Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Says It's Cracking Down on Hate Speech (usatoday.com)
With public backlash growing, Twitter says it's taking steps to crack down on hate speech, from making it easier to report alleged incidents on the social media service to educating moderators on what kind of conduct violates the rules. From a report on USA Today: Twitter users will also gain more control over their experience on Twitter with the ability to mute words and phrases, even entire conversations, if they don't want to receive notifications about them, said Del Harvey, Twitter's head of safety. The effort comes as an uptick in biased graffiti, assaults and other incidents have been reported in the news and on social media since Election Day, prompting president-elect Donald Trump to call for people to "stop it" during a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night. The FBI reports that hate crimes rose 7% in 2015, led by attacks on Muslim Americans.
This is a slippery slope.
You don't have the right to not be offended.
The echo chamber is the reason Trump got elected. It made the American left complacent.
And the wonder why people that might consider using them go elsewhere.
"Shame about that speech you have over there, shame if anyone called it hate speech."
Considering that those on the left consider support Trump to be "hate speech" I assume what this really means is cracking down on the freedom of speech.
People have been investigating those so called "Trump-caused hate incidents" and a lot of them turn out to be faked. There is no "hate backlash" brought on by Trump. What you're seeing are the people who lost the election trying to smear the winner to take away from the fact that THEY LOST and that America does not want to go down the path they've been pushing.
The problem with this is that it will be up to Twitter to define "hate speech". Is it saying hateful things to someone? Is it threatening someone? Is it saying things they disagree with?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
So the technocrats didn't like the outcome of the past election and are now determined to ensure it won't happen again. Lets not pretend this has anything to do with hate speech.
The only thing that would push me to vote for a despicable candidate like Trump if the other side is attempting censorship.
Only through January 20th.
Obviously certain tech companies hate that their censorship and propaganda failed, so they are doubling down. Time for competing products to rise up, assuming you don't get sued out of business for the next couple months at any rate.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So when BLM activists agitate for felonies to be committed against teenage girls that disagree with them, Twitter will finally block their accounts, right?
Right?
"the ability to mute words and phrases"
I've been hoping for this for a long time. I'll start by filtering out "Liberal" and "Conservative" and go from there.
I agree.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
You are somehow able to cherry pick a fragment out of a 20 second speech to make claims, same thing as the oligarchs and their media did. You should have listened to Robert Downy Jr. "Never go full retard."
I am.
These racist idiots aren't giving me a lot of reasons to be proud.
Although if the black community has to answer for black on black crime, then the White crime. That's how I feel. So yes, I am ashamed that idiots that I knew growing up continue to be race hating morons.
It's hard to tell my girlfriend that the idiot who told her to go back to her country, is an isolated incident.
Place something witty here
"Why isn't anyone using us"?
And they wonder why people that might consider using them go elsewhere.
"Nice things you're talking about over there, shame if anyone called it hate speech".
"Twitter Says it's Cracking Down on Free Speech"
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Now that Trump has been elected, we enter a new era where white men now have license to say whatever insulting, sexist, and racist things they want. In other words, hate speech is encoraged. Therefore filtering out hate speech would be unnecessary and heavily discouraged.
On a more serious note, filtering out “hate speech” must be considered carefully. In the 60’s, you could shut anyone up just by labeling them a commie. Today, you can squelch any dissenting opinion you want by labeling it hate speech. I’m believe in being nice and tactful, but we need to protect our constitutional right to free expression. It is not illegal to be an asshole.
To the British, the American colonists who wanted indepedence were “assholes” who didn’t know their place under the monarchy, regardless of their lack of representation in the government. To white racists, people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were assholes for standing up for the civil rights of black people. Today, anyone who stands up for gay marriage is an asshole to many conservatives. It’s actually important that people be “assholes."
She has to go back.
If people have to start going back to their home countries, they're going to have to vivisect the average American and mail off about a dozen parcels. Most of us are so mixed up we have no idea where our ancestry comes from, and even those who think they do are frequently wrong.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I am.
Feel-free to hate yourself, but at least do it for the right reasons - because you are an idiot. You have no control over your race, and your race on the whole, despite what SJWs will get you to believe, isn't any more racists than Hispanic, Asian, Black, or Arab.
