Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Employees Tried To Remove Trump Posts As Hate Speech (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: Facebook employees pushed to remove some of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's Facebook posts -- such as one proposing the ban of Muslims from entering the U.S. -- from the service as hate speech that violated the giant social network's policies, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday. The decision not to remove the Trump posts was made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the newspaper reported. Employees complained that Facebook was changing the rules for Trump and some who review content on Facebook threatened to quit. "When we review reports of content that may violate our policies, we take context into consideration. That context can include the value of political discourse," Facebook said in an emailed statement. "Many people are voicing opinions about this particular content and it has become an important part of the conversation around who the next U.S. president will be. For those reasons, we are carefully reviewing each report and surrounding context relating to this content on a case by case basis." Senior members of Facebook's policy team posted more details on its policy on Friday: "In the weeks ahead, we're going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest -- even if they might otherwise violate our standards."
The system is fixed hillary for prison!
Let's ban ideas we don't like because uncomfortable ideas make us uncomfortable. The world should be a safe space, one where we can focus on how great we are instead of possibly thinking about the disturbing thoughts of others.
FTS: Employees complained that Facebook was changing the rules for Trump and some who review content on Facebook threatened to quit.
Well, bye. Yes Trump is terrible and his viewpoints are awful. He's awful the GOP candidate for President. By squelching his speech content, you're both tacitly endorsing a specific party as a platform -- a big no no from Zuckerberg -- and stripping people of newsworthy information, be it for good or bad. Needless to say it does not surprise me they threatened to quit. If I were Zuckerberg, they'd have been gone anyway. They were moderating content on Facebook, a job not relegated to rocket scientists, and failed at it.
Good work ladies and gentlemen.
I'd wager that many of the people working at Facebook are not Trump supporters. The ones who moderate are on the bottom rung, in low paid, low skill jobs where the whip is being cracked because they aren't flagging stuff fast enough.
Facebook is a normal company full of mostly normal people. Of course some of them will try to do this, just like their users go around flagging Clinton's stuff and just like every other site. Now if Facebook suddenly officially endorsed Trump, or Breitbart decided to back Clinton, that would be news.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If said employees feel free to delete others posts, it's not hard to imagine they are reading private messages, monitoring to make sure BadThought is stamped out...
Have these employees been fired? If not, why not?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Enforcing immigration law is not inherently xenophobic. Deporting all illegals and building a wall to hinder their return sound perfectly reasonable to me.
All the terms we use "conservative" "liberal" "progressive" really stand more for complicated political alliances than anything that clear cut. For example, pot legalization is stronger on the left among "progressives" but legalization is essentially reactionary, going back to an earlier era. Similarly, many right-wing, conservative positions, are new or novel ideas. By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas are more often found as part of the "conservative" tribe (although there's a definite undercurrent of them in the left also, as seen in for example Bernie Sanders strong dislike of open immigration).
In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches. There's no coherent philosophy that should connect attitude about tax policy to attitude about gay marriage. And in so far as there are attempts at coherent philosophical approaches, they often make very little sense: for example the pro-choice movement's language about freedom and autonomy is very similar to language used by people with strong attitudes about the second amendment or believing they have a right to discriminate, but they are from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
I'm quite left of center and the hate for Hillary among my group is probably as bad as the Trump fan hate for Hillary, and people have been complaining about posts disappearing.
Editing content makes you responsible for the content itself, as you are exerting control over it.
I believe practices like this are ridiculously dumb.
Especially since I consider "hate speech" a great idiot filter. It allows me to keep my friends list trimmed. Just like a Confederate flag is, or Trump signs in the yard. But that's my own choosing. I don't want Facebook choosing for me.
Yeah, I know, if it's free you are the product. The problem is that the telnet chat that everyone used has been abandoned (even though it's still up after all these years).
--
BMO
Trump is a conservative? That's a riot. I know he's a Republican (today), but he doesn't hold very conservative views.
No, I'm not saying that, because he's a candidate, it's okay for Trump to have these views. what I am saying is that, because he's a candidate, it's important for us to know what his views are. Whether we agree or not, knowing helps us decide whether or not we want to vote for him.
What were the exact posts? Unfortunately the article doesn't seem to have them.
