Slashdot Mirror
Twitters Says It Will Ban Trump If He Breaks Hate-Speech Rules (qz.com)
Twitter has made a serious effort as of late to limit hate speech on its social media site, especially after Election Day where "biased graffiti, assaults and other incidents have been reported in the news." The company now faces President-elect Donald Trump, who has used Twitter for the past 18 months as a megaphone for his views and rants, which many would consider as "hate speech." According to the American Bar Association, hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits." Quartz reports: While Trump's deceptive tweets may not violate Twitter's rules against harassment, threats and "hateful conduct," Twitter is still keeping an eye on his account for more egregious offenses. This week, the company told Slate it would consider banning key government officials, even the president, if its rules against hate speech or other language were violated. "The Twitter Rules prohibit violent threats, harassment, hateful conduct, and multiple account abuse, and we will take action on accounts violating those policies," a spokesperson wrote. Twitter confirmed with Quartz that everyone, including government officials, were subject to the policy: "The Twitter Rules apply to all accounts," a spokesman wrote. Trump may not have crossed that line yet, but he hasn't exactly refrained from making incendiary claims. Most recently, he claimed that Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who allegedly carried out an attack injuring 11 students at Ohio State University, "should not have been in our country." Artan was a legal permanent U.S. resident, whose family had fled Somalia for Pakistan in 2007. He arrived in the States in 2014.
Not hate
Actually I agree with Trump with this one. This guy should not be in our country. He obviously hated it. So he should go live in a Muslim country, like Somalia or Pakistan. Love it or leave it. And stand the fuck up for the anthem too, you aren't being oppressed.
if it's hate speech that @jack agrees with. @jack is a hypocritical asshole and everyone knows it.
Seriously does no one see the slippery slope here ? We're talking about banning speech based on someone taking offense ?
If you don't agree you can go fuck yourself you stupid cunt.
Bans solves everything!
The battle or the war?
And they wonder why Trump won?
Twitter facing an IRS audit and SEC scrutiny in 3... 2... 1...
Nobody is talking about banning speech. Twitter is talking about banning users who violate their rules. That's it.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Being welcomed to a country you are not citizen of is not a human right. We can consider pros and cons to ourselves vs humanitarian benefits of admitting a particular immigrant of from a particular country where terrorism and other crime is more common than in US.
Refusing to have a rational discussion on this subject without accusations of hate and racism is how we got Trump.
There's no such thing as hate speech if you have free speech. STFU and do something useful.
How refreshing!
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Time to short the stock, picking up a political fight with POTUS is extremely unwise.
He's already broken hate speech rules repeatedly for basically his entire campaign. What alternate world are we living in here, where we're now pretending he did otherwise?
Awwww, didums poor widdle "progressive" crybullies get offended by a policy disagreement?!?!
Wouldn't Trump just start his own Twitter?
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Ah, yes. Let's ban, ban, ban on our way to obscurity.
The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
they might just get the police states they've been screaming about, and it will be their own fault.
You need a safe space?
What world are you living in where it did happen?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
On the one hand, hate speech, censorship, and the limits of Presidential power are all very serious topics.
On the other hand, President Trump getting banned from Twitter and watching the resulting tantrum would be beyond hilarious.
I stole this Sig
And their rules are simple: "No speech that we dislike."
If you expand "hate speech" to include "speech that offends groups" then so did EVERY OTHER politician (and most of their supporters).
In fact, doesn't Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" fit this definition almost perfectly? I'm pretty sure Trump supporters are a group who were pretty fucking offended by that statement.
But something tells me only the right-wing politicians and supporters will get banned. Call it a crazy intuition.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
He's already broken hate speech rules repeatedly for basically his entire campaign. What alternate world are we living in here, where we're now pretending he did otherwise?
I'm anxious to hear the left's comprehensive rules that identify hate speech in a non-partisan way. Rules that clearly delineate unbridled hatred (to be banned) from opposing political views (to be discussed).
You guys keep pounding on how every slight and subtle thing Trump does is wrong, how about showing us your vision of how things should be?
Note that illegal speech has a fairly clear and specific definition, along with examples, and has been vetted through the court system. Saying "all abortionists should be killed" is not illegal, but saying "abortionist John Doe should be killed on Tuesday outside his house in Durham" constitutes a threat.
Go ahead, shoot holes in the first amendment and get the big companies to enforce your safe spaces. Your ends always justify your means.
All you leftists have is anger and hate.
Use it to take out the first amendment.
hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits.
Everything is hate speech? Awesome.
It occurs to me that, while a company shouldn't necessarily advocate for open harassment of its users, it needs to apply the policy equally if it is to be taken seriously.
Take, for example, the radical feminist Clementine Ford. She has repeatedly engaged in blatant anti-male harassment and is known to then cry wolf when a man responds with anti-female harassment and had a man fired from his job for his comment. Yet, for some reason, Clementine Ford's account is still miraculously active. No matter what Trump said he did or didn't grab, this woman should be off Twitter permanently by that same policy.
This is a pattern that repeats over and over. As it is obvious that Twitter is engaging in selective enforcement, they are not only slowly alienating a substantial portion of their user base for the minority of vocal SJWs, they are threatening their own safe harbor provisions for anything else that goes on Twitter such as terrorist communication or other criminal activity. That translates to fewer users and significant financial risk for operating as they currently do.
The real question is: why are the shareholders not demanding Dorsey's resignation for these policies? Mentioning Trump is a complete non-sequitur and clickbait for Salon's liberal slant. More importantly, it indicates that they are defocused from the real goal of shareholder returns and preserving shareholder value. The tail can't wag the dog any more, and it has to belong to the same animal in any case. Either Twitter curates content consistently or they get out of that business and respond only to complaints of criminal and terrorist activity; otherwise, this half-way house will fall on itself.
He overall does have a point.
The problem with identifying something somebody says as "hate speech" is that it doesn't really have a well defined boundary as to what is off limits and what isn't, meaning that it's basically up to somebody's interpretation and context as to whether or not something is effectively benign by that standard. This inevitably means that the rules will be selectively enforced.
If social media continues down this path, then it's likely to just become even more of an echo chamber than it already is. Fortunately "generation Z" seems to be eschewing social media so far, and their reasoning tends to be that they want to avoid having their every move traceable by their parents.
Not like he needs another box of ammo but what the hell; they're free!
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Sure, just like a proprietary bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, right?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I can't find confirmation about his citizenship status, just a comment from a 'U.S. official who was not supposed to talk about the case, but did so anonymously'.
Why is this so hard to confirm/release? We used to fear creating a "national citizen database", but lo and behold, we now have one without our permission or oversight.
Actually no, they're not that simple. You can read them here.
I reaffirm: nobody is banning speech. Twitter is banning people who break their rules of conduct on their forum.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
As is their right as a private corporation.
Petition Trump to setup tweet.gov. The "1st Amendment Platform for the US Government".
Look I get you kids like Twitter and Facebook but STOP USING THEM if you don't like them. Jesus. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a BBS account or IRC pseudonym. If you really want to spew what ever comes to your head you can use hashtags and join a #TrumpForLife IRC channel and mash the keyboard.
Twitter's now a platform for middle aged women to tweet The View and feel like someone is listening to their opinion. Hence all the Tide, Sharpie, et al accounts. Anything that doesn't fit that isn't profitable.
Yeah, and Exxon can contribute to whatever campaign they wish as well. Freedom. Bitch.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
SJWs versus the US government. I wonder who will win?
I hope the 1st Amendment wins. Donald has said plenty of things that are offensive and politically incorrect. But ridicule is not "hate".
Huh. I though Clinton said ~1/4 actual voters were deplorable. At least one reasonable interpretation of that is "deserving contempt, wretched". That's hate speech directed at a significant minority. I will notify Twitter and expect they will do the needful shortly.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe. And Black Lives Matter supporters will still be able to post whatever vile shit they please about those evil white people. But the second someone dares post "#alllivesmatter" or uses the term "illegal immigrants" it's HATE SPEECH!!!!!!!!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
18 months ago when he started his candidacy?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just one problem: we have all the guns, and like to fight.
I support Twitter having the choice to make any rules they want within the law.
And all of its users are free to stop using their service once they have so many rules that it becomes a stifling echo chamber of oppression 'for your own good of course because everyone needs protection'.
And lastly i'm thankful for a free market where all kinds of competing services can take up the slack when Twitter engineers their own failure.
Yes they can, but its still not a good idea.
Think on people against it as well, people screaming at coca cola to not replace it with the new coke.
If you believe Donald Trump is racist, sexist, and bigoted, it's likely that nearly everything he says will appear hateful to you.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Yep, just like a private bakery is free to establish a policy of only baking cakes for weddings between a man and woman, right?
I mean, a private company doesn't have to respect anyone's civil rights, amiright?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Twitter better be careful. When you decide you are the arbiter of what is and isn't posed you gain significant liability.
Twitter says it doesn't tolerate "hateful conduct". That's pretty vague.
I think US borders should be guarded so that people can only come here legally. Does Twitter consider that statement hateful?
Does Twitter consider showing pictures of the US flag on Cinco de Mayo hateful? These Americans were called "Racist a–holes” for flying the American flag in the US on Cinco de Mayo at a school. At the school,
officials had banned the practice to avoid violence threatened by Hispanic students celebrating Cinco de Mayo. The controversy developed in 2010, when school officials ordered students not to wear U.S. flag-themed shirts on the Mexican holiday. The ban has been upheld by a federal appeals court.
Does a picture of someone wearing a Trump hat "interrupt ... operations"?
If you say the words "he", "she", "him" and "her", are you being hateful because those words make gay people feel "marginalized"?
The last three examples are extreme, but they illustrate my point. Twitter has to be careful not to ban political statements because they don't agree with the statements. They should ban statements only if the author is trying to incite violence.
Please be aware the following groups are exempt from this:
* Men
* Straight People
* White people
* Conservatives
You know what the problem with millennial SJW is, they are to young to have seen PCU.
Okay FLAG ON PLAY
1 retailers have the right to refuse service for any reason (and even lie about what the reason is)
2 If the bakery is chartered as a Faith Based Business then first amendment applies (of course it would be best if said bakery referred the couple to another bakery)
3 Do you really want to risk the bakery making the cake to not "spike" the cake?? (lots of stuff you can add to the cake that would be unpleasant but perfectly plausible)
and i would expect a service to enforce its own rules even if we are talking about the POTUS
GOP has been playing a clever mind-game with voters that's mostly worked. One of GOP's most important constituents, business, want to keep the status quo of cheap workers who have no practical legal protection. Therefore companies pay (legally bribe) GOP to look the other way.
Further, one of the best ways to discourage illegal immigration is to audit businesses and their workers. However, business bribes politicians to avoid that solution also. Just focusing on the borders doesn't address the incentive problem. Trump has also barely mentioned business auditing.
However, GOP blames the problem on Democrats instead of themselves by emphasizing so-called sanctuary cities and O's refusal to summarily boot undocumented children and teens out. GOP gives the problem lip-service but not law-making service. (Sanctuary cities are a complicated issue; it's not just a matter of simply "enforcing" the law, as GOP implies.)
GOP had the ideal opportunity under W to pass comprehensive immigration legislation because they controlled both houses. But, they punted.
Even Ann Coulter called out the GOP on these behaviors, in addition to Democrats. I will agree, however, that both parties are at fault for sitting on the issue and making excuses. Trump may better address the border issue, but still seems to ignore the biz auditing side.
