Slashdot Mirror
Top Tech Firms Urged To Step Up Online Abuse Fightback (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report on The Guardian: Top tech companies are talking to grassroots organisations across the globe to organise a fightback on their platforms against online abuse, hate speech, misogyny and stalking. Facebook, Twitter and Google are reaching out to women's groups, NGOs and communities in Africa, America, India, Europe and the Middle East as the scale of abuse online continues to increase. But their attempts to foster a "counter-speech" movement to challenge the violent misogyny, racism, threats, intimidation and abuse that flood social media platforms have prompted some of the communities they are trying to empower to question whether they are ducking their own responsibilities. Sarah Green, of the End Violence against Women coalition, said: "Any moves by social media companies to support, encourage and empower individuals and groups to resist and counter abuse is very welcome."
It'd be nice if you could completely get rid of all the nigger/Republicans hate everyone spam that is showing up in EVERY subject.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Azealia Banks gets to keep Twitter account after Wishing "Gang Rape" on Sarah Palin
Azealia Banks is known for saying exactly what she thinks, and a lot of times, she can be pretty offensive. Even if you aren’t a Sarah Palin fan, Banks’ Twitter war with the former Alaska governor got pretty ugly. Despite the rapper telling her Twitter followers and everyone else watching that Palin should be “gang raped,” among other awful things, Twitter decided that she had not broken any rules and her account would not be suspended.
If assholery is outlawed, only criminals will have assholes.
First of all, people need to learn to be less thin-skinned, as it seems we have become a society of the Perpetually Offended.
Second, if you must be Perpetually Offended, how about exercising your freedom of choice and avoiding parts of the Intertubes that Perpetually Offend you?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
come join the counter-speech against evil.
Nice way to drive page-view revenue with a veneer of social responsibility. Now I can be socially responsible from the comfort of my own living-room, I just have to watch this banner ad first.
I hope that Slashdot would avoid censorship as much as is possible. The comments you describe should not be removed.
Under your flawed scheme, after the comments you dislike are gone, then there's no reason why all comments from "phayes" couldn't be subjected to a similar treatment, too.
There will always be people who are inclined to abuse others. Wouldn't it be better to keep that abuse sand-boxed in the virtual world rather than forcing abusers to act out in the physical world?
. . . . how does that effect the "Common Carrier"-type protections of the admittedly-hated Communications Decency Act ? As I recall, acting as a de-facto common carrier prevented liability for content.
So, if providers start discriminating on content, do they not also lose the immunity from liability ?
I'm not really sure where the line is on this, so ask the question here on Slashdot. . .
Hey, top tech firm! You need to abuse your users more.
I refuse! I will fight back!
All I see is talk about misogyny, but misandry is no more acceptable and should be talked about as well. Personally, I despise people who engage in either stuff I certainly do not approve of certain kinds of girls/women disguising their misandry as "feminism."
Free speech is becoming a danger to the plan to continue boiling the frog until a revolution at the ballot box becomes impossible because of the numbers of subhumans voting for gibmes and fifth column invaders voting for open borders.
the scale of abuse online continues to increase
I didn't see any evidence for this statement. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that if the Internet gains one million users, some small percentage of them will be jerks. But TFA also says:
She said the evidence from the meetings was that social media was overwhelmingly positive for the women and girls
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Against those that adversely affect their agenda when off topic trolling they use (worst abusers) or rotten downmods start. APK is an example. Coren22 tried to prove him wrong technically and couldn't and when apk tossed it back in his face, Coren22 cried 'abuse' and 'stalking' yet constantly does it to apk as shown in Coren22's post history last weekend https://slashdot.org/comments.... and Coren22 always has started it and failed. Every time. That's easily verified there with Coren22 starting up with apk yet again there 3 times. When the truncheon is used in lieu of conversation? It means the person being trolled is correct and the frustrated who illogically attack him off topic or with faulty technical lies are indeed frustrated. I find those calling apk a troll are trolls. AmicusNYCL, KGIII, ZontarTheMindless are more. None produce something that protects or speeds you up (at the expense of advertisers) but they try put apk down or tell lies about him!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are all applications in which you arent the consumer, but the product. Poultry farms routinely de-beak their chickens in order to prevent them from harming other birds or their handlers. Pig farms will remove the teeth of aggressive hogs to ensure the productive health of their herd. cattle farms will often segregate and destroy downed or overaggressive bovine.