Twitter itself is a huge part of the problem in the coarsening of political debate. The emphasis on short, snappy "soundbite" statements and the e-peen benefits of being retweeted serve as powerful incentives for people to forgo civility and mean that the most extreme voices, whatever their persuasion, get the most prominence.
When you are trying to fit your thoughts into a character limit, what kind of clauses are you going to cut? How about:
"I see your point, but have you considered..."
"I understand why some people are attracted to that argument, but..."
"I know there are exceptions to this rule..."
"I might be oversimplifying here..."
"This is purely anecdotal, but..."
Twitter is a remarkably effective tool for stripping conversations of all of the little niceties, qualifications and acknowledgements that keep things civil. It's a platform for thumping certainties, hysterical over-reactions and wanton attention-seeking. I've known rational, well-spoken people, often well-regarded in their professional fields, who turn into flaming morons on Twitter.
It's not a problem of Twitter's moderation policies or editorial stances, but rather a fundamental problem with the medium. Being mischievous, maybe 140 characters should be the minimum rather than the limit.
I'm glad. I'm tired of the trolls and racists and assholes trying to ruin every single Internet discussion. Fuck them. Not that Twitter is a good place for a discussion, but the assholes have run rampant in every place on the Internet where people (try to) communicate. I would never spend time in a real life place that had these same idiots saying these same kind of things, and I don't online, either. I'm sick of it. I don't need it.
I don't respond to AC's.
I thought that they would also mention the many death threats Trump has received. As much as I dislike Trump, he was also a victim of threats on Twitter, but that is nowhere mentioned in the article.
Stich must be distraught.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Calling Mexicans rapists is the textbook definition of hate speech.
I'm actually interested in where he said this. Do you mind linking the actual quote? Let me also add this: you said that he "called mexicans rapists". Are you asserting that he implied that all mexicans were rapists, or that the entire population of Mexicans contains people who are rapists, but not necessarily all of them?
If you use Twitteriffic (iOS), you'll find you have the ability to "muffle" tweets that contain particular phrases or words. It's been my client of choice for years. (Not sure if other clients on Android offer this functionality). Whilst that doesn't censor hate-speech, it does give you freedom over what you want to read.
That's the problem, so to speak, with freedom of speech. One mans free thought, is another mans "hate". There are a ton of things out there, like porn and what not, I don't care for, but, I'll defend YOUR right to see/read it. The issue is, who is going to determine what is bad? And, when you start down that road, there is NO going back.
I'm torn. On the one side, harassment has been redefined on the Regressive Left to mean "disagreed with a Radical Regressive Leftist." So when I hear there's people harassing people on social media, I'm reminded that some of the professional victims crying about this harass themselves for victim credentials, while others dox and harass others while running an industry blacklist of their enemies. Both of which are allowed to continue unopposed due to them sharing the politics of the people running the site.
Oh, and that's not even getting into the fact that the biggest Radical Regressive Leftist "anti-Harassment" campaign, "Crash Override Network," is actually a fake organization dedicated to organized harassment and doxing of people. (Yes, the abbreviation for this fake organization is "CON," and yes, the founder is an old SomethingAwful forum troll, why do you ask?)
So yeah, giving these sociopaths more tools to create a hugbox isn't good. We just saw an entire election be decided because one side refused to step outside of their bubble for 6+ months at a time.
On the other hand, this will let me block certain stupid shit like "problematic," "mansplain," and "KillAllMen." And I suppose letting people block racist hate groups like Black Lives Matter can only be a good thing.
This is the relevant quote from Trump's speech on June 16th, 2015:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
I am. These racist idiots aren't giving me a lot of reasons to be proud.
Just because someone else acts the fool doesn't mean they are your responsibility or that you should be embarrassed by them just because they happen to share your skin color. I was born white and had no control over it. I see no reason to be ashamed over something I had no control over nor any reason to apologize for it. I'm disgusted by the racist behavior of many white people but I'm equally disgusted by the racist behavior of non-white people. Skin color is never a reason to feel ashamed no matter what the shade. It's how YOU behave that matters.
It's hard to tell my girlfriend that the idiot who told her to go back to her country, is an isolated incident.
I think it's naively optimistic of you to think that such a thing is an isolated opinion in this country. While it is not be the majority of white people I think a double digit percentage of the population probably would not be offended by such behavior at all and too many would agree with and condone it. Remember that we have tens of millions of white folks who think nothing of deporting 11 million Latin American people, most of whom are here peacefully and contributing to the economy. We have people who think police "stop and frisk" harassment of minorities is somehow justifiable. Minorities are subject to police harassment on a routine basis. We're not in some post-racial utopian society. We've made progress in the last 50 years but there is a looooong way yet to go. The recent election is proof positive of that.
You don't have the right to pretty much anything on twitter, a private service offered for free use. They can decide on their policy for the use of their service.
Hit the nail on the head! A company cannot and should not sit idly by if they think their product, brand, and core business is being damaged by something they could prevent or reduce the impact of.
Slashdot should take note.
Since Twitter and Trump had a very symbiotic relationship during the primaries, Twitter should make sure that it recognizes real hate speech from just opinions of people on either side
Look, twitter would be a better place if it removes comments like "you stupid bitch" and "you neckbeard racist". They are content free attacks that diminish the value of what one gets out of tweeter.
I would equally ban Killary/Drumpf postings. If you cannot make a point without a childish nickname, go some place else. This does not censor content, it censors non-content and has no bias per se to the left or right.
This sounds very arbitrary. Who decides what's hate speech and what's one person calling another person out?
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
It's no secret where their politics are - you already knew there might be a problem trying to communicate your message on the platform of a company that's vehemently against what you stand for. This shouldn't surprise you. Besides, you're a guest. If you don't like the house rules, you can go elsewhere or roll your own platform.
This is no such thing as racial guilt.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
So, not all Mexicans, then? Just some of the illegal Mexicans crossing the border? Which makes sense because 80% of central American women and girls are raped during their illegal border crossing. So, somebody's doing the raping. I'm so glad we elected Trump! Once he builds that border wall and we cut down on people crossing illegally, so many women and girls won't be raped! It's wonderful! Can you believe those despicable, evil people who voted for Hillary, the pro-rape candidate? Why do they love rape so much? Clearly that's the only reason they voted for her: to keep rape alive.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Your discourse is so weird that I'm actually unsure of whether you are a pro-Trump troll or a pro-Hillary troll.
entropy happens
Pro-Trump. Trump never said all Mexicans are rapists. He said we're getting bad people crossing the border, including rapists, which is a true statement. Nothing to do with a genetic propensity of Mexicans to rape.
Also, once he secures the border, yes, the number of women and girls raped during the border crossings will decline. So, I'm kind of disgusted by the leftists who are incensed about Trump's poorly worded statement, but really don't give a shit about the actual women and girls being raped every day.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
The problem is that one half of our cultural/political spectrum has taken it upon themselves to redefine terms to suit their liking.
So the word "Hate Speech" only means "Disagrees with me"
"Phobia" has gone from "irrational fear" to "Doesn't completely and unconditionally support and embrace"
"Girl" now means "Man with a dress on"
"White Supremacist" now means "White male with traditional values"
"Sexism" and "Racism" now have nothing to do with sex or race.
When one of these hypocrites takes it upon themselves to absolve the world of what THEY consider "hate speech", everyone that hasn't drunken the Kool-Aid knows exactly what that really means. It means anything outside the lines of the liberal brainwashing machine.
you need to go back to reading comprehension class if that is really what you got out of this quote (especially in context)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Yeah, I'm kinda using my liver...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
There is no question in my mind that Twitter is within their rights to moderate their service as they want in order to maximize their profit. While I'll be interested in what Twitter defines as "hate speech". Yes of course, there is the dictionary definition, but then there's always a practical use of the word by extending its interpretation.
I personally use Twitter as a RSS feed to get news from researchers and news outlets and post by own. As a discussion platform, Twitter is shallow and only represents the result of emotional stimuli. I can hardly belief the number of times tweets are referenced by the media as sources about whatever subject they are covering at the moment. What could happen is that another less restricted Twitter-like service will appear, appealing to different groups unwelcomed users or users "feeling threatened" on Twitter. Each of these groups will live in their own echo chambers, both in the physical and virtual worlds.
What I am more concerned about is the constant self-imposed isolation of people to uncomfortable realities and opinions. The "Safe spaces", personalization of media consumed and block lists. While there are legitimate uses such as filtering shitposting, spam and insults, it will also be used by users to wall themselves in their own "safe" reality since they are in control of what they read and see. They are in shock when confronted with the real world and opposing view points. It seems Brexit and the elections are representations of the phenomena. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same reaction in European elections next year.
Filtering "hate speech" will not make it go away. While it may sound counter-intuitive to some, it actually need to be aired widely on the public space so any rational can be scrutinized and demolished with arguments. Those who persist in their claims without reasonable arguments and facts will found themselves - in my opinion - without any following and support. My question is thus, where can this happen nowadays? Private medias and universities are also profit-based and can choose conversations and debates held in their campus and broadcasts.
So in one word, how will Twitter arbitrate hate speech, will it be able to stay neutral or will it eventually fall under moderators that will decide what constitute hate speech? Yes, we should take step to make discussions more civil (and as it was mentioned above, Twitter is a terrible place for this) without just outright blocking it.
@cyberrecce
It was not one poorly worded statement. He repeated it several times. His VP repeated it. His whole campaign was built around scapegoating Mexicans. He didn't mean that "some" rapists are crossing the border. He meant that generically the Mexicans crossing the border are rapists, but "some" are good people. This is textbook hate speech: insulting and inspiring hatred against a national group.
As for all that raping, the report says that
Rape can be perpetrated by anyone along the way, including guides, fellow migrants, bandits or government officials, according to Fusion. Sometimes sex is used as a form of payment, when women and girls don’t have money to pay bribes.
So no Mexican immigrants doing raping (note that the report is talking about Central American immigrants, not Mexican immigrants. Even then, I'd bet that most of the raping is done by corrupt policemen, not fellow migrants). Of course, you are not going to let mere facts change your opinion that Mexicans are rapists, are you?
And if you are genuinely concerned about stopping the raping, as opposed to just insulting Mexicans, I have bad news for you. Trump has no intention of actually building a wall. He knows it is a stupid idea. An unwatched wall doesn't stop anyone. And the manpower that would be required to watch the whole US-Mexico border is just insane. And even the mosted watched border in the world, the one between Israel and Palestine, has tunnels being dug beneath it every now and then.
Do you want to know a simple way to stop all that raping overnight? Open the border. No more people smugglers, no more corrupt policemen, no more vulnerable people alone in the desert.
entropy happens
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Please, show me how the context changes its meaning.
entropy happens
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
Well, hang on. Google/Wikipedia says sexual orientation is protected under employment laws, per the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As for other areas, there are lawsuits in the works. Such as this one going to the Washington State Supreme Court today.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
No, I generally believe the rapists are coyotes, and most likely Mexican. Ultimately you're just interpreting the quote to be as buttmad about it as you possibly can be. Anyway, I bet you're one of those people who said Trump would never get over 20%, never be the nominee, never win, etc. So I'm not really going to put faith in your predictive power with regards to the wall.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It can't be half as violent and neo-Stalinist as some AC who goes around using "sand n n****r"? You seem like the type that would have be a good Brown Shirt back in the day, fully of hate and looking to let the world know it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most of what Trump promised isn't going to happen, or if it does, in a much tamer way. Look at his commitment to get rid of Obamacare. Well guess what, chunks of it will still exist, and it's largely the nature of funding it that will change, though even there, so few details are given that it is hard to assess what the new health care program may look like.
Even his commitment to put an anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court probably isn't going to lead to an end to Roe v Wade, but all the social conservatives lap it up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm confused. I do agree that coyotes probably do a lot raping, and that most of them are probably Mexicans. So you are saying that you don't think that the Mexican immigrants are rapists? So you actually disagree with Trump? Or are you trying to say that Trump did not mean that the immigrants are rapists?
You are right, by the way, about my predictive power. I did think Hillary would win.
entropy happens
There are North Dakotans that are rapists, perhaps North Dakotans should be banned from leaving their state.
But this is what Trump supporters do almost automatically, simply translate absurd statements in such a way as to make them make sense. "Ah well, he didn't mean it that way!"
It's like Thiel talking about the wall. "Oh well, nobody took it seriously. It wasn't a literal wall." Except, of course, a lot of people do think Trump is going to build a big concrete wall along the Mexican border, despite the fact that anyone with any sense at all knows there is no way Congress would ever fund such a thing. So suddenly the wall becomes a fence, of which there already is lots of.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Fascinating. So it looks like that quote is certainly open to "some" interpretation.
For instance, it depends on how you quantify the qualifier of "some". Being inherently a vague expression, you ascribe to it a meaning of "a small amount", when in reality, the definition is "an undetermined or unspecified amount".
Setting aside the question of amounts, the quote also reads such that "Mexico" is sending people. Many would agree that this is referring to the Mexican government, and Trump was (to my knowledge) making the implication that said government is pushing all of its "undesirables" onto us through illegal immigration. This makes a big difference when one is questioning the "xenophobic" or "racist" nature of a quote. Xenophobia would be the fear of immigration and alien presence, while the quote seems to make me think that Trump is instead unhappy with a sovereign state's efforts to clean up its own population by forcing the bad elements out into another sovereign state. Also, Racism is the belief that another race is inherently superior or inferior to others. I don't actually see any part of this quote that refers to race, but I suppose that is being pedantic, no? Lets assume that "Mexican" is a race instead of a nationality. Do you see him saying anything negative about Mexicans as a social group? Is he not referring to illegal immigrants exclusively?
I don't imagine you'll really take any of this to heart, but I do hope that you begin to question what you're being told by not only the media, but your own leaders. I, myself, didn't vote for Trump (feel the Johnson, baby), but it does certainly rub me the wrong way when I see people telling bold-faced lies about what a public figure "does" and "says". Even if Trump was spouting lies, do you really need to stoop to the level of a liar to discredit him?
Wow. I gave you a direct quote from the guy and you accuse me of lying? Way to go champ! Denial of reality, dial it up to 11!
And I didn't say that his comment was racist. I said it was the textbook definition of hate speech. Check it out, see how insulting and inspiring hatred against a national group fits in the definition. And no, narrowing it down to Mexican immigrants doesn't make it any less hateful.
The idea that the Mexican government is somehow sending its undesirables to the US is just ridiculous. You would need a massive conspiracy to do that and cover it up. But lack of evidence never deterred any conspiracy theorist, so why do I bother?
entropy happens
These racist idiots aren't giving me a lot of reasons to be proud.
What racist idiots are you talking about?
Although if the black community has to answer for black on black crime
Straw man. Nobody is saying individual black persons must take responsibility for what other black people do. We're saying that you can't criticize police as being racist for using force on non-cooperating suspects while ignoring that the vast majority of black murders are perpetrated by other blacks (i.e. gang violence).
...then the White crime
Use complete sentences. It'll help you communicate and you won't sound like an imbecile.
That's how I feel.
I don't care and neither does anyone else. Come back when you get some facts or some evidence or some kind of rational argument.
So yes, I am ashamed that idiots that I knew growing up continue to be race hating morons.
1. Sounds like you made some poor choices who you made friends with. Either that or you straw man their positions and don't try to understand what they're saying.
2. Considering your previous statement that you're ashamed to be white it sounds like there's one more race-hater in the world than you think there is.
3. Virtue signal received. We're reading you loud and clear.
It's hard to tell my girlfriend that the idiot who told her to go back to her country, is an isolated incident.
1. That's not how commas are used. Did you graduate high school?
2. Saying that someone told your girl friend to go back to her country and then not providing at least a synopsis of the conversation or argument is really just fishing for sympathy. Stop it.
3. Considering how most of these arguments go I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that she's an immigrant who started criticizing the country she moved to... then what else could be said other than "You don't like it? Then leave!".
4. Come to think of it, the same could be said to you. If you think you're too righteous to live among all the racist Americans then you can go ahead and emigrate to Africa or India or China or Mexico or anywhere else besides here.
If people have to start going back to their home countries, they're going to have to vivisect the average American and mail off about a dozen parcels. Most of us are so mixed up we have no idea where our ancestry comes from, and even those who think they do are frequently wrong.
Straw man combined with argumentum ad absurdum.
Nobody is saying that everyone must return to the country of their ethnic origin. We're saying that illegal immigrants must return to their countries and obey the law before they come into this one. It's extremely rude (illegal even) to just walk into someone else's house and start living there without their consent. Immigration is no different.
So leftists get to censor anything that is not in line with their political agenda.
This AC's angry hyperbolic reply misses the point completely. When a company thinks their product or brand is being damaged they can act to protect it. Individual right to free speech is secondary. If individuals think the company overreacted, it's a free market and they are free to take their activities elsewhere to avoid that product/service. It's a two-way street.
He didn't mean that "some" rapists are crossing the border. He meant that generically the Mexicans crossing the border are rapists, but "some" are good people. This is textbook hate speech
"Some" is a very fuzzy quantity--more than "several", less than "most." Some + some = all.
Or for example, "Some U.S. citizens are murderers." Completely true. But pointing that out isn't hate speech because they're in the majority, apparently.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Trump didn't say the Mexican immigrants are rapists. He said when Mexican "sends its people" those include "rapists." Which is true.
It's something of an ambiguous statement, so you have to decide, which is more likely? That Trump thinks that among the people crossing the border are rapists, or that all Mexican immigrants are rapists? Probably the former. But you can make hay out of the latter!
People aren't rational. They make emotional decisions and then they rationalize them. If you like Trump because he's a funny guy who loves his country and wants to make it great again, then, yeah, obviously he's talking about the subset of people crossing the border who are doing the raping. If you think Trump is Hitler who wants to gas every non straight white male Christian, then of course he's a deranged lunatic who literally believes everyone from Mexico is a rapist. If I have to look at it as objectively as I can, trying to put my own biases aside...I've got to go with "talking about subset of rapists" though, because I have never heard of anyone, anywhere, ever, who literally believes that all members of any given race or nation are rapists. It seems unlikely that Trump is the lone person in the world who believes such a thing. This makes me think those who harp on the "mexicans are rapists" comments are just political hacks slinging unpersuasive rhetoric.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Wow. I gave you a direct quote from the guy and you accuse me of lying? Way to go champ! Denial of reality, dial it up to 11!
I think you should refer to my username when searching for the way to deal with recent political events (or even my comments to you :) ).
It is understandable if you don't like what the man said, but try to take a step back and view things objectively. Either that, or resign yourself to angst and echo-chambers.
I see, you are just trolling. Sorry for replying, then. I should have just ignored you.
entropy happens
You're overanalysing it. He had plenty of opportunity to clarify, apologise, retract. He didn't. Instead he insisted in his hateful rhetoric. What he wanted with this speech is simply to demonize Mexicans for electoral gain, and oh how well that worked.
entropy happens
And yet many Americans of Mexican descent voted for him. Why is that?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It's extremely rude (illegal even) to just walk into someone else's house and start living there without their consent. Immigration is no different.
OK, in that case, we should all fuck off back to where we came from and let the natives have this land back. Maybe apologize for raping and/or murdering so many of them before we skedaddle. Well, I say we, but I'm a quarter Mexican, so perhaps my head and my wedding tackle can stay in the USA. I'm also Polish, Norwegian, English, maybe some French...
The truth is that none of these illegals are living here without our consent because you have to have money to exist here and someone is paying them. The way we've set up our society is so dysfunctional that you can't buy reasonably-priced produce unless we permit a certain number of illegal immigrants to come into CA, OR, and WA — among other states, but that's where it's critical. And lo and behold, those states' law enforcement agencies are already announcing that they're not going to be participating in any mass deportations.
