
Where you 'enemy' people instead of 'friend' them...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Oh, calm down.
This is the same as any NLP crowd-sourcing tool; it's simply designed with a focus on correlating vocabulary with prejudicial sentiment. No one is planning to use it to pass restrictive laws. It's just useful for people who are involved in a country, but are not fluent speakers of $foo or involved in the right subcultures, to know that a certain word has now acquired a negative connotation.
Maybe those people should butt out, sure, but you're jumping the gun a bit, here. If they could force everyone to use ``political correct speeches", they wouldn't need this app in the first place.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
My expectation is that this will be used for political infighting, much like the genocide it purports to try to head off.
I rather think this will be used to weed out political dissent among the population.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
...don't most FPS pub servers have chatlogs?
It'd be easier to research if they did.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Here is a FTFY (aka fixed-that-for-you) example. I will now conjugate the following:
No, they do not believe in the true concept of FREE speech - their only aim is to force everyone in using political correct speeches
With the FTFY conjugation which takes ownership of all aspects of society by turning all third person plural forms into first person plural forms that quote becomes:
No, we do not believe in the true concept of FREE speech - our only aim is to force everyone in using political correct speeches (sic)
My point is that "they" are not the problem. My point is that "we" are the problem. Every last fallible one of us can be a problem or a solution. The difference is often a matter of how compassionate we are combined with how much we are able to take personal responsibility for problems. Even (maybe especially?) the problems which seem to be caused by other people.
While I may be liberal and you may be conservative, the reality is that our society is comprised of both of us and we are both liberal and conservative. We are all the things we which are. By treating the problem as "our" problem instead of "their" problem we can approach the solution with realism and healing, instead of idealism and revenge.
Of course we could, instead, go on blaming other people, but look where that has gotten us so far . . .
This is the same as any NLP crowd-sourcing tool; it's simply designed with a focus on correlating vocabulary with prejudicial sentiment.
In case some of you were wondering about the acronym. That becomes:
This is the same as any natural language processing crowd-sourcing tool; it's simply designed with a focus on correlating vocabulary with prejudicial sentiment.
To take the conjugation one step further it becomes:
This shit be the same shit as any goddamn shit where we get other motherfuckers to do the fucking dirty work of working out when shit-talkers, shit-talking in some other fucking language, be talking shit is a way that means that those fuckwits mean to start some shit.
Of course, sometimes you can take conjugation a bit too far.
Priebus accuses Democrats of supporting infanticide
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/04/03/priebus_accuses_democrats_of_supporting_infanticide.html
Republican links gun control to bestiality
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/04/02/lawmaker_links_gun_control_to_bestiality.html
Both of these were just in the last week, by a current member of the House, and the head of the Republican National Committee. These aren't some fringe types yelling from the sidelines, they are mainstream and one is in a national leadership position. This kind of stupid crap is being said by mainstream Republican officials every day. It's so common that it takes a particularly inspired bout of vile accusations to even get reported.
An before you try and justify this slanderous shit by claiming that the Democrats do the same thing: No they don't. No serving Democratic official says anything like this. Note that these are actual quotes from the individuals, not some perverse made up fantasy on Fox News, or as it should be called Fox Pravda
So I'm going to look into this project, and I may contribute some examples like this. It's not like I would have any trouble finding material.
Why is Snark Required?
Let's see, upset at SPLC? Wonder why that is...
As far as designating drivers with Ron Paul stickers as terrorists, you are most likely confusing that (deliberately or not) with their investigations into and reporting on right wing hate groups that planned or carried out attacks. Like this one. I mean, if we are talking about militia groups, patriot movement groups, and sovereign citizens, we are talking about groups that have attacked or planned to attack police officers.
This sounds a bit off to me. Statistical NLP needs large amounts of data. How many data points do they have that can reliably be labelled "precursor of genocide" vs "no precursor of genocide"? There haven't been that many genocides, is it? And as the article says: "hate speech isn't in short supply"...
Just read the part about the 8 stages of genocide of this so-called "Genocide Watch" ( http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html )
Unfortunately they focus mainly on religious and ethnic hatred, which doesn't really account for some of the biggest genocides of the 20th century like in Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's USSR and Mao's China, They do mention Pol Pot a couple of times, for the "blue ribbon" symbolism and the "Denial" stage, but miss the root of the problem. Their view is shallow at best, IMO.