Facebook and Twitter will remove shitposts and cull aggressive users to ensure their cattle remain copacetic and the product --you-- performs to the liking of their consumers.
Good people go to bed earlier.
This was my first thought as well.
This may invite massive lawsuits on any cooperating company that isn't 100.0000% effective is policing badthought. Which will, of course, include allowing all goodthought to pass unmolested.
So, going along with this idea may very well do nothing but enrich lawyers....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Seems these tech firms have no trouble whatsoever allowing those with SJW street-cred to spout off all they want.
Wrongthink is doublepus ungood, must be banned.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Right, I guess you remember the days when people communicated by stone tablets and people had thick enough skin to simply shrug off threats of death/rape/etc.
Are many people being offended by things they should just deal with? Sure.
Are you right to dismiss all forms of online harassment as people being thin-skinned whiners who are perpetually offended? Absolutely not.
There are some real issues here that should not be willfully ignored.
So far i'm not convinced that anti-abuse laws have not done more harm than good. How many people have had their homes and marriages busted up by false accusations or a very temporary situation? One example was just on a crime show. A good looking young woman drank too much and refused to leave a casino with her boyfriend. When he tried to take her back to the hotel in his words 'She dug her spiked heals into the carpet and would not leave. Casino security stepped in and escorted him out the door. They liked a sharp looking blond who was on the wild side and drunk as she interested the male customers quite a bit. Her boyfriend returned to the hotel. She walked out of the casino and was seen walking with another male as she left. She was killed, dumped in a dumpster and the dumpster was set on fire. Not much was left and only dental records proved her identity. Now which was more abusive. For him to drag his drunken, live-in girlfriend out of the casino could be seen as a violation of womens' rights. However, allowing someone who is drinking freedom to do as they please is also abuse by negligence. This is a case of laws that are trying to do some good turning into a deadly consequence for a woman.
I've corrected the final sentence:
"Any [money] by social media companies to support, encourage and empower individuals and groups to resist and counter abuse is very welcome."
Just walk away from the screen. Or close your eyes. Or close the browser tab.
It's that simple. Don't like something? Don't read it.
Speaking as a former marketer this pseudo article is a clear attempt at psychology mindgames. Surprised my subject wasn't stressed. That must have been seen through and proved ineffective for the powers that be that play you all like morons. In other words, you're all being probed and yes, psychologically herded. Yes. they have MANY proxy driven sock puppet fake accounts here to further their own agendas at your expense. Why? To create an ILLUSION of "that is what the group thinks and you want to be part of the 'winning team'" and it's called "jump on the bandwagon" by them. It appeals to the psychological need for acceptance and it works on the weak minded who have no decent things of their own which is sadly the majority. An example is when people who are not professional sports pros say "MY team won". Hmmm. Are you on that team as a player? No. You identify to appear a 'success' when you're not in life. All to try squelch anyone or anything that doesn't fit it.
This goes for the owners on most forums who view you all as cattle that work in collusion with them.
If anybody has posts that the rather dimwitted marketers can't prove wrong then the gay marrigage or lgbt fluff posts come on fast to bury them down the page and on each page this occurs on. Seriously. On a tech site like this, does that garbage belong here? I say no. Same with this crap article! Suppressing things only helps to prove those being suppressed correct.
Then topmost posts that are garbage begin to forums slide bury those posts they can't get the better of. The ad hominem attacks on the messenger begin instead of technically attacking the message to show it completely faulty and most aren't at all, and so do downmods begin on those posts too.
The mechanics are always the same and even when they've been caught doing it time and again, it continues. Honesty? What's that (when you have a shit product)?? Try it sometime. Try building a better product instead. That type of idea is foreign to a trade filled with lying useless scum is why.
Be aware that the legit posters here are victims to this type of mindgame that the pseudo science of marketing uses that is heavily sociologically and psychologically based to get you to part ways with your monies for products that already have better versions in the works to get you to spend more later also.
You do not get the best they have in other words. Carrots for ignorant donkeys keeping you chasing them.
Yes, this technique is now being used on forums regularly and the rest of what I noted has been for decades. Hilarious. Example being is "get a little captain in you" and we'll get your cash out of you, slowly destroying you. No, you won't have to those girls or the cars it shows you will have. It will take it all. Painfully.
