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."
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
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
"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.