It is fashionable to focus almost exclusively on race, religion and nationalism, but ironically, the biggest killings in the past century came from ideologies aiming to unite mankind beyond those "hate" barriers.
"Genocide Watch" would have probably missed those "early stages" of Communism...
The basis for this appears to be pure speculation. There is no actual data (big or otherwise) showing the validity of the assumptions on which this is based.
Always looking for new ways to feel morally superior and lecture others. 'You don't say this', 'you don't say that'. Everyone says that? No negative connotation? Who cares? We say it is discriminating and if you don't follow us, you are a racist. Fortunately those cannot read thoughts, else they would tell you what to think and what not to think.
You need a government to commit genocide
Says who?
The only requirement is that people kill a bunch of other people based on their race/ethnic group/religion/whatever.
Having a government with policies friendly to this type of activity is certainly helpful, but is in no way a requirement for it to happen.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Eradicate ALL those with precursors for perpetrating Genocide!
Precursors to genocide. hyperbole much? "Timmys blog sure is strange, seems like he might be on the road to wiping out an entire race of people"
The problem with Minority Report is they were arresting them without knowing if they actually would have committed the crime or not. Getting upset over arrests of innocent people isn't a slashdot thing, it's a world thing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think you just proved his point. You are doing exactly that, you are using this as fodder for political infighting. You don't like it so you label it as hate speech. Does that mean we treat it the same way Europe treats it? Somebody makes an anti-Semitic comment on twitter, so France wants to put them in jail?
Anyways, yes they both do it. 10 seconds of google and I found something that tops yours: Obama makes fun of disabled people:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/03/president-ob-15-3/
You're one of those people who I commonly rail against when I say we need to stop treating the election like we're rival football teams. Quite possibly one of the ones I rail against for blind voting.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
Did you know this?
Note that anyone who supports the Islamist cause against Israel is unwittingly supporting this genocidal agenda. The Israelis are not the aggressors (as the historically ignorant often believe). The Jews have been living in Palestine *continuously* for over 3000 years (the Roman expulsions were temporary, and only from Jerusalem). The modern State of Israel is trying to *defend* its citizens from the *aggression* and schemes of the 57 Muslim Majority countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (although countries like Azerbaijan get on well with Israelis, and after many attempted genocides Jordan now has working relations). Anyone who thinks the Arabs are the victims simply doesn't know the genocidal agendas of Hamas and Hezbollah (hint, look for the hate speech in the Hamas Charter: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html). When Hamas talks about "Occupied Territories" they mean killing, expelling, or enslaving all non-Muslims in *all of Israel*.
particularly http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
I'm not in the US, so maybe I'm missing some context here, but...
How on earth are either of the links you've just posted examples of hate speech? The first is a line on the abortion debate that we've seen many times over the years. I'm not going to pick sides in that one; but if you approach the debate (as some people do) with the starting point that foes "life begins at conception" then abortion is infanticide. I think a lot of the lack of civility around that particular debate stems from the fact that neither side recognises just how high the stakes feel for the other side in it.
The second link is a fairly silly take on the gun control debate that somehow slides into an odd reductio ab absurdum take on the gay marriage debate. But again, incoherent though it is, is it really hate speech?
If somebody says "All members of (ethnic group x/social group y) are scum! Let's (kill them/throw them out of our country/deprive them of their property rights)" then that feels like hate speech. That's a hell of a long way from either of the examples you link to.
As a test, let's take an example from a left-wing perspective of somebody linking a (generally supported - the UK public consistently backs a tougher line on welfare in polls) Government policy to murder. In this case, it's the murder of the disabled rather than the infanticide, but I think that's still pretty emotive. So: from the UK's Guardian newspaper. Is that hate speech?
If you answer "yes", at least you're consistent. If your answer is no, then it looks more like you're just demonstrating totalitarian instincts to suppress speech that goes against your own values.
we can approach the solution with realism and healing, instead of idealism and revenge
Realism/Healing vs. Idealism/Revenge
You should write speeches for politicians. This is an excellent false dichotomy. While I'm also a liberal, I'm hesitant to label myself as such because all too often the term is used to indicate that one is a member of the PC-Police, such as yourself. If there was a Ministry of Truth you'd be a great writer for them. It's sad that the flamebait you responded to has more truth in it than your attempt to rationalize political correctness -- oh, I'm sorry, your attempt to approach the 'problem' with realism and healing.