Prepare for this post exposing it to be down moderated quickly first, and then tons of trolling off topic posts to be posted above it to bury this, almost guaranteed. The last thing these schmucks want is to be exposed in how they exploit your sensibilities and wants. All to sell you things you do not need so you can "keep up with the joneses" and "hop on the bandwagon" and be a stupid little fool they take your monies from for their own benefit telling you 1/2 truths and outright lies to do so.
This is no different. Just a different way for the moneymen to keep their agendas going at your expense and to silence out anyone speaking truth.
Any ideas on how this could be done?
Censorship to block abuse and hate speech restricts free speech (even if I don't like it, they're free to have their own opinions).
Censorship is also subject to abuse (who watches the watchers?)
Lack of anonymity opens people up for retaliation, often undeserved and usually out of scale to the offence
The US constitution is founded on rejection of authority and freedom of opinion, even wrong opinions
Many of these groups support dissidents in Tibet, China, and so on that fight FOR freedom of speech
Part of the problem with this is that an arrangement where some corporation is the middleman, censor and thought police for all communication is a system we don't want for other reasons. I've had the conversation many times with organizations that think they need to use Facebook groups to communicate with their members because that's what people expect. Then, of course, some fraction of the people object to using Facebook and don't agree with their terms of service. In particular, the provisions that you have to use your real name and you can't have more than one account. The inevitable reply amounts to "just go ahead and break their terms of service." So that's the expectation we are working under.
Reading the title, i thought this was about abuse of DMCA, abuse of privacy (encryption), abuse of ad systems.
Turns out it was merely an article about infantilism and the inability of some people to close down a browser and stop being ninnies that require baby food and baby carriages to feel emotionally safe.
I will add this though: 90% of the time i see someone being attacked by the Internet, they pretty much incited it by way of idiocy and stupidity. The rest of the 10% like that fat guy boogie is pure douche trolls.
Let me guess, it's mainly oriented at feminists, because feminists are the only ones pushing for the Orwellian regulation of the Internet. The movement is a stain upon Egalitarianism and they even find Air Conditioning to be sexist. I don't take words on serious topics seriously when spoken by such an outrageous movement.
It stops feeling serious, and starts feeling like agendas and authoritarian ego jerking that's being JUSTIFIED by talk of ethics and harassment. The movement managed to do the worst sin by converting the act of rape into a buzzword, by devaluing it by applying rape to every stupid thing down to eye rape and ear rape and such crap.
You can rename harassment and abuse into "THAT PERSON DISAGREED WITH ME, THIS IS A HARASSMENT!" by this point too.
I didn't see Feminists deriding harassment and abuse when they were attacking that probe scientist for a shirt he wore.
This topic is a double edged sword.
There is no "stopping" abuse of any kind. Any time you try to fully eliminate bad things, innocent or nearly innocent people get caught up in the zero-tolerance policies and everyone loses. The offenders get caught, (Yay!), but when there are no more offenders, the harmful offense gets re-defined to create more offenders.
The prohibition of alcohol came from a good place. Homes and lives were ruined because of absolutely rampant alcoholism. But when the fight for absolute abolition took to banning every single alcoholic beverage, an illicit trade formed and with it came a different kind of harm.
Zero tolerance policies as they pertain to gang violence in schools was amazingly effective... until all the horrible things were appropriately reduced. After that, the books were thrown at minor offenders (https://goo.gl/4DQdKR).
The strong prosecution of hate crimes is a good thing. But what happens when a younger generation who has never actually experienced hate crimes (such as being physically assaulted for being a particular religion or race) seeks to re-define what is considered hate? Or racism. Or sexism? What happens when they lower the bar so that a previously welcoming phrase like "America is a melting pot" is redefined as offensive, potentially hateful, speech? We see that today when "microaggressions" are now 'a concern' and how the offended (not *harmed*) are asserting some sort of power for their being offended.
When you seek to "stop" any harm outright and completely, you inevitably come to the point where the harm is so rare, infrequent, or of immeasurably small effect that the ongoing effort begins to victimize people instead of protect them.
But what do you do instead? Actual harm is happening-- how do you stop that harm? The answer is simple, but not easy: hard work. When someone does something harmful, find that person and punish that person. Yes, that's a lot of work, but the punishment is targeted and the restrictions on non-harmful actions are non-existent. Target genuinely harmful actions with strong enforcement and leave the rest to personal control (facilitating visible blocking & ignoring with the option to report) and community moderation (like Slashdot). The aim should always be to reduce harm, but never to eliminate offense.