Table-ized A.I.
I mean, a private company doesn't have to respect anyone's civil rights, amiright?
To which civil rights are you referring? The ruling you bring up, in which a bakery was ordered to produce cakes for gay weddings if asked, was based on an Oregon State law (not Federal) that prohibited businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Depending on New York State law, with which I'm not familiar, Donald Trump's restaurants may have the same requirement.
Breakfast served all day!
I agree. You can offend anyone but that doesn't make it hate speech. Fuck Twitter. We should create our own version of it.
I hope the 1st Amendment wins.
The 1st Amendment will win. No matter whether Twitter shuts down his account or not, Donald Trump will still be free to say whatever he wants.
He doesn't have the right to come over to my place and paint it in yard-high letters on my garage door, though.
Breakfast served all day!
by encouraging them to patrol their neighborhoods looking for Muslims _is_. Trump did that, among other things, during the campaign.
And there was a rational discussion. Several folks (notably Jon Oliver) pointed out very rationally that immigrants from terrorists nations are incredibly well vetted. You'd be more likely to see Dutch terrorists sneaking in with wooden shoe bombs than an actual terrorists sneaking through. But all that was lost on the Fox news crowd.
And we got Trump because the Blacks and Latinos couldn't be assed to come out and vote for Hilary. Trump got the 60 million Romney voters from 2012. 5 million of the 65 that showed up for Obama stayed home. For fucks sake people, you don't have to like it but when the consequences are that obvious get the hell out and _vote_. You've got 2 years. Assuming Trump's justice department hasn't locked you all up to fill their private prisons then don't screw it up again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A corporation banning me for saying hateful things is exactly the same as a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a couple because they're gay!
Bingo. Lots of platforms out there. Enjoy your speech on *insert site here*.
Lord have mercyâ¦white people shit
get the fuck outta here a white boy is best dj wtf?
mickey mouse gangster cousin wtf? white people smh
@MoGray80 @SherriEShepherd @LoniLove bitch are you joking?! how sad for you. no shade?! so tired of black women like you so tired.
Okâ¦black republicans? (blank stare), isn't that an oxymoron emphasis on "moron" #needemojitoexpressblankstare #thoughtitwasamyth #unicorn
remember - the above isn't hate speech, as it was spoken by a woman who needs protection from hate speech...
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Yea because a few changes to the DMCA would be how hard to push though a rep run congress and president?
No sir I dont like it.
1st amendment issue
Your looking at the privatization of the public green, a corp gets control and suddenly gets to set the rules.
No sir I dont like it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Their rules are one thing. How evenly they apply them is another.
There are people who have done a lot of experiments in the form of posting some variation on "I hate black people for voting for Hillary" and "I hate white people for voting for Trump" then reporting both accounts to Twitter.
Guess which kind of hatred they refused to ban?
Twitter has a vested interest in Network Neutrality. How about No Network Neutrality, no twitter for Trump. Or, it could be easy enough for them to setup trump slow lane until he gets why its important. Maybe like, only 10 chars/sec when reading his tweets. Help us twitter, your our only hope!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And there were many (*many*) people this election cycle who disparagingly attacked Trump supporters as "white male heterosexual virgins", which is offending all kinds of protected classes, none of whom (or very few of whom) were kicked off twitter. If someone on the other side of the spectrum had gone on about "black trans lesbian sluts", they'd have gotten banned by Twitter more or less instantly.
Nota bene: I'm not a Trump supporter, just really sick of the racist assholes on both sides of the political spectrum, and even more disgusted at the power-hungry self-righteous hypocrites on the left who seek to control other peoples speech by trying to re-define words to make their opponents look bad (like, for instance, claiming you simply can't *be* racist against white people).
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
And for those of you who guess it, isn't it funny that you're able to predict this outcome?
Does that feel right to you? Do you think that decent people ever feel good about seeing someone pre-judged based on the color of their skin?
A corporation banning me for saying hateful things is exactly the same as a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a couple because they're gay!
No, it is not the same. Not even close.
Being gay is a physical condition. Saying hateful things is a conscious choice.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Not quite. That's part of it, but they are also using their platform to push an anti-freespeech agenda (which is also their right). Considering the influence they have on online discourse today, their actions are not benign.
I'm sick of the virtue signalling from Twitter and the SJWs running the show now. The best way to deal with anyone throwing a temper tantrum is to ignore them. What better way than to just delete the app altogether? My life will probably thank me for it anyway.
Gab and other free speech alternatives will be the real beneficiaries.
Twitter's stock already is in the toilet so this latest dummy spit is just the final flush.
Oh, looks like they updated it and they're finally removing these.
About time...
Twitter is banning people who break their rules of *speech* on their forum. That's why they are, in essence, banning speech. Admit it already!
Does a bakery, as a private company, have the right to say "No cakes that we don't like"?
Does a family-owned store, as a privately held corporation, have the right to say "We won't pay for medical services that we believe are morally equivalent to murder"?
Many Americans think the answer to those should be "yes" -- and if you say no to this, but yes to Twitter, then you should think very carefully about how much sense it makes to draw the line where you draw it.
You say that like living in the "flyover states" isn't an ethnic orientation and like some of the attacks against people aren't simply for being white or asian.
But feel free to tell me how the culture there is identical to coastal culture if you like...
Sure, just like a proprietary bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, right?
In that case gay is the new Black.
"We don't serve your kind here" is not something to cheer for.
Twitter lost the plot on hate speech when they started kicking people for satirical statements that piss of the SJW's. While at the same time the SJW posting comments on twitter get a free pass on hate speech when they call anyone who doesn't follow their PC ideology as nazi's or racist.
Refusing to go somewhere else to get a cake is not a physical condition.
Should a black person go somewhere else?
Should a dwarf person go somewhere else?
Should a disabled person go somewhere else?
Should an HIV-positive person go somewhere else?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Will Twitter ban hateful anti Trump rants?
Oh man this is going to be great. They ban Trump and he is going to fuck them up good. Can't wait until the IRS and SEC suddenly find all kinds of violations.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
No, we're talking about banning speech on lame ass fucking Twitter. You may go fuck yourself as well. Have a nice evening.
The people in Afganistan had more guns and like fighting more yet the Taliban fucked them over.
One guy with a gun, even a big expensive one, is not Steven Segal, he's target practice for a platoon or if especially annoying a target for an air strike. Loners or small bands with guns don't win anything. Huge numbers of people working together, guns or not, are what you need to win.
Depending on New York State law, with which I'm not familiar, Donald Trump's restaurants may have the same requirement.
Nonsense. Restaurants provide general service. If they refused to host a special occasion or make some off-menu item, then it would be a fair comparison. But the bakery in the Oregon case did not refuse to sell any items for a gay wedding. They refused to sell custom-made items. It makes all the difference when discussing whether this was a religious coercion or not.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Good thing Donald Trump supported same sex marriage long before Hillary and Barack.
We are talking about a private company creating policies for posting content. Don't like those policies, create your own site.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They have the right, but that does not make it right.
I have been following Trump since July and haven't seen a single tweet that could be considered close to "hate speech" unlike nut cases like Joe Walsh who actually threatened our current POTUS. Twitter is saying this for publicity and here we are commenting on it.
Nope, "racist white male" is not a group unjustly persecuted.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Half of Trump supporters are deplorables. Hillary did not make her statement on Twitter. Perhaps Trump can spout his bullshit in a press conference. I suspect he'll never have one.
exactly.
If you are moronic enough that you can't tell the difference between berating someone based on their behavior, and berating them based on their skin color or gender... Well, nobody will be able to educate you on the Internet. Run on back to your safe space with the other KKK kiddies now.
I loved go clearly bigoted communications are now suddenly "satirical".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Someone that is gay can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Fixed that for you.
Really? Well how does this sound:
Someone that is black can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Someone that is disabled can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Someone that is Mexican can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
Someone that is Hindu can choose to go somewhere else or not have a cake.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
My sincere prayer is that Donald Trump will have to make the argument that corporations should be forced to serve people who violate their policies.
That would be sweet sweet karma.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Trump did say he wanted to open libel laws for a reconsideration. If they call his speech bigoted, he might have a test libel case. Oh, and he is the one who gets to nominate the next justice of SCOTUS.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
If you believe Donald Trump is racist, sexist, and bigoted, it's likely that nearly everything he says will appear hateful to you.
If I believe that Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, and bigoted, it's likely because of the things he has said and done.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Then so can a bakery.
Nice strawman: Nobody ever claimed #alllivesmatter or "illegal immigrants" was hate speech. The hate speech was in claiming people to be inferior and not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us because of their skin color or gender.
The problem being the only people on it would be people like you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The guys running gab are cackling with glee at the prospect of becoming the sole provider for the President's micro-updates.
See that "Preview" button?
But in the case of twitter, that is exactly what people are cheering for.
life is a continuum. Most things fail to be put in discrete buckets.
It is equally hard to identify what is sexual harassment and what isn't. Yet having sexual harassment laws isn't an issue. If it is grey area it isn't prosecuted (or the trial can go either way with some unfortunate cases on both sides) but it allows us to find people guilty when it is far beyond the grey and into the universally wrong territory.
Banning for hate speech is similar. Yes some people have grey definitions of what is and isn't but you would only act on the extreme cases.
Eg
"have you noticed that [insert underprivileged minority] don't seem to be as educated as us according to the high school drop out rates" (casual inference about education but someone might conflate that with intelligence)
vs
"I think we should burn all [insert minority here] people alive. I will personally give the first person who does so my life savings"
And what is Trump going to do? He's a President, not an emperor, and the last president who used the office to settle scores and pursue his enemies real snd imagined ended up jumping before Congress pulled the rug out from under him.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Any sites that understands "We the People" have freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Facebook is for old people, Twitter for a certain segment of the left. Both groups will let it go with their cold, dead hands. The platforms could literally translate each of their posts into Urdu shit porn and they'd still keep logging in.
I honestly only had a Twitter account (aside from tweeting my shits for a time in 2009) for about 3 months this year watching Milo Yiannopoulos troll the shit out of people. After he got banned, there was no point in even going on that cesspool. But the stupid family still uses FB so...
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
He hasn't done that already, numerous times? And you're only just now saying 'cut it out'?
Better be careful Twitter, you take away his favorite soap box, he'll take away your citizenship!
I totally agree with you. The US has been pussified. If it doesn't stop Islamic refugees, the US is setting itself up for the end of religious freedom. Sharia law respects no other religion than Islam. Any foreigner that offers value to the growth and prosperity of America is welcome. Refugee's offer nothing. They need to stay and rebuild their homeland or let Saudi Arabia take them in.
Thank you for sharing the information very useful. It is very pleasant to read this article from your website. Obat Ambeien Tradisional Herbal Pengobatan Cara Alami http://obatambeien.agaricpro.w...
If Twitter banned Trump, he'll move to a service that everyone that wants to report on what he says and does will need to use. If that happens, it's goodbye Twitter.
Is it just me, or is it starting to feel like we have an internet troll for a President-elect?
A clean home invites immunodeficiency.
Perhaps we should focus on thickening our collective skins, rather than muting a few folks who make us momentarily uncomfortable?
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
A significant portion of twitter said, says and will say that #alllivesmatter is racist / hate speech.
Fuck off, SJW.
Why are all the Trump posts anonymous cowards? Is that you Donald. Looking for a new outlet? (Trust me, try Facebook)
It's not hate speech when the president says it..