Save your bullshit for your Sociology class. Fuck your inclusiveness, I'm an individual.
Maybe I missed the point. I apologize if your post is a tongue-in-cheek. Now that I think about it, it's so absurd I really hope so. Of course, it's also the type of thing that Sociology professors say with a straight face.
Ha, only 729 ethnic or national slurs?
Come on, even I could do better than that :-)
The programming seems interesting too: non ascii characters in the Search box will break the site.
Singe capitulard mangeur de fromage
Yeah dude. Political scientists don't think like that and tend to be fairly serious minded men. If activists are putting in bogus data, its going to stick out like a sore thumb.
This seems to be more like some of the research google was doing spotting emerging trends via language use.
Go read the stuff about the 8 stage genocide model and specifically on the 'symbolization' phase. I suspect its more about looking for trends like where a population for instance stops saying "jews" and starts saying "kikes" or whatever, whith the observation that a population is heading towards the crucial dehumanization phase needed to allow people to sleep at night whilst committing genocide.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I wonder if there is any hate term that includes the phrase " DROP TABLE Submissions;-- " .....
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Ever hear of double speak or triple speak?
Any career politician will know it well. Well enough to avoid hate speech while committing genocide.
How many Iraqi Citizens where victims of "Collateral damage" and what speak was attached to the top command of that happening?
Hate speech data base? Its called "The other dictionary" when you realize abstract words can have meanings attached not in the standard dictionaries
Almost right.
The Tea Party *wishes* that it were a terrorist org.
Congratulations on falling hook, line and sinker for the "one side is out making grandiose statements which aren't true and used for political disputes" as pointed out in the above post. While you're at it, you should really pay attention to exactly who's pushing that narrative.
Om, nomnomnom...
That's exactly my point--the Tea Partiers *wish* they were brave and fanatical enough to be terrorists, but they're too cowardly and self-centred either to put up, or to shut up.
I don't agree with Al-Qaeda's objectives but I can still recognise that their dedication to their cause is nothing to sneer at.
Also, while dismissing people's religious beliefs as "pychopathy" is perfectly valid in some contexts, it is not very smart at all in others.
BTW, I don't expect anyone to get the "Mindless" thing without having studied Zen. (In 15+ years, not many have, so you're in good company.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
But I'm not involved in their argument.
So you're trying to congratulate me on something that didn't happen.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
While precursors of genocide may have been detected in some of my posts, I submit that careful measurements of the skulls of the hatebase designers reveal that they are pathological liars, according to the long established science of phrenology.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Actually, it pretty much is - not necessarily a government per se but a body of power at least, which could include social shapers such as religions. Genocide is more than just being racist and killing others, it's a co-ordinated mass attempt at extermination. It requires a lot of funding, logistics, and particularly an extensive build-up of dehumanization of the target group. Which means propagation of such a message by newspaper, radio, television, and/or internet.
!Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
YOU are obviously ONE OF THEM!
Burn the witch!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Apparently that wasn't the way the Rwandan Hutu/Tutsi genocide played out. There, the hate speech was on the radio, by radio talk show hosts. In Bosnia, it was by the various new political leaders of the new governments... but the governments were very new. Stalin's genocide of the Ukranians and Lithuanians was more like what you say.
The genocidal US "downwind" experiments, and the Tuskegee experiments, or Andrew Jackson's "trail of tears"....I'm not really aware of what went on before the events.
So I don't think you're completely wrong, but I think you don't have a big enough picture.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Actually, the accusation that Democrats support infanticide is based on more than the idea that abortion is infanticide. As the OP pointed out the starting point for the accusation is that Democrats almost uniformly support government funding of Planned Parenthood. In a legislative hearing on a bill to require abortion clinics to provide medical care to a baby born alive after an attempted abortion, Planned Parenthood's representative repeatedly stated that whether or not to provide any care to the infant (once it has actually been born, everyone agrees that it is an infant) should be a decision made by the mother and the doctor. When one reads what she was saying it is clear that she was supporting the right of the mother to allow her newborn child to die of exposure if the mother had been trying to abort the pregnancy. So, Planned Parenthood's representative was advocating, indirectly, for the right of the mother, in certain circumstances and in conjunction with a doctor, to perform infanticide. This was not a circumstance where the Planned Parenthood representative was ambushed and was not sure how to respond. She had gone before the legislature expressly to testify against this law. She should have known that this was the sort of question she was going to get. Therefore one can assume that the answers she gave were the ones that she prepared to give.