Lastly, as it is common with the current wave of activism, I will assume that someone will say, "But no one should have to see written abuse online to the point where someone then has to hit an ignore/block button!" to which I respond, "Yes, they should. For the same of protecting the free exchange of ideas (good, bad, and infuriating) and for the protection of people against prejudicial reactions. Without the risk for online abuse, there would be no disagreement and discussion online could only be the repetition of a single idea over and over again."
Talking about corruption schemes, oppression and slavery those companies commit is also harassing the company, so obviously those have to be removed.
Pretty much fits the original definition of fascism - brought to us by the left this time. You will be told what to think. Thought crimes.. Even the term PC is being attacked.
Notice they mention misogyny, but not misandry. (Which obviously means the promoters are sexist and should be banned )
Life is so good under the USA system of 'Cartel Socialism'.
One some articles you can come to slashdot and get great insights. An article like this is the polar opposite, and seems to excite the very worst of the nerd community. Which is a shame, because we should be at the forefront of making sure technology empowers users, rather than enabling abusers, stalkers, etc. And we really need to step up here, because right now the conversation is between the "FUCK THE SJW STALKING IS JUST A JOKE LOL" crowd and the "OH NO LET'S CENSOR THE WEB EVERYTHING IS EVIL" crowd. And normal users lose out when that's the whole conversation. I don't want the future of the internet decided between neckbeards and clueless politicians. This makes me want to stop reading slashdot, some of these comments are dripping with willful stupidity.
Top tech *monopolies* are talking to *astroturf* organisations across the globe to organise a fightback on their platforms against *anything that doesn't fit the narrative*. *Creations of the military-industrial complex* Facebook, Twitter and Google are reaching out to *many NGOs worldwide (professional non-profit astrofurf companies incidently propped up the US government and its allies)* as the scale of *uncomfortable speech* continues to increase. But their attempts to *promote censorship* have prompted some of *their partners, the NGOs-on-a-string* to question whether they are ducking their own responsibilities. (so they are having a conversation with themselves, see how crazy that is?)
*A talking head, of the End Violence against Half the Population* said: "Any moves by social media companies to *clamp down on free speech* is very welcome". (and to wrap it up that was the expert, which makes everything kosher)
the scale of abuse online continues to increase
I didn't see any evidence for this statement. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that if the Internet gains one million users, some small percentage of them will be jerks. But TFA also says:
Read the subtext.
It says: "People don't think this is important, so we'll frame it as "growing". Maybe this will get them to do something."
Common carrier doesn't protect those companies unless they act when notified of behaviour that is criminal or legally actionable. So they can ignore it until it's pointed out to them, at which point they have to act.
That's not really the issue here though. These companies want to shut down harassment, because it's bad for business. Places like Reddit suffered because of the bad reputation they got. Same with YouTube, years ago when I dealt with the public (ugh) I used to hear the same line from parents all the time: nice content, but I don't want my kids reading the comments.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You mean that Guardian which only allows comments on "select articles"? Yep they're friends of free speech, alright.
If assholery is outlawed, only criminals will have assholes.
But how can you talk shit if you don't have an asshole?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Places like Reddit suffered because of the bad reputation they got.
This is false. If you are going to push your agenda of censorship, at least try to tell the truth sometimes.
"Abuse" is defined as "speech I don't agree with." Therefore, any threats lobbed at Palin don't count.
"Without the risk for online abuse, there would be no disagreement and discussion online could only be the repetition of a single idea over and over again"
exactly! now you're getting it! welcome to "enlightenment"!
A long time ago, in the back woods far, far away, I was taught as a wee lad that sticks and stones would break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I believe some of may have missed that lesson.
That's because it's a stupid lesson.
With force, you can hit someone over the head with a rock. With speech you can lead an entire nation to war. Which of those do you think is more powerful?
Anyone trying to control someone else's speech is a fucking asshole and needs to be sent to a small island with other similar assholes.
Ah so you propose that people should be forced to engage with other people? You would destroy freedom of association to protect freedom of speech? These are private organisations, not the government.
If you don't like what I have to say then leave,
Ha, no! If I don't like what you'll have to say, then I'll say why I think you're gravely mistaken.
If you try to stop me...well...good luck with that.