What you seem to be identifying is the difference in authoritarian and libertarian philosophies. You can be left/libertarian, left/authoritarian (like most Democrats), right/libertarian (like most Libertarians), and right/authoritarian (like most Republicans). And you can also be anywhere in-between as well.
I got my info from a different article about this, my apologies. http://gizmodo.com/facebook-em...
on what you consider conservative. The strict definition is "opposed to change". By the definition Hillary is more conservative than Trump. I'm more inclined to call these views "Regressive". But then I find most of what we call "Conservative" to really be regression. Back to the "Good 'ole Days" so to speak and typically some of that Old Time Religion.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Employees" and "pushed for". According to Google, Facebook had over 12,500 employees in 2015. So some employees felt strongly enough about Trump's posts to raise a discussion, and the company said "No". Zero conspiracy. Nobody stole the secret codes to the hidden filter chamber.
Basically, this articles takes Facebook taking things seriously, doing what I think most of us would hope it would do, and tries to paint it as beastial. I would *hope* that Facebook /doesn't/ hire based on political perspective, so I would hope it has employees of all ends of the political perspective and seeks to maintain a neutral stance. That doesn't mean that it's employees shouldn't be able to raise their concerns internally either way.
-- A change is as good as a reboot.
that this election is so bat-$h!t (yeah, I know, it's the Internet, I can swear, but I like this better) that Facebook has to change their posting guidelines to allow what's become "normal" political speech?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I remember the pre-eternal-september internet, before anyone had the capability to censor large swaths of it.
The more we centralize control over what everyone sees - and for better or worse Facebook is now "the internet" for much of the population - the more control we put into a few hands, who will make these choices FOR us. Sometimes in ways we like, sometimes in ways we don't, but we have ceded control. It is no longer a medium that empowers individuals. It now empowers the few hands holding the reins.
No, actually, that's not how it works. Trump is not a conservative. The Republican party, which, although it does include some conservative politicians, is not run by conservatives.
You might be surprised to find people on the other side of the aisle find your views just as ugly, selfish, and repugnant, though they aren't far enough down the authoritarian rabbit hole to try to censor your speech. They will come around eventually, though, if you and your ilk persist.
I believe it was that, given the the religious violence currently going on in the Muslim community, we should have a temporary hiatus on foreign Muslims entering the country until we can re-evaluate our immigration policies to better evaluate the likelihood of foreigners committing violence while here.
Again, sounds prudent to me. Foreigners have no automatic right to enter the US. It's a privilege, which may be restricted or withdrawn.
If my employees tried to kill my company, they would no longer be my employees.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Let's use full context here. Banning Muslims from extremest hot spots until we can improve how we vet them. Not much different from banning German men of military age from immigrating while at war with Germany.
Rather than playing the Democrat's hate card to always try to suppress the Republican vote, let's have an honest discussion on what the proposed policy was actually about. Let's use the full context and implied reasoning. Not the political soundbites.
I don't mind a string of racist bile on 4chan or in my eye during Team Fortress. I might object to it at my kid's Christmas pageant or in this case their Facebook wall.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I definitely wasn't arguing for censorship, as can be seen by the fact that I did not argue for censorship.
Are his ideas really ugly, selfish and repugnant? Or is that the narrative you've been fed and chose to go with?
On censoring, what if MLK had been censored to oblivion because what he was saying was considered blasphemous to the majority? Censorship is a very bad thing to promote. Voice of opposition is what brings forth debate and change. Part of that is allowing things you don't like or are even repugnant (regardless of future perspective) so that the gems that truly improve our society are allowed a voice. You cannot selectively decide what is valuable opposition and what is not because by the very nature, voices of opposition are counter to contemporary norms. It's only with the lens of the future that you can truly decide the merit. We accept the bad with the good because the good would never exist otherwise.
I clearly didn't cry racism. Go to your safe space if you can't handle adult discussion.
Citizens have rights in this country. We don't have to extend those same rights to foreign nationals.
to be left to the mercy of Mark Zuckerberg or his anonymous lackeys. Are we supposed to be grateful that Massa Zuck generously exercised his discretion not to censor editorial news?
Fuck him, and fuck Facebook. It's a cancer upon the earth.
Everything you are saying is backwards.
Conservatism, as it's defined today by empirical evidence and voting records, is an extremist institution that supports terrorizing and torturing the public, a state-controlled media, totalitarianism, fascism, and income confiscation through tax and public debt. The democratic party also believes in these same things. These are black and white beliefs when you get down to it.
The current RNC candidate is, by comparison, very moderate.
Newborn males in the US have a 50\50 shot of having kids themselves, based the analysis of PEW and GAO research into marriage and birth rates; we've never dipped below 90% since the stats started getting collected in the 50's. Half of men with over an 80th percentile income have not procreated; if you want to know why there's such a market for hookers and porn, that's why. Under present conditions, migrants fleeing 3rd world countries can expect they and the next generation coming here will never escape poverty. Immigration, today, is a discussion about eugenics; it's about foreigners having more desirable genetic and social traits than the domestic population does, and the one deeming this is the "ruling elites".
Exactly:
1. Citizens enter the US by right, unlike foreigners, who enter it at our pleasure.
2. We don't have internal restrictions on travel, and there's no legal basis for any, outside of some possible emergency situation. So, city folks can mingle at will.
*not the same AC, but he is right
Citation:
Demore V. Kim
Georgetown University Law Center analysis
Short version: The Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that constitutional rights, the right to bear arms and freedom of travel in this discussion, do not extend to non-citizens. Thus, not only the other AC is right in that "We don't have to extend those same rights to foreign nationals." but that we don't extend those rights to non-citizens as a matter of law laid out by the highest court in the country.
It's ArtemaOne, don't bother.
It's their job to read and delete posts that run afoul of the site's content rules. Why would they be fired for doing it?
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Left/Libertarian is hard to fathom since it would generally mean taking resources away from them to take care of or protect others through government. It would be a strange breed of left/lib (or more moderate biased) person who could consider both as a non-conflicting goal.
I'd prefer to view the spectrum of something like:
Fiscally Left (social assistance, progressive taxation, universal healthcare)
Fiscal Right (limited services, fewer laws and restrictions, libertarian ideals)
Socially Left (Egalitarian, Pro-choice, +GBLT, anti-discrimination, free_speech (when not discrimination), corporate limits, etc..)
Socially Right (Pro-Life, anti-social-missfits, anti-'sjw', in-group government, prohibitions)
The left's line up much better in this scheme, because in order for government to hypothetically help others, they need to redistribute wealth. Larger government means the potential for 'fair and equitable' living standards for all. Practicality aside, they are naturally married to one another which is why you often never see the distinction.
The right on the other hand has a quandary. The two sides of the coin are not strictly tied to one another, and in reality can quite often fight on opposite sides of an issue. Socially right's limits on what an individual can do flies in the face of fiscally right's limits on government intervention. Together, the philosophies kind of make sense, but not nearly as cohesively as leftists. Examples: Temperance, and Abortion are two very strong factors of a classically good socially right-wing christian for example. A libertarian on the other hand should naturally look at both as a direct attacks on one's right to decide their own fate and live their lives as they see fit.
Bye!
You are completely correct. The rise of a right-wing group on Slashdot which downvotes pretty close to any information they don't like as trolling or flamebait is deeply worrisome.
I definitely don't disagree with you, but a libertarian leaning Democrat would, for instance, be against forcing someone to bake a cake that had a message they disagree with, being that voluntarism is a big part of the deal. A libertarian leaning Democrat is against gun control because it is controlling and removes choice, just as you said, a libertarian leaning Republican could be pro-choice as it allows you to make your own decisions.
That's not a citation. Thanks for playing.
Thank you.
They are xenophobic views. Just because someone who identifies as a conservative has them, does not make them conservative themselves. They're pretty extremist, which defies the term conservative as it is.
These are not xenophobic views, they are completely practical views, and we need to debate and consider them as adults.
Carter imposed a temporary ban on Iranians entering the US, which is essentially what Trump wants. Below are Carter's exact words.
Also, banning immigration for any reason is not unconstitutional and has been held to not be unconstitutional by the supreme court in cases which were on point. I won't bother posting a link because explanations are easy to find on the net.
If, and I mean this literally, if you can state a clear case that allowing unfettered Muslim immigration from conflict areas (Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan et al) is good or bad, you should make it and convince the intellectuals who read this board of your position.
Just shouting racist! xenophobe! burn the witch! could result in crippling the country from terrorist attacks.
These are serious issues which should be discussed as adults, and not as Clinton supporters
If you have a case to make then make it, otherwise let the adults talk.
Let's let free speech have its moment.
Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
Let's use full context here. Banning Muslims from extremest hot spots until we can improve how we vet them. Not much different from banning German men of military age from immigrating while at war with Germany.
...Or putting all the Japanese in Americans in camps. That was another great idea that helped us win the war with the Japs and the Jerries. Also, just to fully frame context of the time that you are getting your good ideas from, you should also segregate your colored soldiers from your white soldiers, and keep them mostly in manual labor and support roles.
Yessir, the 1930s and 40s were full of great ideas that we can mine!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world, and which is fundamentally incompatible and in conflict with many of the most basic principles of your society makes perfect sense. In fact, not doing so seems completely insane.
What a lot of people don't get is that many of the people in their beloved minority groups wouldn't hesitate in a second to completely destroy many of the freedoms that we've fought so hard to accomplish. And quite frankly seeing women wearing that full-face-cover head veil thing (there's at least one who lives near me) makes me sick.
Islam teaches that women are literally the property of their husbands, no different than cattle. That should make anyone sick.
It doesn't matter what kind of views they are. Censorship is the enemy of democracy. You may not like some views, you may disagree with some outlooks, and sometimes people are going to say things you find repugnant and disgraceful. As citizens of this democracy, its our duty to discuss the hard questions in an open and thoughtful manner. Its my personal belief that suppressing speech of any kind is wrong, even if hateful or painful to hear. We suffer white supremacy and BLM to blast their opposing versions of what is right and wrong with the world, but as soon as religion get involved everybody forgets how to adult and dials the logic back to middle ages.
Everything about this years presidential race has been a disgrace to our county, and will weigh heavily on *my* national pride for years to come.
With that said, its also completely OK for the Facebook monster to remove, censor and/or modify any content on their network. I don't like it, but its their network. Consider not getting your national news from a biased and baseless social media source and move the hell on. Come on people, Facebook has ZERO credibility as a news source to begin with. Is anybody really surprised?
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
if its so important to you find the references yourself. lazy ass fuck.
Sorry, I'm currently working in a deployed location at a command center. I have a bit of time to play around on Slashdot, but not enough time for such research. I'm just a lazy ass fuck I suppose.
I mostly agree. I dislike almost any form of censorship short of things related to the screaming "fire" in a crowded theater concept, or inciting mob violence, etc.
Guess that would have been a 'no' on Albert Einstein then. Good job.
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Ah, I wish I could mod you up.
Enforcing immigration law is not inherently xenophobic. Deporting all illegals and building a wall to hinder their return sound perfectly reasonable to me.
My wife is from the Philippines, and most Filipinos that I know are actually kind of pissed about the "illegals". When you come here legally, it costs a bunch of money, if you have a work permit it has to be renewed in person annually, and going through the process of getting a green card or citizenship is also expensive. And you get harassed if you don't do everything correctly. You (the American citizens) would be embarrassed if you knew how some folks are treated when they simply want to come here legally.
So, yeah, there's a little resentment when people come here without that sort of pain.
At the same time, we have friends who are illegals and we personally know that most go through other kinds of pain - like walking 1000 miles through the desert - to get here.
Do you have ESP?
I keep getting friend request spam on facebook from obviously fake accounts, and when I report them, facebook responds with a message to the effect of "we reviewed the account and it is a real person", including ones with obvious spam posts like this one:
https://www.facebook.com/profi...
Either facebook's reviewers are fucking retarded or they get paid to keep accounts like this active.
I was thinking of arguments I've heard for why the 2nd Amendment applies to legal non-citizens. People have stated that if you're here on a visa, you should still have the right to bear arms as it is an inalienable natural right. And yes, they legally can possess and even carry.
no? lol. That's some creative extrapolation.
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian. And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization. It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world
Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas
You assume your conclusion there. Not wanting more immigrants when you can't find a job is not xenophobia. Check around /. when there's an H1-B discussion. Do you really thing that's xenophobia? Or are you really saying "people I don't like are racists"? Because that's what I hear you saying.
In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches.
Politics is about putting the taxpayers' money in your pocket. Why would that be connected to any philosophical approach in the first place? The only thing politicians actually disagree on is: who's pocket.
believing they have a right to discriminate
Every time you make a choice based on data, you discriminate. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I believe said judge was also a member of la raza. A group that, if it were to be espousing the same beliefs it currently does while on the right side of the isle would without doubt be classified as a hate group.
Banning Muslims is wrong because we shouldn't punish innocent people because just because someone else is guilty.
The occasion was after one of the Muslim mass shootings last year.
Let's not forget that, at the same time Trump wanted to act against innocent Muslims, President Obama wanted to take action against innocent gun owners. If it's wrong to target innocents for enforcement, when can we expect President Obama to be criticized for exactly the same thing?
Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls, banning all Muslims and similar measures, is. That there are sympathetic arguments for specific low immigration policies doesn't change that large amounts of the anti-immigrant attitude are coming from xenophobia.
As for discrimination, you playing language games rather than ignoring the fundamental point: if you prefer, simply add the words "based on race or religion" after the word discriminate and you get the point.
There are NOT millions of Canadians illegally sneaking into the US and engaging in identity theft (using the Social Security numbers etc of citizens).
There are NOT tons of illegal narcotics flowing into the US every year from Canadian drug gangs.
There are NOT thousands of Americans being raped, murdered, or robbed every year by illegals from Canada. There are NOT millions of illegal aliens from Canada in the US pushing down the wages and benefits of middle and lower class American CITIZENS. There are NOT millions of illegal aliens from Canada helping to overcrowd American schools and hospitals and getting various social services from all three layers of our government (federal, state, and local), which consume tax dollars that could have gone to helping American CITIZENS.
Canada has a reasonably good and stable government and court system, so if we have trouble with their citizens in our country we can send them home and Canada fully cooperates.
The corrupt Mexican government and its rich elite (like world's richest guy Carlos Slim) are perfectly happy to export their poor and uneducated into America. This actually benefits them on multiple levels: they do not need to provide for those people, those people earn money in America and then send some home to relatives in Mexico which helps prop up the Mexican economy. Carlos Slim himself makes big bucks off all the phones the illegals use to communicate with family back in Mexico. All those Mexicans who flee Mexico also relieve political pressure as the more risk-taking and energetic poor escape the country rather than participating in a revolution.
If liberals are so afraid of Trump being president why do they all say they are going to move to Canada instead of the great land of nothing but angles Mexico?
Same reason.
He was granted asylum as a Jewish refugee.
However although is it quite reasonable to limit immigration and have some pretty stringent testing requirements (physical health, psychological health, employability, ability to communicate), religion is most definitely not one of them, that is really stupid, for one they do not come with a label and two the dangerous ones will lie anyhow. So testing for religion, just plain dumb, mind bogglingly dumb (keep in mind religious fundamentalist will fail the psychological tests and the communications test also tends to exclude problematic individuals). Excluding individuals who are likely (and that is enough just likely no proof required, just the balance of evidence ) to not effectively contribute or have a negative impact upon your society is sufficient reason to exclude them. People who jump the queue should go to the back of the line and those who stuck to the rules should get in first (otherwise the message from you government to potential immigrants is, you stick to the rules and you are a bloody idiot). What should not happen is all the ugly screaming about it.
Facebook can censor whom so ever they wish, as long as they are public about it and do note their political bias and the source (name the individuals) behind that political bias. If they are deceitful about it and intend to push lies as the truth, then their actions should be reviewed by the electoral commission so that their contributions to the campaign can be properly valued to see if they exceed campaign contribution limits.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Yeah, and that does suck for those people. They do it by the book and a bunch of people who don't are not punished. Its the same thing when there is intentional inflation and monetary devaluation. Plenty of people save their money and do it right, and then here comes inflation to wipe out their savings.
When too many people break the law, sometimes the best thing to do for the country as a whole is to declare amnesty. It isn't fair, but that's best for the country. We either give them amnesty, have them apply for citizenship, and maybe make them pay a tax penalty for a few years or spend billions of dollars deporting them. I don't like either option, but the status quo isn't acceptable either.
The rise of a right-wing group on Slashdot which downvotes pretty close to any information they don't like as trolling or flamebait is deeply worrisome.
Sarcasm right? Mod games are a colossal waste of time. We couldn't wish for a better scenario than to have our enemies waste their time and effort with such things.
Are you really arguing that if a solution is not 100% perfect then the best option is to do NOTHING about a problem?
You do realize that if the solution is far enough away from perfect, then yes, doing nothing can be better. Building a wall sounds like one of those things that is that imperfect.
You're an idiot, if you actually read any of the previous conversation this person was arguing that those kinds of views are extremist and shouldnt necessarily be considered mainstream conservative views. If anything I perceived him to be arguing against a whole sale ban on immigration based on a person's religion, which would put his thinking in line with a lot of our soldiers ive met who have served in the middle east and realized that most people over there are suffering under these assholes more than anyone else. Just because some bad people who need to be killed happen to practice Islam doesnt mean all muslims need to be killed.
+1 to this, the left will paint this as "racist", but as a nation we have instituted selective border control before, what the sense of having a border if it isnt controlled??
If a particular nation or religious sect has a proven track record of violence towards western countries, they do NOT have a right to enter the country, same goes for ILLEGAL migrants,notice I said ILLEGAL, which also gets lumped in by leftists to be racist. I am an immigrant, it cost me thousands of dollars that I had to scrimp and save for, to go through the process of living in the country i now reside in, I respect its laws and I speak the language, I expect no special treatment and would fully expect to be deported if I committed a felony. I am not a burden to its welfare system, and hopefully never will be, I HAD to PROVE I had a job lined up before entering.
So yes, I get royally pissed off when i hear of people jumping the border for free, going onto welfare right away, or espousing views hurtful to the nation kind enough to let me in.
We are not at war with Muslims,but RADICAL Muslims ARE at war with us....think about that before you start letting just anyone into the US....
He was a democrat longer than he's been a republican.
What's wrong with that? Better than banning communists.
Christianity and Judaism are also in conflict with Democracy, because any religion that states that religion is above democracy (which both do, its just that most modern versions of them have pulled back from that 'somewhat')...
Is that right? Hmmmm....
15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. 16 So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” 21 They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away.
Source: Book of Matthew, Chapter 22.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
diversity is fine as long as it's "our kind" of diversity ;)
you can have any color you like as long as it's pink.
We already did the amnesty thing.
Mexicans came or stayed here illegally at an even greater rate after that.
The only way amnesty works is if you do something to stop it from happening in the future, like maybe building something along the borders to prevent it a lot of it.
"His name was James Damore."
Laughs about death of Gadaffi.
I can't escape the nagging feeling that the same people who keep "complaining" about this are the same people who joked about something happening to Gaddafi before it ever happened (or would have, had they thought of it, which most of them likely didn't), and would laugh the loudest if something untoward happened to Clinton. These folks also seem to be the same ones who conveniently ignore the fact that Libyans were literally (not figuratively) dancing in the streets and whooping for joy when they heard he was dead.
For mine, it's certainly regrettable that Gaddafi didn't get his day in court, but Mme Karma does have a way of being a really nasty bitch sometimes.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The kind of people who swear that they're "moving to Canada" if XYZ is elected are mostly, if not exclusively, from the class that would have no difficulty getting citizenship somewhere else.
The problem is that something as basic as not wanting to bend over, drop your underwear and let an immigrant rape you senseless is now deemed xenophobia.
Exaggerated rhetoric? Barely.
http://www.hna.de/kassel/herde... didn't include rape.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... did.
People being told they're xenophobic for trivial shit is one of the reasons Trump is so popular. He doesn't let the labels being attached to him stop him sharing his views.
a libertarian leaning Republican could be pro-choice
Most of the libertarians I know consider most abortions to be the murder of a human being.
The support of abortion is rooted in dehumanizing the fetus. It cant be said to have any rights at all if it doesnt even have the right to live. Even if and when we agree as a society that killing these particular human beings is ok, that still doesnt mean that we agree that the State should promote or fund the activity.
If you think the right to live is a human right rather than person-hood right, then the fetus has the right to live and therefore abortions would be murder which is already a banned activity.
else the next libertarian thing is no regulation of the activity at all.
Being libertarian is as much about the implementation as it is the intended goal.
"His name was James Damore."
First of all, no one is in either of those articles arguing that concern over events with refugees of that sort isn't xenophobic. So your basic premise fails. Second it isn't at all relevant: even if people were terribly misusing the term, it wouldn't make Trump's policies and many of his followers less xenophobic. That someone is overusing or badly using a term doesn't make the essential issue go away.
Not really: mod games as you put it are not a waste of time in that sense. Man readers only read the highly upvoted comments or scan for remarks about that. How things are moderated does influence what people see.
Yet we argue this very point all the time when we point out that for example, black men are overwhelmingly convicted by white judges and juries. If the race of the judge or jury is a factor in those cases, is it really that far of a leap to suggest it might be a factor here too? Didn't the very same people going after trump for that comment gush with joy over the "wise latina" comments from a current sitting SCOTUS judge?
There were approximately 0 liberals arguing that Trump should be locked up as the result of his clearly racist statements--it's completely dishonest to claim otherwise. As for Facebook? private companies can decide for themselves what speech they endorse--there's not first amendment right to post on Facebook.
Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls
Wanting to enforce existing immigration law is not inherently Xenophobic. Wanting to focus on immigration of Muslim refugees at a time when ISIS terrorists are moving around as Muslim refugees is certainly "discrimination based on religion" - making a decision based on data - but it's not necessarily xenophobic.
No wanting to import a culture that executes gays and rape victims on a regular basis Is certainly discrimination. It may be xenophobic, if you twist the definition away from "fear of the strange", but that doesn't make it bad. Murdering gays and rape victims on a regular basis is bad, in case you're unclear on my stance here.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I tried to report them at hate speech. Apparently Facebook is perfectly fine with violence and pornography now. Despite studies that show both of these things are a problem.
Replying to undo erroneous mod...we're in agreement :)
> (A) The US Constitution
What part of it specifically disallows entry restrictions?
> (B) International law
Irrelevant.
> You're a moron.
No, you're the moron. You just make a very small word salad and you think it actually means something. There's a little bit more to a legal argument then screaming "but the constitution".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> It's interesting that the descriptions of "Islam" sound a whole lot like my understanding of Christianity as expressed by many Trump supporters.
Yeah, but fortunately a little thing called the Reformation broke the back of the theocracy in Europe. That hasn't happened with Islam yet. They're still stuck back where we were about 400 years ago. Syria, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, and Iraq are all painfully obvious examples of this.
Blatant terrorism is far less troubling than the importation of more theocrats. We already have enough as is.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world
Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.
Islam is whatever the hell the particular believer happens to believe.
If you're a member of ISIS, Islam is the one true faith and should be spread by the sword.
If you're a farmer, Islam might be a religion preaching peace and compassion.
If you're a student, Islam might be an annoying set of dietary restrictions.
To claim that Muslim is a political philosophy of conquest is no more valid than an atheist like myself claiming that Christianity is a political philosophy that demands theocracy, the repression and even killing of gays, and Jews should control Biblical Israel to bring the Second Coming.
Those Christians exist, but if you claimed those beliefs broadly represented all Christians people would rightly regard you as a lunatic.
Assuming that anyone who embraces the label Islam is a member of your "political philosophy of conquest" is inaccurately stereotyping a lot of people (probably over a billion). It is the definition of bigotry. If you object to that label then reconsider how readily you categorize 1.7 billion people with a very diverse set of beliefs.
I stole this Sig
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian.
It was because the judge was of Hispanic ethnicity and still embraced some portion of Mexican culture. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, did you hear Trump bring it up once? No? Ok. I hope we can forget about that absurd position and agree that Trump was talking about race and culture, not the nationality of the parents.
Note that Rubio and Cruz probably escaped similar remarks because they've publicly embraced white European culture.
And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization.
No one sane claims all of his supporters are racist, just a lot of them.
Oh, and this is a lovely flip of the standard "just because a lot of Trump's supporters are racist doesn't mean he is!"
It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...
If floors me when some conservatives demonstrate that they have no clue what free speech means.
I stole this Sig
Albert Einstein was 59 years old by WWII , not exactly "fighting age", US Military cuts off at 35. By 1915 he was 35, and by 1933 he renounced his german citizenship.
Go actually READ the Constitution. Parts of it apply to all people. Parts don't. They could use a bit of clarity in places, but it's usually pretty clearer. It's a LOT clearer than my state constitution. And it's not horrendously long. Only about five pages (depending, of course, and page size and font, but I'm thinking of 8 1/2X11 inch paper and 10 point Times-Roman...but this *is* an estimate, since it's been awhile since I printed it out).
But, e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicates that a law in that area is forbidden to regulate ANYONE. Of course, before the Civil War it was expected that such areas would be regulated by the various states...but then never updated the Constitution when they changed to a powerful Federal Government weak State Government system. All they did was decide to "reinterpret" (i.e., ignore when convenient) what the constitution said. This was, and is, dereliction of duty. Probably misfeasance rather than malfeasance in the not fixing it arm of action, but clearly malfeasance in the enforcement arm. (In the case of the Supreme Court malfeasance seems more accurate than misfeasance.)
OTOH, it takes a long time to get an amendment through the adoption process. When something needs addressing quickly, you can't wait for the Constitution to be fixed. But ignoring that problem doesn't get the problem solved, it just sweeps it under the rug.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote something down, you look for ideas or statements that distress you.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The comment was about the flow of drugs.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That's why I said "could" since having a libertarian leaning perspective means that you respect people's choices. The depth of that argument is great, so it could still go either way, and most "libertarians" still have a lot of neocon in them.
There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with particular attention to why it is valid.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Not really: mod games as you put it are not a waste of time in that sense. Man readers only read the highly upvoted comments or scan for remarks about that. How things are moderated does influence what people see.
How many are "many readers" again? You're speaking of hypothetical people who read the comments, but are unaware somehow of mod bombing and the other mod games. Needless to say, I think we want our foes to waste their time on this particular readership.
Quoting the bible is a bold strategy.
Apparently the god of abraham didn't think much of the principles of freedom when he killed 14 thousand people that chose not to blindly follow moses. numbers 16:1-30
Or one can be torn apart if you don't obey god's law. isaiah 5:24-25 (What is the democratic process for changing "god's law?")
It only took two minutes to find a couple passages that demonstrate how incompatible christian fundamentalism is with democratic principles. We've been fortunate that very few take the bible that seriously, but who knows when that could change.
Yeah, cause that crowd storming EU from Aftica now is all Einsteins.
I'm a Buddhist, so it's not like I really have any skin in this game, but if I recall correctly, anything in the New Testament that contradicts something found in the Old is held to supersede it, no?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
that doesn't make it not xenophobic
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
but they have also ruled that many of the protections of the constitution do extend to all people subject to the authority of the US government, regardless of citizenship or status.
those decisions you list are in the nature of carve-outs from that larger perspective.
no they cant vote, but they get due process.
no they cant own a gun, but they do enjoy free speech.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Islam teaches that women are literally the property of their husbands, no different than cattle
so does Christianity.
the destruction of the western world isn't a stated belief of that religion, but of an extremist group who falsely claim that religion as their own.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
these threads always bring out the bigots.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
hostile to western values?
maybe you didn't hear, but Syria is/was a democracy.
and the whole conflict originated because the people wanted MORE of it, more of western values.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
that's not an improvement
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
hes neither really conservative nor liberal, but a purely self-interested scumbag who whose views aren't so much left/right as they simply un-American.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No, actually, that's not how it works. Trump is not a conservative. The Republican party, which, although it does include some conservative politicians, is not run by conservatives.
and thus have the calls of "well he just wasn't conservative enough" already begun.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Something like that ... a Christian is to follow both the Old Testament 10 commandments and the New Testament laws. However, Christ "re-defined" the Old Testament laws ... ie. Thou shall not murder -> anyone who harbours hatred in their heart towards their brother or sister has murdered them in their hearts.
Why both? Because Loving God means loving His laws. Like a child who loves their parents and respects and obeys their rules. IMHO, those who view Christianity through the lens of religion, fail to see the family relationship which is to be established.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Conservative enough for what?