Of course, one of the things that is overlooked is that this law was introduced at the same time that an abortion doctor in another state is on trial for killing a woman who came to him for an abortion and for killing several babies that were born alive in his clinic after failed abortions. The deaths he is being charged for represent only a small sample of the deaths which occurred in his clinic. If you are interested in knowing more, search for Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the man ran a house of horrors (among other things, he kept preserved feet from the babies he aborted).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You forgot to mention the guy who attempted to go on a murder spree at various organizations designated by the SPLC as "hate groups".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"waiguolao" definitely has a negative tone to it, and no it cannot be interpreted as "foreign elder". "waiguo" is "foreign country", you got this correct; but here "lao" is not the same Chinese character for "old/elder", it has ren (person) radical and it's a slur for a group of people. I think you confused it with "laowai", which is considered a neutral word to describe a foreigner by Chinese but not so much by the foreigners themselves.
Anyways, yes they both do it. 10 seconds of google and I found something that tops yours: Obama makes fun of disabled people:
Yes, and I constantly offend retarded people by comparing them to Microsoft and Adobe programmers, HP management, religious leaders, followers of Ayn Rand, and other dangerous people.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
While I may be liberal and you may be conservative..
You are not a classical liberal, which is his point.
The whole modern liberals and conservatives idea is a false dichotomy, because the former is about social liberalism via the theft of freedom while the later is about social conservatism via the theft of freedom.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils you get ever increasing evil. Both will enslave you to their agenda.
"His name was James Damore."
I'm curious what search terms you used. I just read the article you linked, and I would argue that the article is evidence *against* your point rather than for.
Firstly, it's from 4 years ago. The parent was talking about how stuff is said by republicans continually, and pointed out something from last week.
Secondly, the president reached out by phone to the head of the special olympics, profusely apologizing for the comments. Unless you can point to a more recent article where Obama, or any other Democrat, says something else disparaging then to me this means the comments was a one-time gaff and that the lesson was well learned.
I'm reminded of another discussion where someone pointed out how Democrats like, because one particular Democrat was discussed in a "false truth" article on politifact. However, when you start looking at the sum total of "false truth" articles on politifacts, Republicans outnumber Democrats by a pretty large ratio.
I used to think there was no difference between the Republicans and Democrats apart from who they pander to. But now I think that, while the Democrats arn't the 'good guys', they're the overwhelming lesser of two evils.
While on the subject of Planned Parenthood in a discussion of "hate speech" and "genocide", the racial breakdown of aborted fetuses in America is appalling, and in fact the number of Blacks killed by abortion in America outnumber all other causes of death combined. Hispanics arent far behind in these statistics.
I don't want to turn this into a "Planned Parenthood is racist" discussion, because that speaks to motives and I don't think motives matter. The end result matters, and its a fucking holocaust.
"His name was James Damore."
BTW, I don't expect anyone to get the "Mindless" thing without having studied Zen. (In 15+ years, not many have, so you're in good company.)
Sounds like you need a few more decades of it, assuming it helps at all in your situation.
the Tea Partiers *wish* they were brave and fanatical enough to be terrorists, but they're too cowardly and self-centred either to put up, or to shut up.
You're at the point where you're so divergent from reality that you're almost not even wrong. At least you still use labels that can be matched with real world things. There's no "wish" like that in the real world.
And while I understand the psychological need of political rivals to talk trash about the Tea Party movement, I don't understand at all the need to just make up wild shit. What is it about fiscal responsibility, honoring the Constitution (for those who care, a real "social contract"), and reduction in government power that brings out such "hate speech" to use the term of the day?
Also, while dismissing people's religious beliefs as "pychopathy" is perfectly valid in some contexts, it is not very smart at all in others.
Which contexts apply here? It looks to me like we're talking about the religious beliefs of "terrorists". The people who can on occasion be conned into believing that killing someone for the mere act of not sharing exactly to the last iota your beliefs, allows you to go to a heaven where there are X number of virgins to wait on your every need?
You mean those psychopaths? Sure, if they have my testicles hooked up to a battery or my neck on the chopping block, I would, no doubt, try to find a more diplomatic term for it, but that context doesn't apply here.
I don't agree with Al-Qaeda's objectives
This is the strongest criticism you can muster? Why do you disagree? Not a high enough body count? They could have better target selection? Because they commit great evil for crazy ends?