So if you get kickbanned from a forum, you'll just keep on coming back and back and back, circumventing the bans, breaking the ToS and annoying people?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Lets face its, the entire movement is about guilt and revenge. Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt, largely the result of decades of brain washing in public schools. The marginalized groups who support it do so out of a sense they are entitled to some kind of revenge, and they should have that revenge even if the people who really dealt them and their ancestry the wrongs are long dead or rotting in an old folks home some place ( or should be in the case Bill Clinton ).
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules. She can even say the sort of thing that might be considered a personal threat an potentially expose "privileged group" to prosecution, without any fear or reprisal. Now ordinarily being woman would by Sara Palin some entitlement to protection under these new 'rules' but you she committed a mortal sin by espousing hatred for men, so has been excommunicated from the church of the victimized.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
>If you can't take the heat, get back into the kitchen.
Fixed that for you :P
Private companies like facebook or twitter are not required to pay for your microphone that's not what freedom of speech is about. If the government bans you from speaking that is bad. If Facebook pulls your page thats their editorial discretion(also part of the first amendment) then you can move over to reddit or myspace or whatever.
"against online abuse, hate speech, misogyny and stalking"
See, some sexism (discrimination against males) and some racism (discrimination against men) is fine. If you're a white male, you're hitler-satan-misogyirapist-MRA-neckbeard-fat-virgin-Windows10apologist.
I don't. Too much man hating.
I know that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics however when the truth is no defense and cannot be stated then we have really gone way too far down a bad road. Remember that freedom of speech is still being free after controversial speech.
I'm sure everyone agrees that abuse or stalking is a problem but the biggest concern for me on social media is the tendency to get very offended by a one-off comment someone makes then proceed to ruin their lives. These spontaneous mobs fueled by righteous indignation are much scarrier to me than spam from some bully.
If you can't take the heat, just sit right until you feel dry and sleepy. It shouldn't be too very much longer for your tender morsels.
I've got a spare nostril.
Suppression of speech, what you say starts wars, is effective. Stop opposition sensible truths, you get what you want from those that do not think for themselves critically. Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and even France being persecuted as proof of a war based on false pretenses and where were those WMD's? They're not and never were. He's free to talk. Don't like it? Don't listen. You fear others listen. Slashdot provides means to ignore AC. Use it if you can't prove the other person technically incorrect then. Nobody forces you to listen. You force yourself to come up with easily disproved crap like you have now that deceives very few here at least. The USA was built on opposing ideas by the way and did more in a short history than many older nations ever will. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Don't like what others say? Prove them wrong. Not with crap. With facts. Not with your personal agendas. Your rant seems to fear others thinking critically and deciding for themselves. Truth and fact always win in the end after the deceived wake up. Fact is. everytime crap like you spout in favor of suppression is used it ends up being a lie for furthering a bad agenda that costs the majority out there and puts their monies into the pocket of a pack of manipulators. Your rant is a classic "want to know what's good for you? We will tell you!" and WE alone have that god given unalienable right NOT YOU the masses. That is exactly what YOUR KIND fears the most. People starting to think for themselves. Conquerors seize communication first or nearly so. Every single time. Can't have anyone telling anyone the truth now can they? No. Can't let others THINK FOR THEMSELVES and DECIDE... no way. Frame the narrative. Contain the situation. That or spinmaster damage control. That's YOUR kind's weak mechanics and the world's waking up to it fast. You fear it. It is obvious.
This may invite massive lawsuits on any cooperating company that isn't 100.0000% effective is policing badthought.
I salivate at the mere thought of this. Of course, I'm a white male so it isn't happening for me but I know enough women that I can find somebody to go along with it. I would love to have some of Facebook/Twitter/Google et al millions. Love it!
Obligatory
With force, you can hit someone over the head with a rock. With speech you can lead an entire nation to war. Which of those do you think is more powerful?
You are such a jerkoff. So some bullshit somebody writes on Facebook is going to lead an entire nation to war now? That's what you SJW-tards think you're doing? Saving the world from war? Go jump off a cliff, moron.
Now you know why so many people are full of it. It's a good day when you learn something new.
fag
Yep, and I don't see anyone calling to "fight back" against misandry. Hating men (and white people) is perfectly fine.
...nothing.
Because the idea that men can be victims of bastardy from other women is anathema to feminist harridans and their useful idiot allies.