It's not a conflict of interest when the president has it...
It's not illegal when the president does it...
It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is... Whoops!.
I think most Trump supporters loved her calling them Deplorables. They embraced it and made it theirs. You see all kinds of them on twitter with DeplorableDave or DeploarableJenny or whatever. It gave them something to rally around, it was a mistake. It's funny how shit like that can backfire and blow up on you. If you want some entertainment though I suggest you follow Trump on twitter. It's a hoot. Not just the crazy shit he tweets but he has thousands of followers and some of them are off the chain. Between the ones spewing all kinds of anti-muslim slogans and then the haters that come there to bitch and moan to Trump like he even cares what they have to say. Trump knows where the line is and he stays clear of it but his supporters and haters stomp all over that line. It's entertaining to see what ppl rant about. Better even than /.
And just as much as the freedom of speech protects your ability to say something, it equally protects my right to refuse to provide you with a platform for saying it. The owners of Slashdot have every right to delete this comment that I'm writing right now. They have every right to lock my account and even block my IP address.
The great irony here is that Trump is busy empowering people who oppose net neutrality while his followers complain about a private company controlling the content of their own website. Forget about Twitter, ending net neutrality would allow ISPs to exercise much more strict control over your access to the whole Internet, potentially blocking or slowing traffic that they don't feel is advantageous to their business. If Verizon decides they're anti-Trump, they could just block access to his websites because "Fuck you, it's our network and we'll do what we want." The principle that the Internet is communication infrastructure and should treat traffic without bias-- that's the concept Trump is looking to tear down.
The alt-right's days of using mainstream social networking are done, and they'll be stuck with whatever venom filled sites, which is fine.
The alt-left, on the other hand, can feel free to continue using Twitter and Slashdot.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Trump is not. He grabs pussies.
More seriously, he has tools to deploy to make a company's life miserable.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Strange how you don't seem to feel the same when your "kind" is conservative or Republican.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Really? Well how does this sound:
Someone that is white can choose to go somewhere else or not tweet.
Someone that is Male can choose to go somewhere else or not tweet.
Someone that is Republican can choose to go somewhere else or not tweet.
eh
If you can't see how refusing to serve a gay person is exactly the same as banning the speech of some then you're a moron.
If you can't see that Twitter is not banning white male Republicans, then you might want to look in a mirror and ask yourself whether you see a moron.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
No, Trump's followers (and a lot of others) complain that Twitter isn't honest about the rules they use. Also that a lot of Twitter's supporters are inconsistent in applying the values they claim to hold or as dishonest as Twitter.
The GOP wants bakeries to be able to reject potential customers based on their religious beliefs, yet they want twitter to be forced to broadcast the angry ramblings of Trump just because he's Trump? The double standard is staggering. I haven't seen anyone preventing Trump from hiring someone two come up with their own site similar to Twitter; if he's as wealthy as he wants everyone to believe he should have no difficulty hiring brilliant programmers to write something that people would want to use even more than Twitter.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can support absurd levels of P.C. standards if you like, that just makes you a psychological marshmallow
No, it is not the same. Not even close.
Being gay is a physical condition.
Bullshit. It's a personal choice. People claim that it's a physical condition just to stop other people from blaming them for that personal choice.
Are you straight? (I'm guessing yes.) Do you remember choosing to be straight?
I'm straight, and I don't remember choosing. I just am.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Trump says he will nationalize Twitter if they ban him.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It is equally hard to identify what is sexual harassment and what isn't. Yet having sexual harassment laws isn't an issue.
Really? You've never heard of donglegate I take it.
No, they're not banning white male Republicans, and they haven't banned Trump (yet.)
They're banning people who break the rules. There's no rule against being a white male Republican on Twitter. But someone who breaks the rules could get banned, no matter their $RACE $GENDER $POLITICALPARTY.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I don't. Nobody with an ounce of self respect should.
Twitter is not a private corporation. Specifically they are publically held and as such report to their shareholders. They don't make their own rules. They will start making rules that generate returns for their shareholders, and if that strategy includes banning some users so be it, but to say they are private is misleading. If they choose to act privately, eventually major holders are going to come with pikes looking for the C level heads.
Ok...
Dude, you are confused. It is neither Trump nor "trumpers", who threaten your right to freely show disrespect. It is Twitter!
It is Twitter, who'll shut you up, should you, in their opinion, engage in "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits."
Unless, of course, the "race" is White, "religion" — Christianity (or, better yet, Scientology), and "sexual orientation" — "straight male"...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If any of you are working there, hurry the hell up.
"Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others."
Charles Bukowski
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
You might as well say "according to the Powerpuff Girls, donuts are...".
"Hate speech" is not an actual legal concept, and the ABA is not an actual bar association.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
So get your wedding cake somewhere else, you cry baby.
Fixed that for you.
That is some very impressive convoluted ideas you have there. in reality, it has already been tested many times, retweet BLM members, feminists, etc. with the genders/sexuality/race swapped and twitter will ban you for hate speech. Because, the BLM founder tweeting about wanting to kill all white people is fine, but someone else tweeting about wanting to kill all black people is hate speech.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
How many more can we expect?
"We don't serve your kind here" is not something to cheer for.
Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding is not the same thing as refusing service at a restaurant.
1) The bakery owners weren't refusing all service to gay couples. They didn't say, "I won't serve you as a customer because you're gay." or "I won't sell you this donut because you're gay." They were refusing to support gay marriage. The bakery owners were rejecting gay marriage, not gay customers.
2) Suppose a gay couple was offended by the refusal to bake a cake, and they wanted to force the bakery owner to voice support for them. So they sue the bakery owner, and say they'll only be satisfied when the owner stands in front of a TV news camera, holds a sign that says, "I support gay marriage", and says into the mike and camera that he/she supports gay marriage. That demand would be going too far, right? You and I disagree with the bakery owners, but we have no right to force them to state that they support gay marriage. I think the bakery owners see the wedding cakes this way. I think they see making the cakes as a symbol or statement that they support gay marriage.
In case you're wondering, I have nothing against gay/lesbian weddings. (In fact I'm all for them, because I think overpopulation is one of mankind's biggest problems, and gay/lesbian couples tend to produce fewer children than straight couples.) I just hate to see the bakery owners be pressured to bake a cake, which symbolizes that they agree with gay marriage, when they don't agree with it.
Sorry, I had an extra open quote tag at the beginning. That's why my whole post has an extra line down the left side.
We can agree on that.
Any format restricted to a character count as low as 140 characters is not at all meant for meaningful discourse.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
yes, that's called the NRA, and we're winning.
gab.ai
Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others.
Charles Bukowski
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
"1 retailers have the right to refuse service for any reason (and even lie about what the reason is)"
Please see: Civil Rights Act of 1964
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
You're right, they are the same in that they both include one party who acts in a negative way from a sense of hate.
In other news Trump considers declaring twitter a national communications utility and making it a government regulated utility guided by the first amendment, and then promptly kicks all the whiny bitches currently running it out on their asses.
These twits (pun intended) on the fascist progressive left wing can't behave as civil citizens, they will very quickly learn the difference between the minimal power a megacorp has vs the hard power that the leader of the free world has.
What does Angela Merkel have to do with any of this??
I don't think you've spent much time on youtube... https://www.youtube.com/channe... I also doubt you're a white person who's ever lived as a minority in your own neighborhood. You've certainly never spent any time behind bars.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
If it's absurd levels of PC standards that denounces Trump for implying that a female news reporter, a significant one from a major news outlet, was only questioning him because she was on her period then I don't know what sexism is. To imply that a female professional at the top of her game couldn't aggressively question him because she was some how out of her wits because of a natural bodily function she's been dealing with since she was 13 is absolutely sexist.
A clearly not sexist approach he could have taken: actually address what she is saying.
And that's just the easiest one to illustrate off the top of my head.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Immediate question that comes to mind: Do you also reject the redefining of: socialism, feminism and liberal?
I ask because some how Bernie managed to be controversial for calling himself a socialist which in literally any other country wouldn't have mattered. Likewise, for some reason women who want to be strong role models (especially on the Right) feel they need to say that they aren't feminist when that is an obviously absurd statement.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
guess what, some women get obnoxious when they have PMS or are on the rag. So you say no one is allowed to say a reporter is acting like she's on the rag? Well, I'll say things like that. You can cry a river, that's how real people talk.
It sure would be sweet.
Then conservative religious organizations can start bringing tour busses full of people into the city to art galleries they object to. And gay night clubs, and all sorts of other businesses.
It could get very messy and ugly quickly.
It is equally hard to identify what is sexual harassment and what isn't. Yet having sexual harassment laws isn't an issue.
Really? You've never heard of donglegate I take it.
See original post "with some unfortunate cases on both sides"
There are always unfortunate cases in the enforcement of most things. The important part is that these are the minority and that there is community discussion (and outrage) if/when someone starts trying to enforce things in the grey area. So donglegate shows things are more or less working. I will start worrying when stuff like that doesn't generate outrage
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Was there a cigar involved? Maybe a stain on a dress?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
You could say that about all the people pissy about Kaepernick
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
It's dying out. Really, we should let it die. It doesn't help to fight over the issue. Several times while reading this slashdot discussion, I have clicked on links that caused my browser to pull up a dialogue asking me to log onto twitter. I didn't.
If you're alluding to 'Sweet Cakes by Melissa' the sequence of events wasn't: lesbians ask for cake, owners refuse, lesbians sue. It was: lesbians ask for cake, owners refuse, lesbians leave, owners post names, pictures, phone numbers of lesbians on facebook and encourage people to harass lesbians, people harass lesbians, lesbians sue.
Why do you think this sequence of events is so distorted in the public perception?
If you can't see that Twitter is not banning white male Republicans
Sure sounds like they're about to start. I don't really see much functional difference between "I'm not going to ban you because you're Muslim. But if you espouse any Muslim ideas openly, I'll ban you for that." So you can't pretend that "I'm not banning you for *being* Republican. But I'm labeling all Republican positions as racist, sexist, and homophobic and anyone who espouses them will be banned for *that*." is anything more than a verbal sleight-of-hand.
It actually reminds me of the silliness of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy towards gays. Yeah, we * absolutely welcome* all you gays, just as long as you stay good and quiet and don't let anyone know you're gay. It was the kind of typical symbolic bullshit that was so symptomatic of the Clinton administration--trying to pretend to be liberal while stabbing liberals in the back at every turn.
How about we just let everyone speak and people can decide for themselves what to believe?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So all one bunch with the same ideals? Do you really want to sell weapons to terrorists like one of the NRA leaders, Oliver North did?
The thing that stops you from being a traitor is that the NRA is a bunch of anarchists that don't actually work together.
Whoops. Busloads of Christians from Tennessee just went into that Gay Bar....
What makes you think that?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I love it when Nazis feign calm rationality.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So if my rules say "Saying Muhammad is the prophet is considered hate speech. And anyone using hate speech will be banned from this restaurant" then I guess I'm not actually banning Muslims from my restaurant, huh? They were just BREAKING THE RULES.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Has this elaborate scenario ever happened or is it the bullshit it appears to be?
I feel bad for Smurfs myself if we are going to feel sympathy with fiction.
It has been clearly established with strong evidence that people of certain races, genders, sexual orientations, etc. are exempt from the rules. Enforcement is very selective. Hating on President Trump* is in general accepted, for example. Multiple commenters here on this topic have provided evidence of this.
There's no such thing as "race" either, it's purely a social construct.