I find it interesting how you can make up outrageous stuff (no doubt with a sneer) about one group whose most vile crime is merely to disagree with you and then pussy-foot around a second group which deliberately targets and kills innocents on a regular basis. Even the US military doesn't do that and they've killed a lot of innocents over the years.
someone mod the AC up
Whatever the motives of those involved with Planned Parenthood today (and you are correct that end results are more important than motives), it is clear from their writings that those who started Planned Parenthood had racist motives. That is, one of their goals in establishing Planned Parenthood was to reduce the number of minorities as a percentage of the population.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"The challenge is distinguishing between low-level background noise and systematic hate speech that could be the beginning of something worse."
I wonder how it deals with locker room speech? Or, even worse, barracks speech? Probably best of all, send them to monitor prison speech.
I'm guessing that a group of moderately well behaved teamsters could set off alarms, and have the UN come running to save some race or another.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This is the same as any NLP crowd-sourcing tool; it's simply designed with a focus on correlating vocabulary with prejudicial sentiment. No one is planning to use it to pass restrictive laws. It's just useful for people who are involved in a country, but are not fluent speakers of $foo or involved in the right subcultures, to know that a certain word has now acquired a negative connotation.
Except that it's not going to work. Show me an NLP system that correctly distinguishes statements from quotations and references. You'd need an AI-complete system to divine the actual state of mind of the speaker. Or does the "crowdsourcing" part mean that there are going to be scores of people checking and rechecking flagged texts?
Ezekiel 23:20
Why would you think that? When was the last time when you heard of "magnetic wastewater treatment plants", or "homeopathic general hospitals", or "dowsing oil prospectors"?
Ezekiel 23:20
While I'm also a liberal, I'm hesitant to label myself as such because all too often the term is used to indicate that one is a member of the PC-Police, such as yourself.
I don't know about you, but to me, "liberal" means "a person who doesn't screw with other people's lives just because of difference of opinion". Neither the "conservatives" nor the so-called "liberals" need apply.
Ezekiel 23:20
Having a government approval for genocide is a requirement for committing genocide because otherwise it will shut down your operation by force.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
to do something that any idiot with 5 seconds looking at an Economy can do. Here's a hint: If a lot of people don't have food and there's a nearby ethnic group that makes a good scapegoat you've got a Genocide on your hands. Don't like it? Give 'em food. Seriously ppl, if we hadn't shit all over the Germans at the end of WWI Hitler never woulda got anywhere.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Prove it.
The combination of expected consequences of such actions and the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you about them is arguing in bad faith. The expected consequences of Tea Party policies are (in the opinion of its opponents) bad, and since they are self-obviously so (since otherwise said opponents would have to consider that they might be wrong), Tea Party members must be aware of them too, and are thus knowingly and willingly advocating actions which have bad outcomes - clearly, such monsters must be reviled.
Most online discussions tend to go that way, no matter what the subject.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
There is no way that the US can police or get involved in every cause in the world or even every cause in the mid-east. As far as who exactly has ancestral rights to Israel it is obvious that the land was occupied well before Judaism and well before Islam were created.
As one of the ignorant outsiders it is my belief that all people must be treated equally. One set of laws must govern all people in the region. Obviously that would be a nightmare notion for many Jews and many Muslims as well. But until both sides realize that neither side may have their way then there will be war and lousy conditions across the region. From what we can see here in the US the Arab nations do not seem at all capable of self government. There is just too much corruption and really sick behavior for me to believe that Arabs have the ability to have any sane form of government in the near future. I also do not believe that the formation of Israel was good for the survival of the Jewish people. Concentrating Jews into boundaries that can not be perpetually defended means that a huge slaughter will eventually take place. Yes, Israel can defend now. But now is not long term. In essence Israel is surrounded about like Custer at the Little Big Horn.
I too keep an eye out for liberal bias but it's far too early to accuse them of this, yet.
Let's see if they hit on Obamanoids before they pick up "Tea Party Zombies Must Die".
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's not just racial slurs, they have just random insults it seems, at least for German son of a bitch, bum, child fucker -- those are certainly not nice things to say, but what does this have to do with genocide? This is so frightfully stupid.
Speaking of "stupid moron",
All of the American left, right, center, up, and down supported the use of Islam, Christianity, and religious identity in general as a weapon against the Soviets. Islam was not as uniformly hostile and violent back then as it is today, although the CIA made awful choices of which Muslims to partner with.