Feminism continues its transformation into a fully fledged social disease.
I've never been kick-banned because I would never post on a forum that does not believe how I believe. Please name 1 war that arose from a speech. You are a control freak who thinks peoples feelings are more important than free speech. You are EXACTLY the type of asshole I was referring to. Fortunately, this forum still lets you talk your shit. Isn't that nice of them?? You see where I am going with this? I didn't think so.
And what happens if the speech is legal, but offensive ? That's the issue. But, somehow, people seem to believe that there's a right to Not Be Offended. . .
Thank you. Hope he finds that cliff soon. ;)
Now ordinarily being woman would by Sara Palin some entitlement to protection under these new 'rules' but you she committed a mortal sin by espousing hatred for men, so has been excommunicated from the church of the victimized.
Almost there. The new social rules are based on privilege ratios. The person with less privilege can do whatever they want to someone with more. The group with the most privilege is the patriarchy, thus why racism, bigotry, and sexism against white men don't exist. The last privileged group is black women, because they are the opposite (keep rationality out of this to understand it). So a black woman can do whatever she wants to a white woman because the white woman has more privilege. Past actions have no say in the matter. She can hate on men all she wants but that is not relevant because of the patriarchy.
Nothing is censored here. It just gets modded up or down. Brett Buck just cannot handle anyone who doesn't totally agree with him, and lables anyone who disagrees with him as a leftist.
Modding up and down is sort of a "soft" censorship. It does run the risk of promoting groupthink and it does hide positions contrary to majority opinion. Both of these are things slashdot has a problem with.
But it also hides the spam. Yay for hiding spam.
Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt
Nonsense.
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules.
Also nonsense. You'll find plenty of [insert your personal boogiemen] who condemn and reject comments like that, including her own.
It's true that sometimes who makes a particular comment matters as much as the comment itself (think: context). Sometimes, like the case you state here, the 'who' doesn't matter.
More specifically, Twitter is a private company. They can allow or not allow any nonsense they want. Equally, we, as individuals, are free to accept or reject those comments and to express our feelings about Twitters decision.
Impotently whining about imaginary problems, however, probably won't get you anywhere. If you want social change, even if it's to revert back to an earlier time, you're going to need to do more than just complain about how things are now. You'll need to convince others that your viewpoint is correct. If what you've written is all you can offer, you're going to have a very difficult time finding a receptive audience outside a few right-leaning internet forums.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I'll be the first in line the instant that becomes an actual, rather than purely imaginary, problem.
Please spare me the only valid point the MRA's have ever made. We've heard it already. We're with you there. It's just that you come with some much other nonsense. It's not worth diving in to the septic tank to retrieve that pearl.
Required reading for internet skeptics
>Slashdot is far and away the most repressive leftist forum I have ever seen, with mods absusing their power to censor literally anything but the hard-left party line.
You don't get out much.
Or understand the word "left" in a political context.
There is something like a slashdot party line, without a party--there are a lot of core groupthink ideas you come across here. Open Source Good, Microsoft Bad, People (Other than us) Stupid, Anyone trying to tell other people what to do bad, Social Justice bad, Overt racism bad, cool tech toys good, Star Trek good, Lorf of the Rings (the book) good, etc...
It's still OK (you won't get booted) to challenge any of those positions with logic and reason, but you generally have to make a much more cogent post and still risk more downmodding.
But that line is WAY out-of-sync with the extreme political left, and there's no "party" leadership or organization coordinating talking points and power struggles.
"You'll need to convince others that your viewpoint is correct"
Don't be delusional. That's not what's happening at all. Sound arguments and logic have no place in social media. What matters is how you can drown-out opposing voices, demonize those whose opinion doesn't fit with your own or that of your _special interest_. We see this play-out time and again.
racism, bigotry, and sexism against white men don't exist.
Plenty of people are racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted against white men. The difference here is about *systemic* racism and sexism. To compare:
Now, here's the thing - that third one, with the professors? Even women professors judged against the applications based on gender. Very few people in the various "let's get rid of sexism" movements either "hate men" or blame men for everything. That's just not how it is, in reality. Yeah, there are other voices that are louder saying things on the extreme end. Sort of like how most Christians aren't Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. The US has 247 million Christians. Westboro Baptist Church? 40. Does Westboro Baptist get 1 / 6,175,000th the media coverage? Nope - because people like to amplify and repeat the things that the worst / most extreme people say. And that happens regardless of political affiliation. (Come on - how many Trump supporters are *actually* neo-nazis?)
Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt
Nonsense.
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules.
Also nonsense. ...
Really? Nonsense?!?!?!
Care to explain why Twitter has allowed her - a black woman - to keep her account after she called for the gang rape of woman?
Care to explain why Whoopi Goldberg - a black woman - still has a job on TV after saying what Roman Polanski did to a 13--year-old white girl "wasn't 'rape rape'"?
The only nonsense is what you posted.
Of course you ignored the part about those studies being done at institutions that are actively institutionally racist against white men. Have you been to a college campus recently? You will not be welcome as a white man. That is why the graduation rate of that demographic is dropping so fast. That is why it is less than half of what it was a generation ago.
How can you not talk shit if you don't have an asshole? It still has to get out somewhere. Admit it, my logic is bulletproof.
Ezekiel 23:20
Without a doubt, you win the thread!
Seriously, your logic IS bullet proof.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Please name 1 war that arose from a speech.
You mean apart from literally every war ever?
For example, did Hitler invade Poland all by himself, or did he convince an entire country to rally behind him?
What about George Washington? Did he wage a one man campaign against the British, or did he convince people to join him?
Did the Pope personally go and attack the holy land, or did he tell a bunch of people to go and crusade on his behalf?
You are a control freak who thinks peoples feelings are more important than free speech.
You're exactly the kind of nutcase who can't read, because at no point did I actually advocate restricting speech.
You are EXACTLY the type of asshole I was referring to.
So wait, you think people who advocate free speech are bad? Please talk sense.
Fortunately, this forum still lets you talk your shit. Isn't that nice of them?? You see where I am going with this? I didn't think so.
Nope, I have no idea where you're going with it. You seem to think free speech is unimportant because it is of no consequence and attack people who actually advocate free speech. And you do that all under the guise of "free speech". That all seems very strange to me.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Right because the bet way to promote free speech is to have all the people who actually understand WHY it's important jump off cliffs. Instead we'll be left with a bunch of droolers yelling "freeze peach is unimportant gimme mah freeze peach!".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Right, because sexism/racism is power + prejudice. It's impossible to be sexist against men just like it is impossible to be racist against white.
The sad thing about your comment, MRA's do have valid legal grievances (divorce court, domestic disputes, child custody, bodily integrity, etc to name a few) . Compare that to man-spreading and patriarchy. As much bat shit crazy there is in the man-o-sphere there just as much bat shit in feminist circles.
You sound like Steve Shives who summarily dismisses the concerns of fathers that want to see their kids because of discriminatory child custody laws but think that the God-like Patriarchy is a real threat to everyone everywhere!
Look if we're not willing to devote the resources to catch someone if they steal my car or beat my ass on a street corner. It's completely unreasonable that we need to deal with people arguing on facebook. Yes that includes strangers sending death threats to each other.
The fact these people want action shows what sheltered and privileged lives they've led.
Right, because sexism/racism is power + prejudice. It's impossible to be sexist against men just like it is impossible to be racist against white.
If you got all that from my comment, you're both paranoid and delusional. There's nothing I can do to help you. Good luck.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Oh noes, I might offend a social justice type who's in college. Better reach out to every technology company in the world and get them on board in rooting out my offensiveness! I really wonder how these people are going to function in the real world, where their "safe space" will be the unemployment line after their mean insensitive bosses toss them out on their worthless asses for being completely devoid of usefulness.
Political correctness is destroying our society, and by the time those who don't understand what means learn what that means, it will be far too late.
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules.
A lot of popular people, including Azealia Banks can say whatever they want not because of what they are but because they drive traffic to Twitter. Twitter is a business and that's all they really care about, never forget that.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Right, because sexism/racism is power + prejudice. It's impossible to be sexist against men just like it is impossible to be racist against white.
If you got all that from my comment, you're both paranoid and delusional. There's nothing I can do to help you. Good luck.
No, he is, in fact, correct. Racism is not the same thing as mere discrimination on the basis of race. There is a whole layer on top of that that is the result of history and the relative power wielded by white versus minority communities.