Herr Trumpler is going to have to spend some money on sending his INS buses out into the country if he wants to deport people. That's theoretically possible. He could even expand the DHS to help, since he's claiming that this is at least in part about national security. Wouldn't that be great?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The number one reason is simply stupidity. The overwhelming majority voted against Trump, so I'm happy with not there being a good reason. They think of thenselves as US citizens (even though Trump does not), and believe in the rhetoric "damn Mexicans, raping our women and stealing our jobs".
entropy happens
Besides, he and his supporters appear to be the targets of political violence, not the prevalent perpetrators.
Always read the article before posting. The conclusion, on reading it, is inescapable: the refugees from mexico that Trump wants to deport are rape survivors, and we are deporting an enormous number of illegal immigrant women and children back to the country from which they were trying to flee a rape culture that was abusing them, badly, through the entire "escape process." So el Trumpo is trying to deport rape victims back to their abusers. Bravo again for the low information president.
Ah, let's see what I can get on the other side.
"Refuse to bake a cake" means "run an Internet harassment campaign".
"Law and order" always means imposed order, never law.
"Locker room talk" means "confession of sexual assault".
"Freedom of religion" means many things, including "being an asshole to people who are different" and "spend money on Christian things".
If I cared, I could add more, but this should be good for a start.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The government has an interest in how, in general, business is conducted. You have no duty to bake a cake for a party following a same-sex wedding. If you are in the business of baking wedding cakes, however, you are subject to rules on how to run a business, and that includes not discriminating against same-sex weddings (at least in some states).
The compelling state interest is that people should be able to do business as long as they behave.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Is the OP's girlfriend here illegally? Walking up to someone who's in the country legally and telling them to go home is rude at best.
Personally, I'd like to see illegal immigration curbed in some ways, to start with putting teeth into the law and enforcement for requiring employers to get proof of right to legally work before employing someone. However, I'm happy with people of different religions and ethnicities coming to the US legally. We've gotten a lot of mileage out of diversity.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Telling someone "no, i will not perform a service for you" is the real issue in this regard. Where does it end. Would I be fined and or compelled to mow the lawn of black people, homosexuals, transgendered by force of law if I tell them no? I haven't misbehaved. I've simply said no to them and that is now a punishable offense. it was one thing to discriminate based on skin color because that was a matter of real differentiation in terms of behavior towards another human being along racial lines, but to extend that same gratuity along gender fluidity? It's nonsense.
Moron, the wall stops the illegal crossings, which stops future rapes. They're not sent back to the coyotes. The coyotes are only raping during the crossing process.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The more we hear Twitter trying to purge its platform of anything not leftist enough, all that you have left is the Party line.
If it wasn't evident by Leslie Jones's bigotry towards Milo Yiannopolous, it should be clear by now.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Make a point to engage the media in places they cannot control and call out Twitter to as an enabler of racists - of the leftist type.
Stop only when they've:
* Purged every narrative control feature since blocking & muting
* Enabled conservatives to rejoin the conversation.
* Apologized for their actions.
* Run out of leftists to fund them.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
So that means it's OK for them to support bigotry committed towards whites? That is, Twitter itself is a supporter of racism & bigotry, and should be listed as such by an equally bigoted SPLC. It doesn't magically become not-hate if done by a leftist in an approved manner.
Perhaps you should reconsider your use of a fallacious handwave. Your statement boils down to arguments only being able to be supported by removing all criticism.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Will Twitter get this right or will they fuck it up?
Since they've already used it as intended, which was to silence the right but not the left, Twitter done goofed.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Depends. Are you running a business providing that service? I used to run (not actually successfully) a consulting service. If I'd refused a customer for being Christian, say, that would have been illegal. I don't run that any more, so if someone asks me to do something for them, I can refuse for any reason, including the requester being Christian. If you run a lawn mower business and you won't take black customers,, you're violating the law. If you aren't, you can mow lawns as you please (if the owners approve of it, anyway).
I'm not sure about your final sentence. Are you saying that it's more reasonable to discriminate on the basis of skin color rather than sexual orientation? That I (if I ran a business) should be enjoined against discriminating against people because of race or sex, but not religion or sexual orientation?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Isn't that what the little flag is for? ---->
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?