The Russians began a large-scale campaign of terrorist funding in 1964. The reason so many Islamic terrorist organizations speak the language of anti-American postcolonialism is because their founders learned it at Patrice Lumumba University.
It is largely the left today that allies with the Islamic right wing. Look at what happened to Michelle Bachmann when she reasonably suggested that people in sensitive wartime posts with possible Muslim Brotherhood connections should be vetted; not fired, not punished, but simply vetted. She was mocked and condemned for such a thing, and called a racist. Look at what happened to Amnesty International's Gita Saghal when she protested Amnesty's alliance with the Taliban; she was fired and Amnesty shut down its womens' rights division so that no more uppity women would interfere with the great deal Amnesty has with the Taliban. Look at what happened to Eric Allen Bell when he criticized the website Loonwatch as "a terrorist spin control network"; the Daily Kos banned him. Look at what happens whenever anybody references the Muslim Brotherhood or the Hamas charter in the Guardian's comments section; their post is immediately deleted.
The right has its own alliances with Islamic terrorism. During the 1990s, it was Republicans who got into the news for praising the Taliban. Grover Norquist partnered with Abdulrahman Alamoudi to raise terrorist funds for George W. Bush. More recently, within the past few weeks, the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) banned Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer from receiving an award for fear that he might criticize Norquist or another Republican fundraiser, Suhail Khan.
This discussion is not about Democrats or Republicans, it is not about the worker and the capitalist, it is not about the rich and the poor. It is about the double standard of modern society's tolerance of hate speech and actual genocide if done in the name of Islam, and the triple standard of ostracizing anybody who opposes the hate speech and genocide.
The question is in the air as to whether Hatebase will end up like the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, which has made the decision not to report hate speech by Muslims in its reports on hate speech in the United States. Their excuse is (paraphrasing) "the Jews do that", and evidently the SPLC does not want to risk being associated with the Jews.
Will people speak up or remain silent?
And when you vote for the only candidate that is not part of this "lesser of two theft-of-freedom evils" you will be called a libertarian retard here by the communo-fascist (posed as "leftist") on /.
99% of the people are power hungry. That's human nature. Anyone not acting according to this norm are considered abnormal.
New Economic Perspectives
The leftist media doesn't really exist in the sense that you mean it. Mainstream media is owned by large corporations which are conservative leaning. If you're a far right wing wacko who thinks he's center, the real center looks leftist.
Ah, yes, where would we be without the ignorant to tell us what "hate speech" should mean? You see this as "hate speech". I see this as an example of the new civility in politics. The fact that you considered these even worthy of discussion indicates to me the total bankruptcy of modern political correctness. Feel free to go back to the infanticide, bestiality, or whatever it is you do when you aren't posting insipidly on Slashdot.
That we had already established beyond any reasonable doubt that hateful language was a predictor of genocide?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
And the Jews are actively pursuing those prescriptions in the Old Testament against the native Palestinians.
Funny how they advocate policies for White genocide here in the U.S. but actively pursue genocide against Arabs in the "promised" land. They are changing their laws to strip Israeli Arabs of their Israeli citizenship even as we speak.
Jews are hypocrites and murderers!
The "crowd" will include activists for one (or more) sides of contentious political disputes, who will feed the database with typical word choices of their enemies, in the hope of branding them as potential genocide perpetrators. The result will be a produce far more false positives than true ones (if it produces any of the latter at all).
Having just examined the contents of the database, so far it appears to contain a lot of terms not widely used since the sixties or even the 19th Century. Time will tell how impartial this database is.
And while I understand the psychological need of political rivals to talk trash about the Tea Party movement, I don't understand at all the need to just make up wild shit. What is it about fiscal responsibility, honoring the Constitution (for those who care, a real "social contract"), and reduction in government power that brings out such "hate speech" to use the term of the day?
This is a strawman. The tea party doesn't want to honour the constitution, they just want their interpretation of it. Examples are the 1st amendment, tea partiers seem to be fine with repressing speech if they label it national security, child porn or various other talking points. 2nd amendment, tea party has no problem having a whole class of people barred from owning firearms, they just maintain the medieval concept of felon to deny basic rights rather then like in my country where a judge has to order that someone can't own firearms due to misuse of firearms usually, not having a joint in their possession 40 years before.
Fiscal responsibility? More like decreasing spending on things they don't like while increasing spending on their pet projects and causes. My government is very tea like and they've blown the surplus and put us into debt while cutting like hell but increasing spending on other things all the while screaming about how they're fiscally responsible, bastards.
Reducing power of government? More like getting rid of things they don't like like science, environmental stuff and such while drastically increasing governments power to spy on its citizens, jail them for anything they don't like, take away basic rights like having fair elections and so much more.
And to stay sort of on topic, they're much worse for political correct speech, just that instead of hatred, it is economic. Try labeling the bitimous sands as tar sands and they'll come down on you way worse then liberals ever enforced hate speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This is a strawman. The tea party doesn't want to honour the constitution
Yep. That is a straw man. Do you have a real argument?
They could just watch for one group of people moving to a new area and taking already scarce resources away from the native ones. That's about 90% of genocides right there.
Big data is the counterargument to AI-completeness, essentially it's the Chinese Room.
weinersmith
Huh?
Clever signature text goes here.
Stormy I guess, heh?
I can't really be bothered to dig through all of your cognitive dissonance and other bullshit.
Though I must say that I particularly like the bit where you link texts that "prove" non-existence of islamophobia - by a columnist who can't even keep his own straw man up.
From TFA, after rattling out a tirade of anecdotal crimes committed by Muslims:
Given the abundant evidence of violent cause and fearful effect, involving a small percentage of antagonists, the general charge of Islamophobia is an ideological fabrication.
See? There's no such thing as islamophobia as there is nothing to fear about Muslims - except in all these cases I just listed here, not trying to scare you or to say that "all" Muslims are bad, just the ones I know of.
Oh, and that bit of clairvoyance... Beautiful.
Then we have the genocides soon to come.
Or are you perchance a time traveler?
Either way, why are you such an asshole? Why don't you go and warn those people?
It should be easy for you to prove the veracity of your claims to them - after all, you have access to the future news.
We won't even talk about the historical genocides of approximately one million Armenians by Turkish jihadis in 1915, or the hundreds of thousands slaughtered by the two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions in World War II (raised by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni - the bastard who told Hitler the idea of the "Final Solution", stating "Who remembers the Armenians").
Being a Bosnian from Tuzla, I could point out that the nonsense stated above is beyond wildest dreams of right-wing idiots who favor the idea of an SS division comprised of local population.
Seriously, there are local morons who would LOVE to be able to point to "hundreds of thousands slaughtered by the two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions" - on all the right sides.
Right-wing Serbs would like to point them out as evil executioners of Serbs (despite well documented cooperation between both sides), while right-wing Muslims would like to take pride in being executioners to "hundreds of thousands" of Serbs.
And right-wing Croats... Well, the unit WAS Croatian after all.
Trouble is... Well...
First there's this problem of there being ONLY ONE Bosnian Muslim division - 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian).
Then there's the issue of it barely being a division, and the fact that they couldn't get enough Muslims to make it a division - so they liberally added Volksdeutschers and Catholic Croats to fill the ranks.
Which is not surprising, since the division was raised by Croatian political leadership (originally they wanted to make it a "SS Ustasa Division", and the unit was referred to as "Croatian SS-Volunteer Division" - and since it was the brainchild of one Heinrich Himmler.
All al-Husseini had with the entire project was some rather unsuccessful recruiting.
How unsuccessful? Well, besides the above mentioned lack of Muslims, the division is best remembered for the mutiny attempt during training in France.
It is also well remembered for desertions and generally only being effective when they were vastly outnumbering the enemy.
As for the war crimes, all that the Communist Yugoslavian government could come up with was
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Yep, clearly hate speech causes genocide.
Seastead this.
Man, this has me conflicted. A bunch of crazy Christians fighting with a bunch of crazy Muslims! I can't stand either of them. Did those Christians really have to walk in there and be annoying? And yet, those security guards and their other friends had no right to harass those Christians, annoying as they obviously were.
And holy crap, that tail of security people towards the end was pretty hilarious! Did they have nothing better to do than to gang up on those annoying Christians? How many Muslim security guards does it take to escort a couple of annoying Christians off the property?
Wait... was this public property or private?
Clever signature text goes here.
Man, this has me conflicted. A bunch of crazy Christians fighting with a bunch of crazy Muslims! I can't stand either of them.
Yes, they are both crazy. However, in this case the Christians are right and the Muslims are wrong, as I will discuss ...
Did those Christians really have to walk in there and be annoying?
No, but they have the Constitutional First Amendment right to do so. They were not promoting hate speech, and the charges laid against them were fabricated (as they prove - which meant the cops should be dismissed for gross misconduct). Only an authoritarian would even question their right to do what they did. No one questions the right of Muslims to speak freely in their dawa efforts at christian venues, yet it is an arrestable offense for a christian to do the same? in the USA? The correct answer to your question (as defined by the First Amendment and subsequent challenges) is "yes, it is always permissible for someone to speak freely, even if someone finds the speech offensive". What is not permitted is hate speech for immediate incitement to violence. This is clearly not the case. Hence, you should be very troubled that the police in Dearborn are implementing Sharia-compliant speech restrictions, that the mainstream media are indulging in politically correct and Sharia-compliant self-censorship, and that the current US Administration has a policy of censoring the manuals used by the Department of Defence and the FBI where someone who shouts "Allahu Akbar!" and slaughters 13 US service personnel on a US base cannot be called a jihadi. Here is Stephen Coughlin's analysis on how the US is slowly being neutered in opposing jihadis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey-TRpkUiPI
Why is that neutering happening, because the White House is full of Muslim Brotherhood affliates:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
Why aren't you being told this?
Don't vote for Hiliary Clinton in 2016 if you value your liberty and Constitutional rights. Besides her vanity and incompetence she he chief assistant is Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Huma Abedin:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/the-dark-muslim-brotherhood-world-of-huma-abedin-2/
As Voltaire said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.". Political correctness is a python that is the enemy of Free Speech. Over time it constricts and progressively censors what you may or may not say. PC now prohibits criticism of Islam in much official US discourse and will eventually affect private discourse too (unless something is done to halt the Leftist politically correct and Islamist Sharia agenda which restricts Free Speech so their totalitarian goals cannot be opposed by Free Men):
Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/david-horowitz-and-robert-spencer/islamophobia-thought-crime-of-the-totalitarian-future-4/
Wait... was this public property or private?
Public, dude. You cannot exercise any Free Speech rights in Dearborn if a Muslim doesn't want to hear it - and the (Muslim) cops will enforce this by trumping up charges (which video testimony clearly show is false), and then alter their statements numerous times once they realize video shows they are lying. Is Dearborn the future you want for America? to be a controlled citizen (called a "dhimmi") in your own country?
I do care. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I will add it to my list of crimes. As I tried to say, the biggest victim of Islam are *Muslims*. That's why we have to free everyone from this barbaric ideology.
I'm not going to pick sides in that one; but if you approach the debate (as some people do) with the starting point that foes "life begins at conception" then abortion is infanticide.
"Life" is not sufficient to call something a person. Nothing can be gained from discussing abortion with people who do not understand that, and at some point society has to bring down the banhammer.
If somebody says "All members of (ethnic group x/social group y) are scum! Let's (kill them/throw them out of our country/deprive them of their property rights)" then that feels like hate speech.
"Scum" and "convicted felons" are social groups, too.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Yeah dude. Political scientists don't think like that and tend to be fairly serious minded men. If activists are putting in bogus data, its going to stick out like a sore thumb.
That would be true if there was a large amount of speech on the subject to begin with.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Just the opposite. The term "ethnic cleansing" is mostly used by journalists to imply "genocide" while only having evidence of ethnic discrimination or prejudice. Ex: Kosovo.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The best you can come up with are ad hominems and projection? I think we're done here. Have a nice day.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"those people" "those (ethnicity plural)" "the (ethnicity plural)"
Get lost. I find it quite offensive what our forebears did to both Jews and blacks. To continue it or other offenses in the name of anything would be obscene.
And I don't like your lol, either.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
"While the Northern Alliance are no saints they are also not nerly as evil as the Taliban or Al Qaeda"
That's debatable: The Northern Alliance does use rape as a military tactic. It's hard to be more evil than that.
The Taliban use rape, suicide bombing, shooting girls wanting education, killing teachers, killing aid workers,killing health workers, preventing polio vaccination (which would wipe out the disease in the area, since it has nearly been eradicated from the world apart from other islamists in Nigeria), export of jihadi terrorism, etc etc So yes, while both the Taliban and Northern Alliance are evil, the Taliban are *far far more evil*.