If your analysis of black-on-white is the exact mirror image of white-on-black, then you're missing almost the entire point of why racism has been such a monstrous and enduring problem for so long.
emerging as the most sought after alternative Nike Tn Requin which is readily accessible and will go a long way in rejuvenating your lifestyle with the inclusion of a regular period of jogging, walking or runnin g. The Air Max ltd 2 is essentially a very good product from Nike, the international brand most of the international athletes trust. Not only are the Air Max ltd 2 comfortable for your feet but are also very good when it comes to the protection of your limbs from injury. These Air Max ltd 2 sneakers are accessible in a wide range of color combinations which will surely sweep you off your feet. With a bit of intricate research on the World Wide Web, you will surely be able to stumble upon some great resources wherein you can procure Air Max ltd 2 on sale and even get them at great discount prices. These hot sneakers will surely astonish you to your wi end in an unprecedented way. Apart from the Air Max ltd 2, yet another product which is fast vanishing from the shelves are the Ugg Boots Not only are Ugg boots comfortable, breathable and proffer a deep and gratifying experience but are also very reasonable in their prices. They are very much worn in the winter weather and proffer unmatched comfort when compared to any other type of boots.
If you got all that from my comment, you're both paranoid and delusional. There's nothing I can do to help you. Good luck.
You missed the point of his statement? He's echoing that your views are just a long the lines of the regressive left, and those who believe "they can do no wrong because reasons." And if you want to find the actual sexists, and the actual racists, they're the ones spouting that people can't be racist or sexist because of bullshit reasons.
Om, nomnomnom...
My house, my rules and if you show up doing or even saying something offensive, I can decide to kick you out.
My business, mostly my rules and if I post a list of things I don't allow, such as swearing, well I can kick you out.
Here we're talking about private businesses (not common carriers, who can still have rules like no explosives on the railroad or only so much voltage on the phone line), who while more limited then a private residence, are still within their rights to kick you out for many types of offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You're reading an awful lot in such a tiny amount of text. I'll stand by that paranoid and delusional bit.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You must not get out much. There's lots of men's rights activists, ranging from people who want something done about the relatively few actual grievances (e.g., the common assumption that physical abuse is always all the man's fault) to men who want the right to arbitrarily abuse women with impunity.
As a white man, I'm not worried about people claiming they hate me because it really isn't going to affect my life. If I were a black woman, I'd be a lot more worried that it would affect me personally.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Otto von Bismarck started the 1870 Franco-Prussian War with the Ems telegram. You're welcome.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That is still not a good enough reason to curb my tongue. Besides, a speech was a catalyst for other problems that had already been established. Straw man burned.
Almost there. The new social rules are based on privilege ratios. The person with less privilege can do whatever they want to someone with more. The group with the most privilege is the patriarchy, thus why racism, bigotry, and sexism against white men don't exist. The last privileged group is black women, because they are the opposite (keep rationality out of this to understand it). So a black woman can do whatever she wants to a white woman because the white woman has more privilege. Past actions have no say in the matter. She can hate on men all she wants but that is not relevant because of the patriarchy.
I'm trying to figure out how serious this is. This seems a little too blatant to be openly stated by one of the many who hold these beliefs.
I wasn't telling you to curb your tongue. You asked for a war that arose from a speech. I gave you one that arose from a telegram, which is at least pretty close. I could also mention the US entry into WWI and the Zimmerman telegram. In both cases, there were lots of pre-existing tensions, but war didn't happen until the appropriate telegram. Ten yards penalty, move goalposts back.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I think you missed the point. What the AC means by "don't exist" is really "not allowed to be acknowledged".
Take your delusions back to your "safe space" and keep them there.
No tensions, no war. Send all the telegrams you want. Just accept your premise is flawed, else there will be war. :) See what I did there?
Hey you weak and pathetic excuses for humans: Your feelings will get hurt when you hear things you do not like.
Grow a dick and learn to deal with reality.
I spend my days having uncensored conversations with anyone that attempts to control what others say or think while out in public.
They make a stupid statement, and then I respond with no more than one or two unfiltered sentences.
Next, they turn red and/or start crying and then leave the area that I am in.
Its a little slice of heaven that I get to have every day!
Okay, how about you show me a war that was started with sticks and stones without pre-existing tensions? You claimed that sticks and stones are more dangerous than words. If you say that speeches don't start wars without pre-existing tensions, and ask for a counterexample, then either you are claiming that at least one war started with sticks and stones and no pre-existing tensions, or you're babbling pointlessly.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes