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."
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.
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. . .
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."
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.
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"
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."
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.
LOL. I guess you see the sinister (teehee) had of those dirty leftists everywhere, eh?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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."
Unlike the people who complain every single day about PC culture, SJWs, and "perpetually offended" people.
They are totally not being perpetually offended or thin-skinned at all.
Talking about corruption schemes, oppression and slavery those companies commit is also harassing the company, so obviously those have to be removed.
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
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.
"Abuse" is defined as "speech I don't agree with." Therefore, any threats lobbed at Palin don't count.
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
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.
Dude has a point. For example, what defines 'racism' - according to many people, the term includes anyone who disagrees with the 'Black Lives Matter' movement in any aspect. Threats? Of course there's the obvious stuff, like 'I'm going to come to your house and kill you' stuff (though deletion of same may constitute tampering with evidence, eh?) But on the other hand we have overly-coddled snowflakes who claim there's somehow a credible threat from some idiot scrawling "Trump 2016" in chalk on their college campus.
I'm also curious to see a complete list of these groups... mostly because there are quite a few groups out there who you definitely do not want setting definitions here.
There is a danger in this, after all - the danger being that political speech is stifled if the hoi polloi decide that something is 'hate' or 'racist' merely because they disagree with it. The two examples I listed up top are true stories, so it's not like GP's post is paranoia...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
Facebook has that mechanism already, as do most other public fora. It's usually called "Block" or "Ignore".
Of course, I suspect that the actual goal of many of these organizations is not to merely block/ignore folks they disagree with...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
Now you know why so many people are full of it. It's a good day when you learn something new.
Any ideas on how this could be done?
I can't speak on Twitter or Facebook but Google could do it pretty easily as they have a process to de-index that works fairly well for them. People report sites and when Google gets enough reports it triggers a manual review. Some drone looks at the site and if they don't like it, the sites no longer comes up in the search results. Happens thousands of times a day.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Nice Spin. Now please sit and do that for a bit.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
>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.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I don't. Too much man hating.
+1
Getting so it's not safe in public anymore. Forget the evening scene.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I am sure that would be a very clever and apt comment, if I could make *any* sense out of it.
Near as I can tell, you advocate censorship. Who decides what is acceptable and not? Here on slashdot, its the mods, who mod everything to the right of Mao Tse Tung and Castro into oblivion.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and lefties think the same thing in the opposite direction.
I've had lots of posts modded in a battle between one group calling it a troll, and the other calling it insightful. opinion tug-a-war.
And if you think it's just left wingers, perform an experiment. Post a message asking "Why would someone even want an assualt rifle?" It will hit -1 troll with a bullet (that's a joke son)
That's just how it is man, people have different opinions.
Even more importantly, posts do not get "modded into oblivion". All you have to do is change the level at which you browse Slashdot. You can see everything posted, not a bit of censorship.
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.
Don't get out much, eh? Aside from no censorship taking place at all, you can't really be saying that everyone has to march in lockstep agreement with everything you post.
That's not even how life works, unless you are in an echo chamber where no one can express anything but approval for your opinion. The bubble gets lonely. Accept that not everyone will agree with you.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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. . .
Dude has a point. For example, what defines 'racism' - according to many people, the term includes anyone who disagrees with the 'Black Lives Matter' movement in any aspect.
It's a big world, with whackos on both left and right. I've been told to go die in a fire for asking what a regular person is going to use an assault rifle for.
So there are going to be people on the left who are just as nuts.
But what we do in polarized America has turned into people taking the most extreme elements left or right, and using a really broad brush to paint anyone they don't agree with as whoever it is they hate. That's how left wingers can paint every conservative as Ted Cruz Dominionists, and right wingers can paint anyone who disagrees with them as Chanty Binx acolytes.
When in fact, not many Republicans believe in shutting down the Government or America becoming a Dominionist nation as Cruz wishes, or that whatever the hell Chanty Binx is is representative of all Democrats.
But in modern day America, we have been programmed to paint anyone who disagrees with us as not human, therefore not worthy of humane treatment.
Hell, I enjoy arguing with people in here, It doesn't make me disrespect their selfhood. But that paints me as inhuman on both sides.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Slashdot is far and away...
Have you seen reddit? I've never had anything censored here.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Offended, how about exercising your freedom of choice and avoiding parts of the Intertubes that Perpetually Offend you?
Many people, left and right are perpetually offended. So they look for things to validate their offendedness. Which is pretty offensive, all in all.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
>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.
Have you been shadow banned?
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.
Evil sells. There is too much money in it. In fact if you are one of the ones making money from it, its in your best interest to promote it.
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
I always thought it would be an interesting project to use computerized stylometry to estimate how many individual people are actually writing those comments.
Ezekiel 23:20
Haha. 'Just grow up'.
Without a doubt, you win the thread!
Seriously, your logic IS bullet proof.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm under the impression that it's the nuts that have the loudest voices or get the most attention. It's almost as if the media intentional seeks them out to plaster all over national news, I'm not even sure it's news any more it's like shock reporting where they find the craziest thing to air just to bring in viewers it might as well be News at 10 with Howard Stern.
There has not been a presidential candidate worth voting for since before I was old enough to vote your choices are... let me see which is less likely to completely screw everything up.
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!
I'm under the impression that it's the nuts that have the loudest voices or get the most attention. It's almost as if the media intentional seeks them out to plaster all over national news, I'm not even sure it's news any more it's like shock reporting where they find the craziest thing to air just to bring in viewers it might as well be News at 10 with Howard Stern.
Bill Maher had an interesting insight into some of what what you are talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
At the present time, there is a lot of SJW stuff in the news. Partly because they are kooks, bent on whining about everything, and partly because people expect kookhattery from the right wing, so it isn't really news when one of them gets caught in the Restroom at Denny's giving Oral sex to some random dude stranger before going to a fundraising dinner to make Gay marriage illegal again. Kooks...Kooks everywhere...
There has not been a presidential candidate worth voting for since before I was old enough to vote your choices are... let me see which is less likely to completely screw everything up.
Does such a person even exist? Anything short of perfection is verboten. Hell, we had a president impeached because of a blowjob. Id if the worst thing you ever did was get a blowjob, you aren't doing too bad.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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
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.
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
The sad thing is, the bubble *doesn't* get lonely. Not any more. No matter how stupid your opinion, it's not hard on the Internet to find a place where pretty much everyone agrees with you, and then you think you're mainstream.
That's one big reason why the American right has spun so far out of reality.
Yes, it is. Down in Texas, there are lot of people who think that Ted Cruz iz da shitz. Since they only talk to each other, they do then to think they have the only correct idas, and every other American is their enemy. Ted certainly does, as a Dominionist.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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
Getting so it's not safe in public anymore. Forget the evening scene.
What? You mean you don't like being accused of rape after a one night stand and the women decides to try and say it wasn't consensual 9-15 months later, because she feels guilty.
Om, nomnomnom...
Or the Ex Wife that will sleep with other men then say it was rape when she gets caught by their wives.
I had one of those.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Riiight, another blinding insight from the resident genius.
You provide a hallmark example of presuming you are intelligent because you're a lefty nutcase, and the nuttier you get the smarter you think you are.
Thin skinned little snowflake arent ya?
While I'm not actually a lefty (except by wingnut standards) It's so interesting that people who castigate anyone who doesn't agree with them as a lefty or socialists are...
so.. damn.. sensitive. I mean sweet jeebus on a hallmark card, once upon a time a right winger was considered the strong silent type, a Waynesque individual, who rode out the ups and downs of life with aplomb.
Now it's getting hard to tell you all from SJW's, everything upsets y'all so badly.
Anyhow thanks for playing, if you get all pissed off because people disagree with you - which is what modding down is, you really need to get to infowars or something. Be among only your own kind, and people with different opinions won't intrude upon your sensitive disposition. Or stick around here and have some discussion with people who might not always agree with ya.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Look at the incentives. Media are typically rewarded for getting someone to load the attached ads, so whatever attracts eyeballs is good. Any system of journalistic ethics has to exist in that context.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It used to be that most of us were exposed to some sort of consensus reality, which was hardly perfect but at least put us on a common footing. There would be maybe four channels on the television and one or more newspapers, all trying to be reasonable most of the time. We could and did argue about things, but we were generally agreed on the basic facts. I could argue with someone on the right wing about what the facts meant, without having to argue nearly as much about what the facts were. When I concluded that the 1972 bombing offensives in Vietnam were being very good about not hitting civilians, I did it from facts I got from left-wing sources.
Nowadays, anyone can get their news from pretty much whatever ideological slant they like. The old channels still exist, mostly, but they're optional now. Not all the new ones are at all careful about fact-checking.
Global warming is a great example. There's lots of people who are willing to think an entire branch of science corrupt to suit their prejudices, using a few nitpicks to make their belief look plausible to themselves.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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
Some women don't like being raped, going to court to have the defense attorney bash their reputation in any way possible, and watching the man walk due to insufficient evidence.
Rape is a really, really big problem in jurisprudence, because it's really hard to prove one way or another. Lean in the direction of the women, and men will suffer from being falsely accused. Don't, and lots of women can't get any legal action against their rapists, who may consider themselves free to come back and rape again.
(Yes, there's rape that's not man-on-woman. That gets screwed up even worse in the legal system.)
"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
It's almost as if the media intentional seeks them out to plaster all over national news,
It's almost as if we reward media outlets who promote sensationalism.
Which in turn leads to the uncomfortable implication that as a society we aren't that concerned with real news, but we love shock and entertainment.
And if you think it's just left wingers, perform an experiment. Post a message asking "Why would someone even want an assualt rifle?" It will hit -1 troll with a bullet (that's a joke son)
And I've seen such sentiments modded up to +5 before as well, though it'll usually take more insight than just that one question.
Half the time, it's really just the luck of the draw -- which moderator did I get today? Who actually read my post, someone who can appreciate a well-reasoned argument from the other side, or is it going to be a left-wing or right-wing partisan with an itchy trigger finger? Will I get modded down quickly, thus making it less likely that the folks who would have modded my post up would see it? Or will I get modded up first, thus making it more likely that the post will still be seen even if it gets a downmod right after?
I've found on Slashdot you can get modded up one day, modded down the next for saying the same thing. Phrasing matters, and it matters who happens to have mod points that day.
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?
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