Twitter was never really the public green.
It's disappointing that private forums have replaced public forums like usenet, but that's just how it has gone. It can change, and it will, when by definition 50% of the population is no longer willing to participate on a 'private service' that clearly doesn't want their presence.
The alt-right's days of using mainstream social networking are done,
And when they're gone, the 50% of us who voted for Trump will still be here, shoving a stick in your eye and telling you that you're a sanctimonious prick.
Repeat it again:
President Trump. He is your President, briteboy.
We'll actively work to make certain that twitter fails.
It's swirling in the bowl already. Let's increase the water pressure and flush again.
the difference between berating someone based on their behavior, and berating them based on their skin color
Well, I don't recall hearing Trump ever say he hated Mexicans (skin color), or any other race (unless I missed that speech). He said he hated illegal aliens (behavior), which SJW's immediately asserted was some secret code language for "all Mexicans."
So, based on your own criteria, I guess you agree with me that Trump isn't a racist after all, huh?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Congratulations, you're a bisexual who only engages with the opposite sex.
The owners of Slashdot have every right to delete this comment that I'm writing right now.
The fact that they don't is one of the major reasons I like Slashdot.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Is it really a mere threat when he's the President of the United States and he actually goes and carries it out?
Believe it or not, there is this thing called "humor" that often involves someone saying something for comic or satirical effect that they don't actually believe and that their audience knows they don't actually believe.
Even Vulcans know not to take everything humans say literally.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Yes, I believe the preferred terminology is "SJW."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Oh, when was that?
"I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman," Trump said. He added that he favored a domestic partnership law that would give same-sex couples the same legal benefits as married couples.
Trump in 2000.
"I just don't feel good about it," Trump said. "I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage."
Trump in 2011
When asked about his own evolution on the issue of gay marriage, Trump echoed a sentiment he has said in the past: âoeI think Iâ(TM)m evolving, and I think Iâ(TM)m a very fair person, but I have been for traditional marriage. I am for traditional marriage, I am for a marriage between a man and a woman.â
Trump in 2013.
Tapper and Trump on his stance on same-sex marriage: âoe[TRUMP]â¦I'm traditional marriage. It is changing rapidly. [TAPPER]: But what do you say to a lesbian who's married or a gay man who's married who says, 'Donald Trump, what's traditional about being married 3 times?' [TRUMP]: â¦I don't say anything. I'm just for traditional marriage.â
Trump in 2015.
"If I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things," Trump said. "They have ruled on it. I wish that it was done by the state. I don't like the way they ruled. I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint they should have given the state â" it should be a states' rights issue. And that's the way it should have been ruled on, Chris, not the way they did it."
Looking for a concise answer, Wallace asked Trump if he would "try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage."
"I could strongly consider that, yes," Trump said.
Trunp in January. Of 2016.
Fault Obama and Clinton if you want, they were tepid cowards to be sure, but Trump, uh, let's see, he clearly doesn't realize it was a violation of the full faith and credit clause. So he's actually quite waffling about it himself, he's just looking for the one argument, however illegitimate, that lets him pretend to be against it, without outright appearing to be a bigot.
Guess you'll need to own up to that mistake on your part. Maybe you were just confused. I could forgive you if you had only read his tweet bashing Roberts for Obergefeld v. Hodges. Is that what happened?
CNN, ABC, NBC, the AP, and the NYT all block the words "illegal immigrant" from their news. It's in their style guides now. The reasoning I read from their ombudsman is "they don't like to be called that." It's like Orwell in real time.
A biological basis is irrelevant. Race is used as a way to group people. Humans love putting things in categories, and other humans are no exception. You can get over your whole "there's no such thing as race" crap, because it's totally irrelevant to the way the term is used.
That is false equivalence. This is the cake shop saying "No icing messages longer than 140 characters, no cursing, etc."
That was Pence acting as Indiana governor, delayed for grandstanding. Besides, for the 1000 others, not so much.
A bakery should be able to refuse to support an activity or event of which they do not approve. If a gay man is marrying a woman (perfectly OK with Christians), they should not be able to refuse service just because the customer is gay. That's discrimination that has been deemed illegal. Refusing to cater (provide a cake for) a wedding between two men should be perfectly legal because private persons have a right of (dis)association.
No, that's not how "real" people talk. The reporter in question was a national grade reporter. To suggest she couldn't handle basic female issues she's dealt with since she was a child while interviewing some one is the very definition of sexism.
Believe it or not, women arent just masses or hormones, They actually have brains on their own.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
You are conflating two uses of the word private. When we say Twitter is a private company, we mean it's not a government corporation. To contrast, the USPO is not a private company because Congress has direct control over its operation.
And so? The GP never claimed that he isn't any of those things. He only said that someone who believes so will be predisposed to taking every utterance of his negatively.
it makes them bakers, they were not doing anything different for that cake than any other wedding
That's the part which is false. They do something different for every wedding. It's not like they refused to sell bottles of champagne (which are the same regardless of where they go).
Do you really think they make a considered judgement towards all the cakes they baked?
I am not the one ordering their service. My opinion on the matter is of little consequence. Their customers think that.
I think if even the worst imaginable straight couple came in, they'd bake the cake.
Ok. They didn't refuse to participate because they disliked the couple. In fact, the couple wanted a cake from them because they were regular customers. They didn't want to participate because they felt it would be at odds with their religious views. Religious views do not need to be rational. They don't need to be justified or even consistent. I am not sure that I even disagree with the court. But I don't see any difference between refusing to make a custom-made cake and refusing to attend a wedding. Can a court compel a father to give away his daughter at a lesbian wedding?
the state has its own marriages. And those civil servants better do their jobs.
I would tend to agree. As long as they want to keep their jobs, that is. If they chose to quit over it, they should be allowed to. But what if they chose to strike over it? When my grandmother was buried, one element of the religion-mandated part of the burial could not be performed because of the grave diggers union contract with the local government. Can civil servants union go on strike and then be compelled to end the strike to perform gay weddings? If the answer is "no", then we have elevated labor laws over religious expression rights.
And let's not have any more stupid pharmacists thinking they can refuse to dispense prescriptions.
I would think that's between the pharmacist and their employer. If the pharmacy carries the medicine and a legal script is presented, I think it would be just a case of refusing to do one's job if they were to not fill the script. If the pharmacy doesn't carry the drug, then well, that's just something that happens from time to time.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
A bakery should be able to choose not to provide service for an event of which they disapprove. There is no legal protection for discrimination against same-sex weddings, and anyone, even a business, should be free to not participate in any way.
I happen to agree that discriminating based on the sexual preference of the customer should be illegal. If a homosexual is marrying someone of the opposite gender, the bakery should not be able to refuse service, as that doesn't violate the religious sensibilities of the baker.
This entire discussion has nothing to do with the first amendment.
The first amendment protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
Twitter is not the government. Therefore it is not bound by the first amendment.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
alright, good for them
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
In no way am I trying to excuse the twisted evil actions of Abdul Razak Ali Artan. But for the record, he didn't kill anyone (although it's pretty clear he tried.) He injured eleven people, one critically. He was the only one who was killed.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Does a bakery, as a private company, have the right to say "No cakes that we don't like"?
Actually, it depends on the state where you live. Legal Zoom observes that there are about 20 states in the United States which have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, so if you are in one of those states, as a practical matter (rather than as a moral one) you cannot discriminate against a gay couple wanting a wedding cake for their gay marriage. However, you can discriminate against a skinhead group from wanting a swastika on their cake, since membership in a skinhead group is not a protected class.
In Alan Turing's time, homosexuality and other gender/sexual "differences" were considered to be a deviant social choice, rather than an innate biological difference. Thus, such behaviors were socially shamed, criminalized, and treated as a mental illness. When the social engineering and therapy did not work to deter such behavior, however, society slowly learned that such individuals were indeed "born that way". Thus, a period of advocacy for tolerance began...and still continues today.
The irony is that we did not seem to fully learn from those lessons. The pendulum has just gone in the other direction. Thus, in our time, being a heterosexual and masculine male is now considered to be a deviant social choice. As a result, we are seeing such heterosexual and masculine behavior increasingly being socially shamed, criminalized, and treated as a mental illness. Much like other gender/sexual orientations, however, such social engineering, punishment, and propaganda are not having a significant effect on male masculine and heterosexual behavior either. The reason being, that such men are indeed "born that way" too.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Because that's how you get audited. Just think about how many people were mysteriously audited under the Clinton administration. Do you not think that Trump would pull the same stunt?
Not a good look for a company that's looking to be acquired by a bigger fish.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Shouting 'sexist' isn't an argument, it's a sign that you have none.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Some people aren't even that subtle. For example, take Manveer Heir the openly racist developer at Bioware who makes no secret how much he hates all white people by broadcasting it all over Twitter. This is really the problem, they only consider it racism if it's hate speech directed at certain select groups.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
"If you don't agree you can go fuck yourself you stupid cunt." fuck off twitter private property if you don't want to respect their rules. Personally I see nothing lost, but I support 100& their right to censor everything they want. For years I have stated the danger of censorship was not anymore government in the west, but private company which overtake all communication channel and thus can censor far more effectively, without repercussion. I was pretty much ignored by everybody I know because their media cherie could do no wrong. Now I get to tell you all fuck off , and I told you so.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Last time I check, it is Obama who sold military grade weapons (ie machine guns) to terrorist during ATF's Operation Fast and Furious... And come on, the biggest arm dealer on earth is also B. H. Obama, in his position of PoTUS.
Good, let me go and report Leslie Jones' sexism, racism, dogpiling, witch hunting, and encouraged harassment for the nineteenth time this year.
Oh wait, they wont ban a black women celebrity.
Well, what they're doing is not illegal, just really, really dumb.
It's apple removing the headphone jack level of dumb.
Deliberately choosing a Christian bakery as a political stunt: also a conscious choice. Why do you think it is they never choose an Islamic bakery for their political stunts?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Nope, "racist
Thank you for conceding the argument.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Unless he says "fuck white people" or "kill all white people". You can do that with impunity on Twitter. Their hypocrisy knows no boundries.
Hmm, what exactly about that bothers you? That gay people are supporting your kids while you as a breeder are doing anything but? I guess I can see that.
Yes they will be free to post that, just like all the alt-rights, white supremacists, free speech warriors, pickup artists, neomasculinists, anti-feminists, neo-Nazis and other will be able to post their hateful shit too. Twitter doesn't care about hate speech, it only cares about harassment, incitement and threats. Like the law in the US does.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The hate speech was in claiming people to be inferior ...
What does that have to do with hate? Most people don't hate their inferiors.
not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us because of their skin color or gender.
Whats the point of having the right to have babies if you don't have a womb?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe. And Black Lives Matter supporters will still be able to post whatever vile shit they please about those evil white people. But the second someone dares post "#alllivesmatter" or uses the term "illegal immigrants" it's HATE SPEECH!!!!!!!!
Um no, but you keep believing the hype...
First you need to find an openly islamic bakery.
Eat the rich.
I am sure the majority here never choose to be a virgin for their whole life and yet, here we are.
Perhaps it is because those kids with their X-boxes are doing my mom all the time.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Can I also refuse to serve blacks and/or Jews ahile we are at it? I can't? Good!
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Go look up "default". No choice had to be made because it was the default, in another word "normal".
Apparently expats from European Zimbabwe are too dense to realise that attacks on border guards have nothing to do with hate and are simply self defense incidents of smugglers.
I also don't get the logic of a bloody immigrant hollering against other immigrants. I mean, it is like rock stars speaking against drugs or murderers picketing abortion clinics - complete bollocks.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Banning names and symbols doesn't make their impact or ideas go away - if anything it keeps them more in memory.
Sometimes it does. There are plenty of historical figures whose name no-one remembers because their enemies extinguished their memory from record.
We knew about the Nazis because some of us lived it. Their children knew because it had a big impact, and their grandchildren knew about through history lessons. But sooner or later, in a generation or two, the Nazis will mean as much as Visigoths or Vandals, a mere historical footnote that will be parodied rather than feared.
Love it or leave it. And stand the fuck up for the anthem too, you aren't being oppressed.
"Love it or leave it" is what privileged fools say when they are actively sticking their fingers in their ears so they don't have to hear the truth from people who are being abused by our government. There are plenty of people who genuinely ARE being oppressed in this country. Sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in very blatant ones. Ask any black person if they feel oppressed by the police. Ask a person with brown skin how easy it is to get a bank loan. Compare the number of unarmed minorities who get shot by police to the number of white people. Ask women how things are going with that equal pay for equal work.
I am a US Citizen because I was born here. I didn't ask to be born nor did I ask to be a citizen. Love isn't unconditional. The notion that I should automatically love the country if it is doing things to actively harm me or things I care about is just nonsense. There are lots of people who are oppressed. Just because YOU aren't being oppressed doesn't mean shit to someone who is. If they want to sit down to make a statement during the playing of the national anthem then they are doing EXACTLY what the first amendment is for. So is burning a flag. Free speech isn't about what is comfortable for you to hear. It is making a statement that tells what they think without harming anyone.
To imply that a female professional at the top of her game couldn't aggressively question him because she was some how out of her wits because of a natural bodily function she's been dealing with since she was 13 is absolutely sexist.
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist. Attacking all, disparaging all, certainly. But your use of the word "sexist" to describe the way a person treats a couple of specific individuals is objectively incorrect.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe.
If you supported Trump then you supported his position on those issues whether or not you care about them yourself. You don't get a free pass to endorse him only for the non-bigoted portions of what he stands for. It's a package deal. The same would be true for any other candidate you vote for and their respective positions. Hillary Clinton stood for a different package deal, some of it unpleasant in a different way. Own what you did. So if you voted for Trump you voted in favor of racism, sexism, and the rest of the his hateful positions. If you think those things don't matter then that says something rather unpleasant about you.
Sure, just like a proprietary bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, right?
In that case gay is the new Black. "We don't serve your kind here" is not something to cheer for.
Tell that to twitter - that's what they're planning on doing, after all.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
There is no biological basis for race. If you believe that there is, you are a racist.
So, all the SJWs are racists. Not that it should come as any surprise...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes. I make the choice every time I choose who to have sex with.
If you want to screw guys and choose not to, you're closeted. You choose who you have sex with, you can't choose who you *want* to any more than the "pray away the gay" crowd can choose to not have those thoughts.
Why would you think it isn't a choice?
Because many people have tried and failed.
What sort of evidence do you have that this one behavior is not a choice as opposed to every other behavior being a choice?
Who says everything else is a choice?
Do you think people don't have free will?
Define "free will".
Do you think that people are so compelled to some actions that they cannot help themselves?
Try holding your breath for 4 minutes. It won't cause you any harm.It's just a choice to breathe.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well I just removed all my accounts and relatives are ditching them as well. I have no time for any company that supports this political correct bullshit. In fact I would go so far as wanting to support any company that takes a stand against these fucktards.
Track your fitness and strength gains with www.trackmytraining.net
Nobody is talking about banning speech. Twitter is talking about banning users who violate their rules. That's it.
Do you seriously not see how banning someone is equal to banning their speech, or are you just trolling? I hope for the latter, because the former would be straight out of 1984.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
It falsely assumes that I'm "so anti-abortion", that gays don't have children, and more. Who will be picking up the tab for Social Security and Medicare for all those non-breeders?
You're kind of right. The bakery that says "no cakes for same-sex weddings" is honest about their rules. Twitter isn't.
Did you mean to give an example of ipse dixit, or was that your mask slipping?
Thus, in our time, being a heterosexual and masculine male is now considered to be a deviant social choice.
That's just utter rot. The thing that's being stimatized is acting like a dickhead.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe
SJW? You say it as if it is an insult; I think having the courage and decency to stand up for what you know is right, being willing to put yourself on the line to speak out for the weakest and working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of.
It would be easy for me to just go "Well, if you don't want to be called racist, don't be one"; but if you feel that your views are always being rejected, despite being well thought out, perhaps it is something in the way you present them? Fire and brimstone doesn't persuade - it just alienates. That is why I try to stick to measured arguments and facts; not that I always succeed, but when I do, people quite often listen and sometimes even agree. And sometimes I have to change my mind too, if I realise that my views are wrong.
Because there's this tremendous innovation that you've probably not heard of, it's so gosh-danged new. Called adoption. (Not that there aren't also lots of other options, too)
His club, his rules. I thought you right-wing folks were in favour of property rights?
I think having the courage and decency to stand up for what you know is right, being willing to put yourself on the line to speak out for the weakest and working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of.
It would be something to be proud of, if working towards a fairer and better society were actually what SJW's were doing. But most people's idea of a fairer and better society isn't one in which the fix for discrimination is more discrimination.
A better society would be one in which everybody were united together, not one in which we continue to hate each other but just get to trade-out periodically on who gets to shit on whom.
but if you feel that your views are always being rejected, despite being well thought out, perhaps it is something in the way you present them?
No, they're not always being rejected. A majority of people in pretty much every state between California and New York seems to agree with them just fine. It's really only a problem when Silicon Valley and mainstream media become oblivious to the fact that these states exist (and aren't drinking the Koolaid, apparently).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Adoption is almost extinct around here, aside from relatives of orphans, partly because of legal abortion, and partly because of birth-parents rights (so a chain of foster homes instead - "rights" can be bad for others. )
Judging from people's behavior, being an asshole usually is a congenital and terminal condition.
And believe it or not, there's also this thing where people pretend they were joking when they say hateful things. Distinguishing the one from the other is a right old pain in the backside.
We're talking about banning speech based on someone taking offense ?
That's what you are talking about, but it appears that you are confused between government censure and private rights.
You can stand in the street and say whatever you want. That's your first amendment right.
You may not come in my house and do/say whatever you like. If I don't want you here, I can throw you out. That is my right.
Being gay is a physical condition. Saying hateful things is a conscious choice.
Being gay is actually a mental condition. And participating in any sexual behavior (gay or otherwise), is also a conscious choice.
I could maybe accept that argument if Trump were saying things that were truly racist, sexist, etc
If you don't understand that Trump has said and done HUGELY racist and sexist things then you don't understand what the words mean.
I'm pretty sure you don't appreciate people on the right labeling all Clinton supporters as "baby murderers" because Hillary Clinton said she supports abortion, do you?
If you'll notice I mentioned that you have to own ALL of the positions of the person you vote for. That applies to anyone.
That said your example is utter nonsense and it certainly isn't an equivalent argument. If the fetuses and embryos were actually babies they might have a point. They aren't. They are a fetus or an embryo and they don't become a baby until they are actually born. Until the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive outside the mother there is no credible argument that they are a baby. Until then they are nothing more than a mass of growing cells little different from a cancer biologically speaking. Arguing against abortion and/or contraception is to argue that women have no right to control their reproductive system which is to argue that they are not allowed to control what happens to their body. It's an absurd infringement on a person's rights that we do not condone in almost any other circumstance. We can't even harvest organs from a dead person without their prior consent and yet we don't consider that murder despite the fact that there is a shortage of donor organs and the fact that people WILL die because of it. You can't have it both ways.
The right to free speech does not imply a duty for other people to provide you with a platform.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Can we stop talking about 'hate speech'? This concept is so slippery it is close to meaningless. We have laws on freedom of speech, if you do not break those, carry on as normal. If you break them, then prosecution. If you do not like them, petition for changes. Otherwise, Twitter included, just be quite and let the world get on with business as usual.
...we can use 'social justice bullies' or 'cry-bullies', they're more accurate anyway.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Does a bakery, as a private company, have the right to say "No cakes that we don't like"?
Does a family-owned store, as a privately held corporation, have the right to say "We won't pay for medical services that we believe are morally equivalent to murder"?
Many Americans think the answer to those should be "yes" -- and if you say no to this, but yes to Twitter, then you should think very carefully about how much sense it makes to draw the line where you draw it.
Ok, fair enough but in that case I reserve the right to refuse service to Donald Trump supporters on the grounds that I will not suffer bigots in my establishment. Not that I expect them to take it well. When they are taking stands like this the alt-right tends to see it as their basic human right to refuse service to homosexuals, people they perceive to be of inferior races or women who want to undergo medical procedures these people don't like so but when somebody were to refuse to sell them something they really need for wearing one of Trump's red caps or a t-shirt with a racist slogan on it I'm pretty sure they'd be outraged. Personally I think it is a huge mistake to ban Trump on Twitter, he is his own worst enemy, his undisciplined utterances have already made the United States a laughing stock and they are what will eventually bring Trump down. To quote Napoleon, you should never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake or in this case many, many, mistakes with monotonous regularity. I know the MythBusters successfully polished a turd but it was a small one. The Republicans/Tea-Party/alt-right are trying to polish one of the biggest wettest turds in the known universe and I'm not expecting them to succeed.
So if states or Congress make political orientation a protected class, you'd be happy to see Twitter be prosecuted for their uneven enforcement of their policies?
Well, here it is. A man seeking gay wedding cakes at Islamic bakeries.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The 4th Reich (Ger. Republic) is already here. Gone, if you consider post-reunification Germany to be a successor state to the post WWII Republic(s). Germany doesn't, so I'll stick by their reckoning and say that the 4th Republic still stands.
Being gay or straight is not about who you consciously choose to have sex with but who you find sexually attractive. If you are honestly saying you are sexually attracted to people of either sex, that makes you bisexual.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Since you're continuing to be obtuse about this, let me spell it out for you. Many gay couples want, and can, have children, through a multiplicity of routes, including adoption, surrogacy, complex family arrangements etc. Laws which would forbid this would be a bad thing. The right to have children thus matters, whether an individual has a womb or does not.
That only works if you are willing to kill all of the pretenders in the next generation(s) and rape their women until you snuff out the memory. That is expressly not the case today. In regards another topic - It's one of the big reasons the Mideast is such a mess - no one ever wins a clear-cut victory anymore, obsessed with the short-term brutality of the steps required, but never thinking of the long term conflict thus sown.
Also, the remaining people who actually experienced Nazi Germany are very thin on the ground. When I was a kid, the retirement communities were literally filled with people with numbers tattooed on their arms. That is over, they are all dead. Give it another decade and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who remembers directly.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
What's it like, being so bigoted and yet apparently unable to see it?
I think most people assume another Nazi-like state would be the Fourth Reich. I note the Weimar Republic wasn't the "Second Reich". The German Empire pre-1918 was. The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire.
"Reich" doesn't mean Republic. Something more like "regime" or "empire".
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Yeah, sure they will. Absolutely, I totally believe fer sure that Twitter will block Trump.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go jump on my unicorn and hunt some snipe and leprechauns.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
By the way, my own personal feelings are conflicted here. On the one hand I can understand a baker who may not wish to participate in a gay wedding by baking a wedding cake, or a company like Twitter not carrying the President Elect's messages on their platform; forcing them to participate means in order to do business they cannot be selective about their customers. On the other hand, I do find it despicable that a customer would be discriminated against for something as personal--but ultimately inconsequential to the greater public good--as one's own sexual orientation or political beliefs.
In this case I believe the baker or the message aggregation company may hold to their own personal beliefs, but should then suck it up and perform the work realizing they are performing a sort of public service. I have less patience for the baker in this case, only because Christian faith teaches one to love the sinner while hating the sin--meaning if they believe homosexuality is a sin (I don't, BTW), they still need to forgive the sinner and to act gracefully. (I'm reminded of the story of a bunch of Jewish rabbis who visit a farmer to slaughters his prized pig in order to celebrate the visit. As the story goes, the rabbis eat the prepared pig because acting graceful in this situation supersedes the requirement to keep kosher.)
It's sad that we now live in an era where gracefulness is no longer respected, emulated or even acknowledged in the public sphere. And to me it's sad that Twitter responds to President-elect Trump's apparent lack of grace by doubling down on being even less graceful.
You consciously decide to feel attracted to [preference]? You may in fact be asexual but otherwise enjoy the act. In any case, it should be self evident that we do not choose nearly so many things as we'd like to think we do. My dog doesn't choose to love chasing tennis balls, she's part retriever. The important differences between she and humans cognitively is fairly narrow.
...and define it in objective terms.
And I'm betting you have to accept the definition of the aggrieved party. And they can, surprisingly easily, convince most anyone that most anything can be defined, by them, as offensive, threatening, or insulting.
And that's the end of speech.
No, Twitter, you can do this and become irrelevant, but you cannot do it and retain significant credibility. Which is already at risk.
Reddit is well into this, being capricious in censorship, even editing speech rather than deleting it. And Reddit is reaping the rewards of this, being left either with a user base that is offensive to so many and appealing only to an insular group insufficient to support the service, or driving reasonable users away as they realize nothing on the site can be trusted.
I encourage Twitter, though. Finish the job. Kill your service. Suicide.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The point of the post you replied to is that your side has already set the standard. Except of course that most of them want it both ways. They want people who agree with them to be able to discriminate against people they disagree with and everyone to be forced to provide service with those who agree with them.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If someone is in your home and they start saying things you find offensive and you ask them to leave because of it, would you call that something like banning speech, censorship, or like something else
To suggest she be protected from a crude comment from a surly interviewee as a national grade reporter who has (presumably) dealt with these issues since she started working is overtly sexist. Believe it or not, women arent just masses or hormones, They actually have backbones on their own.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
From "The Twitter Rules"
if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats
The POTUS can prohibit immigration to the US for almost any reason. If the POTUS decides to post intent to do this via Twitter, it could conceivably violate the above rule.
So yes, Twitter is banning certain types of speech by creating user rules against certain types of speech.
That said, they would be utterly stupid to ban Trump. If he moves to another service, it will be very harmful to Twitter.
That's funny. Ban users, not speech.
Thank you for the clarification, Comrade. I understand entirely now.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Regarding the cake-baking, I had an answer to that question from a conservative that seemed insightful. The criterion they suggested was creativity. So one might be required to bake some sort of standard cake to order, but not be forced to do any custom decoration. It seems like a workable criterion but I'm a little wary of simple answers to complex questions. How much of a moral stake do you have in speech that someone else pays you to create? Twitter however isn't providing units of anything, they're providing a platform, and have no creative input into any of their content, so the comparison is invalid even though they're both free speech issues.
We all know the real issue with the Internet. It's not just Twitter and Facebook. Many people, when given the opportunity of pseudonymous free speech, will abuse it, often in ways that cause real harm. Twitter is legally required to prevent criminal speech (e.g. child porn), and other criminal acts. They have to moderate, and they can't do community moderation. If they moderate too lightly, they risk becoming 4chan, Whatever they do will draw criticism. And yes, their moderation will be influenced by their politics and morality. What's that saying, "show me a neutral moderator, and I'll show you beryllium"? Eh, close enough. Even if there were such a thing, though, the perception of neutral moderation is always going to be biased towards one's own interests. They're in a no-win situation. The problem is intractable, the means inadequate, and every action is wrong.
Having written all that in response to your comment, and notwithstanding the importance of the issues raised, this story is bunk. The Twitter statement was simply that their terms of service applied to all accounts, whereas Facebook said they'd take into account political considerations. The latter seems a little more weaselly to me; all things considered I'd rather have a company that takes an explicit moral stance on an issue rather than one that bends to political expediencies, but either way, this is rabble-rousing clickbait posing as news. Wake me up when it actually happens.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Twitter's online service is categorically not like anyone's home, so what I call that hypothetical situation is irrelevant.
Keep it coming.
No, I agree that Twitter has the right to decide how their services are used. Pretending free speech is defended by banning users who violate some terms of service is unfortunate, but Twitter cannot claim to be a forum where free speech is guaranteed. It is not, cannot be.
Being free to go elsewhere to post your speech, no matter how offensive, that is free speech. Being held to account for your speech goes along with the freedom to say whatever. You are not unaccountable. Just free. ish.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
But something tells me only the right-wing politicians and supporters will get banned. Call it a crazy intuition
No, I call it a persecution complex. Twitter bans and suspends accounts every day. For some crazy reason, nobody gets up-in-arms about it until it happens to a right-winger.
but he has thousands of followers and some of them are off the chain. Between the ones spewing all kinds of anti-muslim slogans and then the haters that come there to bitch and moan to Trump like he even cares what they have to say.
This seems to be true of most public figures with enough importance. Even Justin Trudeau's tweets are followed by many replies as described above. Twitter seems like a great place to make public announcements and inquiries, but any actual important discourse is guaranteed to attract more trolls than anything else.
They are banning speech on their platform, but come to think of it, I agree that twitter is banning some forms of speech
Thanks for the comment. Looking at Dog-Cow's profile and history, I friended Dog-Cow. Worth it, hope Dog-Cow accepts me.
And why do I keep referring to Dog-Cow as Dog-Cow? I don't yet understand Dog-Cow's gender identity well enough to use any pronoun. I may never, but that's my problem. Dog-Cow either knows, or doesn't, and that's not my problem.
So I'll type a few extra characters. Feh.
Thanks again.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Gay? I was responding to a post mentioning gender. Did not realise you were talking about gays.
My point was that men and women are biologically different, and no amount of "rights" will change that.
It was a Monty Python reference, in case you missed that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I mean they are banning speech like you would do in your home
"I think having the courage and decency to stand up for what you know is right"
You mean like the witch hunters did back in Salem? The problem with the SJW is their refusal to allow a trial, to allow evidence to be brought forth and the refusal to hear the other side. If you don't see the problem....well, I just view you as a dangerous vigilante.
"...working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of."
i think that is the disconnect between what they think of SJW's and what you think of them.
If you want a better world, I hope you're donating to charities, money or time, or volunteering with habitat or something. you know actual work that actually helps people. walk for cancer, march of dimes etc. etc.
ranting on twitter doesn't count as "working towards a fairer and better society."
those protests after the election were hilarious. some people treated them as cry-ins... which is, adorbs? and other people chanted "not my president." which... yes he is. and still others walking around trying to flip cars.
meanwhile, I'm just sitting there, wondering what goal they're trying to achieve, how they think they'll achieve it, and why i find it all so hilarious?
considering that Trump is those things, or at least campaigned that way,
and merely pointing them out is making a factual statement and not harassment....yes.
and if you were at all knowledgeable about the topic, rather than woefully ignorant as you seem to be,
you'd know that alllivesmatter is inherently racist, and meant to be.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Without condoning Trump Twitter is being mighty hypocritical here. Warning the President-Elect about hate crime while allowing "#popacop" There Twitter service has had its time, the less relevant service has been caving to the demands of censors and dictators everywhere.
Because of your electoral system you had the choice between an intellectual dwarf and a moral dwarf. You have chosen: we have had more than our fair share of both. You will survive no problem. I do not understand the doom sayers. America is bigger than that this. It is a great country that has has given more to world culture in 300 years than almost any other nation on Earth.
I am a white male. Based on my color and gender I feel offended by the statements of CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Show, SNL, ABC, NBC, CBS, all SJWs, Black Lives Matters and more.
Twitter should start there.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Then conservative religious organizations can start bringing tour busses full of people into the city to art galleries they object to. And gay night clubs, and all sorts of other businesses.
They already can. No one is going to stop a religous republican entering a gay nightclub. If you start heckling the other patrons, you might get kicked out. Last I heard though, hecklers are not a protected group.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"As is their right as a private corporation."
Then how do you feel about the bakery that refused to serve the gay couple? Is that somehow different? Private corporations don't get to do whatever they please.
Just another day in Paradise
Shouting 'sexist' isn't an argument, it's a sign that you have none.
It is an argument if you know, the person is being sexist. Which he was. Simply pretending sexism doesn't exist does not in fact make it not exist.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"I'm straight, and I don't remember choosing. I just am."
Yes, the day I lost my virginity.
I know...citation needed, right?
Just another day in Paradise
+1
Just another day in Paradise
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist.
Depends on the nature of the attack. In this case (suggesting it was PMS) was pretty much the textbook definition of sexism because it is attacking here merely for being female. I now look forward to you rationalizing it away.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I tend to agree. In fairness, though, I think part of the reason it works it that moderation effectively removes a lot of the worst of what people say. It's still basically censorship. The administrators will also step in sometimes when someone who is being abusing of the system.
It's not as though Slashdot is absolutely uncensored. If it were, I'm not sure I would like this site.
Godwin much?
Just another day in Paradise
That's all well and good, but where are the constant "why you being so aggressive, bro?" evasive maneuvers when it is a man doing the interviewing?
They aren't there because we expect men to be aggressive. When women are even half as aggressive we call them shrill or bitchy and try to belittle them by attacking traits which are uniquely (perceived and physiological) female.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
A President with a Congress and SCOTUS that all back him. Hmmm...whatever could he do?
Just another day in Paradise
you're clueless, go study the amount of sick days women take vs. men, *because of their periods*
or ask any married guy, like me. periods affect mood in big way for most women.
you don't know much about women, have little interaction with them.
you don't deal with women much, do you? I can tell when 80% of my female coworkers have PMS (the others take a sick day!)'
you're in denial of reality of how humans are.
furthermore, there are example of men's behavior that are hugely due to hormones. but you're in such denial being PC you can't deal with reality
Yes, the day I lost my virginity.
I know...citation needed, right?
Wait, so you're saying on the day you lost your virginity you were sexually attracted to both men and women, had one willing and available partner of each sex, but for some reason you had to choose once for all which gender would have sex with? And after that point you lost all interest in the gender you did not select?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
My god, liberals are the fucking whiniest piles of crap on the planet. Hypocrites to the last. The fact that they want to censor EVERYONE they disagree with isn't banning hate speech, it's banning SPEECH altogether.
Could these pathetic children be any less mature?
Pax Vobiscum
Thanks for clarifying that none of the tweets Trump has posted violates Twitter's rules.
Mine is set off from too much alcohol and idiot fucktards on the internet.
Over 60 million people voted for Trump. The adult population of the US is ~240 million. Are you saying that 30 million people (12% of the US adult population) is deplorable? That would mean that 1 out of every 8 people you meet is deplorable. You must hate a lot of people.
A bakery should be able to refuse to support an activity or event of which they do not approve. If a gay man is marrying a woman (perfectly OK with Christians), they should not be able to refuse service just because the customer is gay. That's discrimination that has been deemed illegal. Refusing to cater (provide a cake for) a wedding between two men should be perfectly legal because private persons have a right of (dis)association.
Businesses no longer have that right because it was abused. They are not legally allowed to refuse to do business with people based on certain characteristics because those refusals were used in an organized manner to punish and torment people for who they are (race, sexual-orientation) or what they believe (religion). Imagine, for instance, living in a town where the grocery stores refused to do business with you because of the colour of your skin. I doubt you'd think it was fair for them to try and starve you out of town. On the flip side, those laws also protect businesses, because it no longer makes sense for the current customers of a business to boycott it just because it does business with people with the "wrong" coloured skin. Every business is required by law to ignore certain differences, so if they shut down one with a boycott, any business that replaces it will still have to do business with those people anyway.
Even given that, there are things that a baker can refuse to do. For instance, it is my understanding that the baker can refuse to decorate a cake with a same-sex wedding theme. However, they can't refuse to sell a generic wedding cake to someone just because the person is gay.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
So, here's the problem. Free speech means free speech as long as it's not assault, inciting a riot, etc. But, "hate speech" is still free speech, and should be treated as such...Westburo Baptist Church and KKK included (as much as I despise those pricks). We don't live under European style speech rules...that seems to be what many of the politically correct types keep getting wrong. There's also no constitutional right to not be offended, and there is one allowing someone to offend you. If you can't handle that, you may need to go find a safe space.
And no, I didn't vote for Trump.
Just another day in Paradise
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist.
Depends on the nature of the attack. In this case (suggesting it was PMS) was pretty much the textbook definition of sexism because it is attacking here merely for being female. I now look forward to you rationalizing it away.
So, when you get called dickhead you accuse the caller of misandry? Rationalize that.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Yes
What slippery slope? Private organizations can do whatever they want with private assets as long as it doesn't run afoul of the civil rights act or other discrimination laws.
Ban someone because they are an asshole? Perfectly legal. Ban someone because they are [ $RACE | $SEX | $RELIGION ]? Federal civil suit.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Which they are free to do, as it is a private system, unless they are banning people based on being members of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.
The First Amendment only applies to the government, not private entities.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"homosexuals and heterosexuals differ because they are engaging in sex for completely different reasons. Heterosexuals are participating in the family tradition of procreation"
Wrong. Both mostly have sex for recreational purposes. Most heterosexuals do not want to procreate everytime they have sex. Not even every 1/100 times. Most heterosexuals are not the Duggers and do not want 25+ children over their lifetime.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
since you obviously think that the constitution only applies to people like yourself and their opinions.
"Love it or leave it."
Thant's a great mantra. That's why everyone stayed when Obama was elected.
Its basically a way of telling people that if they don't like how you think, they should leave.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding is not the same thing as refusing service at a restaurant.
Yes, it is. It's exactly the same thing, with not one whit of distinction. Your points are strawmen.
How is "you can buy this but not that" any different from "you can sit at the shitty table in the back room, but not up front where others can see you"?
Your second point is just silly. Nobody can be compelled to say they believe in something. Ever.
Baking a cake isn't speech. If it were, then a public works employee could say that they won't pave that part of the road, because it leads to a gay couple's home, and paving it would be supporting their marriage. Such an assertion is the purest form of bullshit.
I see you're not denying it was sexism. Now you know you've lost the argument, you're trying to have a different argument. Thanks for playing.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
what makes you so special that you think you can control what they allow on their systems. You can spew your hate filled ignorance and lame attempts at playing the victim all you want. Just don't expect your sense of entitlement to allow you to do it on someone elses dime.
You know that gay bars don't refuse service to straight people, right?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Gotcha, so you can't show me a single person who was disparaged for being white, straight and male as Baloroth claimed, let alone for being a virgin as he also claimed.
Openly racist? Hardly. The only vaguely racist thing in those links is the "White Tears" cup. He makes good points in most of those posts in fact...ironically, anyone who considers all of those posts to be "openly racist" is providing examples of why he's right.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
... if Twitter shut down it's entire system and all the twits went away. Or are they called tweets??
Twitter .. working to become the home of the endlessly offended.
Anyway, there are plenty of other electronic means for people to offer up their viewpoints. Perhaps Twitter itself could shut down and stop being the source of useless news articles announcing that some celebrity no one cares about had a meltdown that amounted to nothing in the grand scheme of things.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Trump has repeatedly suggested ethnicities other than white are inferior, and not just for illegal immigrants. Hell, he said a man who is not just a citizen but a pillar of the community could not fairly judge a case against him because of his skin color. He's repeatedly suggested supporters attack people with different skin colors, and praised them for doing so after they conducted those attacks. But continue to pretend that this is about illegals, and keep throwing around your cutesy little buzzwords like "SJW" without having the first clue what you're talking about.
The very fact you think it absurd is hilarious. You'd have a meltdown if someone spoke of *you* in that manner -- in fact, you're having one right now just for someone daring to disagree with you.
Show me where I said he wasn't allowed to share his outdated opinions: I didn't. I actually said the exact opposite: He's fine to keep sharing his opinions, just as I'm fine to continue judging him as an out-of-touch, racist, misogynist relic.
Thank you. I can hardly blame gay people or minorities from trying to socially lord over other people. After all, anti-gay, say, social (and legal) ostracism and worse, held sway for thousands of years, and only recently did pressures lift.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It's a shame that so few people understand this these days. For far too many people in the US, that's exactly how they define hate. I'd even go so far as to say for a smaller subset it's whatever disagrees with their own political orientation, no matter how polite or well intentioned.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Not saying your experiment that your citing is wrong, but there were many things they could have done to provide more reliable data. The test was conducted with just two tweets. Would have been nice to see hundreds of tweets getting reported. Additionally only two variations were used. Trump/black and Clinton/white. Would have been nice to see Trump/white and Clinton/black variations as well. Additionally there was no control, (Random person)/(random race) established. Again that's not invalidating what was done, but what was tested left a lot to be desired.
Implying that we have no right to complain?
You have every right to complain. Just try an make the complaints informative or insightful. Most of the complaints here are ridiculous histrionics.
Rarely have I seen as much whining, whinging, and cry-babying as I've seen from right wing posters on this issue, the professional right-wing victims are really out in force. They could be trumpeting the fact that Twitter has effectively said that nothing Trump has posted so far is hate speech, but instead they have to throw a little hissy fit over how Twitter said even the President-elect can be banned if he breaks the rules.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let's roll back a bit here. You are making so many strange claims. On the one had you think genetics is a proof, or has some authority, because you cited it. Then you leap to sexual preference is not 'an objective condition'.. really? I am not sure how you are using the word 'objective' but you must be alone in your use. You also say that 'without observing a person's behaviour or asking them'... what other way is there? Here is a clue: everything is 'learnable', it does not follow that it is learned. Oh, but wait: also biological and environmental influences. Anything left for your free will?
I don't think a law should force a business to operate in a way that it doesn't want to. I don't think we should have a law forcing Twitter to keep up posts they don't want to keep up, any more than I think private companies should be forced to provide and/or pay for services they don't believe in. I think monopolies and public services are an exception to this.
So are we talking a law, or what a company should do? Because the bakery and Hobby Lobby were compelled by force of law, whereas, so far, opponents have mostly objected to Twitter's actions--not called for a law. I think everyone has a right to object to a company's actions and/or stance, but bringing the power of law is a whole different level.
I think it's wrong for Twitter to silence most speech, and I will condemn them for doing so. However, I do NOT support any law which would compel them to remove or leave speech up on their site.
Also, the definition of hate speech provided is pure rubbish: "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits."
If you think my religion is rubbish, you have every right to tell me so, whether it offends me or not. It doesn't mean you hate me--it means you think my religion is rubbish. My being offended should not be a barrier on YOUR right to speak your mind. This redefinition of hate and "hate speech" in modern society is very harmful; it has the potential to destroy our society. And Canada just passed a bill (C-16) putting basically this definition of "hate speech" into law.
-=Lothsahn=-
So.... if YOU are offended by something, the response to whatever offends you is "love it or leave it"? But if someone else is offended by something, you think they are being overly sensitive and they should "love it or leave it"? You are aware of what hypocritical means, yes?
There is no law that states that you must stand up for the anthem. Don't like freedom of expression? It's a founding belief of our country, love it or leave it.
That's the thing about that stupid statement, it applies to you too. What is so funny about those people who talk about crybaby, snowflakes who got participation trophies (and other asinine phrases) - they are the people who bitch and moan the most. What do you mean I can't have a fully automatic rifle, that tramples on my 2nd amendment rights!!! Wahhhh Wahhhh. It's illegal. Love it or leave it. The government raised my taxes again!!! Vote next time. Love it or leave it. Marriage is between a man and a woman, the bible says so!!! It's the law.. love it or leave it.
Just say "love it or leave it" to yourself every single time you disagree with anything, and you'll start to realize how stupid it sounds.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Can you still call it terrorism if it's carried out too ineptly to inspire terror?
The job is done and all money is taken by rent seekers.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Mod parent up. Nobody chooses to be an outsider, be bullied etc.The very idea that it is a choice is nonsensical, we are turned on by whatever turns us on. The reasons and causes are of no interest. Just accept your fellow human being: if you think you are better than them because of bizarre metaphysics, well, so much the worst for you.
so you are saying that having sex is a conscious choice? Now I do not know why you have posted
so you are saying that having sex is a conscious choice? Now I do not know why you have posted
Yes, I am saying having sexual intercourse is a conscious choice. If it's not, then "Rape" must be deleted as a crime from the books, as only voluntary actions can be crimes.
It's so CUTE when you keep trying to pretend that you're still relevant! In fact, The Donald's delusional tweets were a gift to Twitter, they kept people still talking about you when you should already have gone the way of MySpace and AOL.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I have Muslim friends and I've never heard any hate speech from them. Too bad I can't say the same about many Republicans.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Interesting that I can type faggots, but not n1ggers. (lameness filter encountered)
Flag as Inappropriate
Let's see:
Holy shit! I never knew the word n1gger was prohibited. Now I need to find out what other words I am prohibited from saying:
Kike
Jew
Cracker
Redskin
White
Negro
Faggot
I am just not enough of a hater to have a wide vocabulary of hateful words. Let's see if these make it through.
Weird. I would love to hear why hateful words to black people are censored but hateful words towards Jews, Native Americans, etc are not censored. So odd.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
They were forced to make a custom cake. Which made them active participants in the wedding.
No, it didn't. It made them participants in a wedding reception. Also known as the awkward party where Aunt Gertrude has a few too many martinis and starts macking on the bartender.
There is no cake in wedding ceremonies. There is a distinct absence of cake. Wedding ceremonies do not involve confections of any kind. The baker does not get invited to the wedding, as a rule. The baker is expected to show up at a party that happens to come after a wedding, often not even in the same venue, and deliver a fucking cake. That's all.
These repeated attempts to conflate baking with wedding participation would be funny if they weren't so pathetic. Millenials often get accused of being special snowflakes. These people take being a special snowflake to a whole new level.
Good for them?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Once again, purely trying to insult me.
I wasn't insulting you, though I must say I'm getting tempted. I'm kind of at a loss to understand how you even think I've insulted you.
Therefore, one is not born gay.
Depends what you mean by "born gay". There's a vast amount of situational and developmental and societal influence. I strongly suspect however that there's also something innate since even when those influences are all strongly anti-gay and the person in question has a strong desire not to be, they still wind up gay.
It is a condition that is not necessarily morally wrong
No, it's not morally wrong, period.
but since it is influenced by chemical and social influence and can have an effect on an organism's ability to procreate, it should be framed within the correct bio-psycho-social lens.
That sounds like a bit of a word salad to me. If you're saying that many aspects of human and non-human behaviour are interesting, then sure. It's nice to know why we act the way we do. There is however no moral or ethical imperative to procreate.
If you have any experience with the gay community
I don't like where *this* is going.
there is a lot of propaganda on how to groom or coerce someone to be gay, or at least have sex with men.
You can find fucked up niches in any sufficiently large group of people. That proves they're people and little else. You can also find niches of straight-identifying people with lots of propaganda on how to coerce people to not be gay, like, oh, the "pray away the gay" bunch. That doesn't really mean much however.
I hate to think of my potential children, or any naive young person, being assaulted by such propaganda and instead of being able to think for themselves, they simply assume they were born that way.
Do you take equal effort to keep your children away from other deeply toxic sub-communities or do you elevate one tiny niche (one I've never encountered, I must say) of the gay community up to these special levels?
The gay community is very devious and even criminal.
Well, OK, now I'm going to insult you. You're a fucking moron.
Failed to what, choose? I don't know what you are trying to say here.
Many people have tried to choose to be straight/choose to not be gay and failed utterly.
It is the consensus reached by society at this point in time.
You appear to be claiming that society says literally everything is a matter of choice, except being gay. That's complete rubbish. Why do we have an obesity epidemic, then? It's not like people are choosing it.
The ability to engage in a course of action that is completely devoid of outside influences.
Outside of what? That's not a facetious question. There's a whole lot of philosophy on what "free will" is. One can debate back and forth, however it's kind of meaningless unless you can actually give a really good solid definition of free will. At the bottom, we're just a bunch of baryons and leptons and completely controlled by the laws of physics. But that's kind of a useless definition from the point of view of behaviour.
Defining free will is incredibly difficult. Many people smarter than either of us have tried and failed.
This is an...
You dodged the question. Breathing is semi-autonomous, but it is also under conscious control. Holding your breath for 4 minutes won't kill you, it won't even harm you. During those 4 minutes it is literally your conscious choice whether or not to breathe.
This also has nothing to do with anything relevant to the conversation.
It is because we're discussing the nature of choice. You seem to think it's just a matter of free will to overcome your urges and that one can simply choose to. I have found something you are unable to choose to do that you are physiologically capable of.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
When on earth did i ever say she should be protected? You're making up fantasy.
I was purely pointing out the clear sexism in what Trump was saying. At no point did I say he should be silenced or that the reporter couldnt handle it.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Hahaha. No i think you're in denial. I've worked with / been friends with / dated a ton of women over the years and it's not a huge deal for most. They've been dealing with it since they were children for the love of god.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
The First Amendment only applies to the government, not private entities.
I scrolled waaaay to far down to finally see this.
And on a side note, just like the "story" yesterday, this is another "news" item about what Trump might do. In other words, he hasn't done anything wrong yet.
Bullshit story, slow newsday. How this got to the front page goes beyond me.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
we are seeing such heterosexual and masculine behavior increasingly being socially shamed, criminalized, and treated as a mental illness.
Citation needed. I haven't seen anything like this at all, except maybe on some internet forums populated by activists, who do not represent the general population.
He really is an openly racist person.
That list of tweets is dripping with racism. If you don't believe me, try this experiment: Reverse all instances of "white" and "black" in his tweets and repost them. See how fast your account comes down. If someone started tweeting about "black tears" you can bet the shitstorm would be legendary.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
It's not necessarily being white or male. It's being an alpha-type white male, or at least looking the type.
The whole alpha male thing is largely bullshit. We're not captive wolves or gorillas. But tell me, what precisely is looking the type? Do you have to have a hairy chest, or even a hairy back and shoulders? Or a huge bristling mustache, or perhaps a vast, bushy beard? Or do you simply need to look like a roid monster?
Does tools have anything to do with it? Do you need to own lots of tools? And how to power tools compare to hand tools in that regard? Is a rotary broach more macho than an axe?
Or do you simply need to purchase lots of tat pushed on you byhte advertising industry?
So, tell me, what precisely *is* an alpha male?
The current SJW movement is the result of that, revenge on anyone who looks like they wouldn't be bullied.
That's complete tosh.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The Vulcans should have shot down Cochrane's ship and launched beacons warning others away from this planet.
I am German, dumbass.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
We live in a weird future.
I see you're not denying it was sexism. Now you know you've lost the argument, you're trying to have a different argument.
I knew your memory was short, but this is a new record ... even by your usual standards! Let me quote, in full, *my* assertion and *your* response to my original "not sexist" assertion:
Attacking a single woman does not make one sexist.
Depends on the nature of the attack. In this case [...]
So I've already denied it was sexism; in fact, that's how I entered this thread. Just what kind of "scientist" were you anyway? Gender studies? Social sciences?
Thanks for playing.
How does it feel, now that your bubble about societal norms is thoroughly burst? Will you make a new /. ID to post again in 4 years when all the doom-and-gloom you're predicting fails to materialise? Does your virtue-signalling address whatever need you have within you that makes you accuse everyone of thought-crime?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The American Bar Association concluded:
"However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object."
Assault and battery.
Two charges often mentioned in news and police reports. Assault is making threats of bodily harm against someone. Battery is actually harming someone, whether you threaten them or not. The 1st Amendment does not protect assault or battery, but "offending" someone's feelings is neither.
Making offending words illegal speech puts ammunition into the hands of unstable people, who are often exploited by those with a "politically correct" agenda for the purposes of speech, thought and political control. That's what Facebook, Google and YouTube have and are doing. The owners and managers of all three corporations were "in the tank" for Hillary Clinton, and used several methods to silence opposition against her, calling Conservative view points "hate" speech. Very convenient. YouTube, after years of encouraging people to create and post video content for a share of the ad revenue, turned on those with Conservative content and demonetized them. Those videos didn't just suddenly stop drawing ad money, but Google greedily keeping ALL the revenue for itself, destroying the livelihood of some who depended entirely on ad revenues for income. When deliberate detrending, shadow banning, or even altering the content of posts on Facebook or Twitter didn't stop the opposition to Hillary those corporations deleted the accounts of the "offenders". Very Orwellian of them.
The Public Commons was, in historical times, the place where citizens of a community gathered to discuss and debate issues of the day. Being a public place everyone had free access and freedom to say what they wished, aside from assault or battery. Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube all began supporting free speech but ended up turning to evil and placing limits on what people could say that went beyond prohibiting that which is already illegal. Some, especially those who own the corporations, and those on the Left whom the corporations represent more than any other part of the political spectrum claim that being private corporations they do not have to honor the 1st Amendment. I disagree. ALL of the Bill of Rights applies to ALL Americans no matter where they are on every square inch of this country, regardless of who owns the soil. According to current political dogma it is a violation of the 1st Amendment for a Christian baker to NOT bake a cake for a gay couple, but it is NOT a violation of the 1st Amendment for Facebook Twitter or YouTube to censor or ban Conservatives. Both businesses depend on consumers from "off the street". An example of their double standard can be seen in a Twitter experiment testing the fairness of Twitters application of the censorship rules:
http://www.informationliberati...
In previous generations children were taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". The lesson was "toughen up, the world is a dangerous place. Words will hurt you emotionally ONLY if you let them." Today, Social Justice "Warriors" rampage across our nation attacking people and destroying property, but if confronted in public places where their identity is not hidden behind bandannas, hoodies or balaclavas masks they retreat to their academic "safe places" to be coddled by their Marxist mentors.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I feel like you live on bad 80's sitcom, "women be crazy world". Maybe it's you and not half the population?
Regaurdless of all this, Trump refuting the substance of what she was saying by saying she was on the rag is sexist because he deflected what she was saying with a gender issue. He's undermining what she said, not by addressing what she said (which is how reasonable people talk to others) but by suggesting she was just having female issues, a claim he doesnt even have any evidence for.
It's also problematic to suggest a world class female professonal cant handle basic bodily functions that she has been dealing with since childhood. If her judgement became so poor she couldnt do her job every time she had her period she wouldnt be where she is today.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I think you misread the intent of my comment, I was speaking to what I saw as Skam's over-protective comment for this reporter.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
ell, he said a man who is not just a citizen but a pillar of the community could not fairly judge a case against him because of his skin color.
So again, by your own criteria, I guess that anyone complaining about all-white juries in trials would be a racist too, huh?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I think part of the reason it works it that moderation effectively removes a lot of the worst of what people say. It's still basically censorship.
I don't consider that censorship, I consider that curating. :)
The comments are all still there.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Of course I never said she should be protected. You made that part up.
It's amazing the points you can make when you just make stuff up though. For instance, I feel like when you said that you were severely mentally deficient (retarded) you sort of left us not being able to take anything you say seriously.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I've heard of at least a few different variations on this, but this isn't exactly hard to replicate.
Just make some fresh Twitter accounts, tweet and report.
What ???
Trump kept accusing HRC of going months and months (3?) without having a press conference. He gave a lot of them.
You need to take your head up out of the sand.
I'm sort of curious how these videos do not violate the YouTube TOS. Isn't this hate speech?
It's ok to kill people - just don't hurt muh fuckin' feelz. Typical liberal garbage...
They should not get to say "you can't have health care bacause you are a woman", "you can't have cake because you are gay", or "you can't use twitter bacause you are a biggot", but the cake shop, Hobby Lobby, and Twitter have every right to kick you out for harassing other customers.
I don't think you used enough exclamation points. Also, there needs to be at least one, "1" in there or you risk being taken seriously.
The thing is, he may be free to say whatever he wants. But he is *not* free to avoid the consequences of what he says, and that's where the problem lies.
For example, thanks to one particular inarticulate garble of his, he practically invited an outright trade war with China.
If he was some nutter standing on a garbage can in a park, screaming obscenities at passers by, sure, whatever. But he's *not*. He's the leader of one of the most powerful nations on the planet, and a lot of people look to him as an icon to be emulated.
So when he says "foreigners are taking our jobs" the likely outcome is that anyone who isn't white ( because these same people don't understand that someone can be born in the country and still be Muslim or Hindu or whatever ) is now at significantly greater risk of being beaten or killed.
The other thing to consider is that, as POTUS, (please correct me if I'm wrong) he no longer has the right to free speech because he is now part of Government.
Regardless, seeing as how the US gov't is practically using the constitution as toilet paper for a while now... who knows what's gonna happen.
It was mostly tongue in cheek...no, not those cheeks.
Just another day in Paradise
Sure, stop black people from stepping foot into your home or your store. Refuse to buy or sell with them. It's your right!
If you want the legal protections of a corporation then you have to give up such rights just as you give up legal ownership when you hand the business assets over to the corporation.
Corporations are legal entities defined by government. They exist as part the government system; though they are independently managed.... a few more steps of indirection above an "independent" government dept.
Government too often violates the law by going to 3rd, 4th, or 5th parties... almost always corporations who are improperly allowed private rights. If they were actually private humans without the super powers corporations have thru government there would be fewer people willing to do things they could end up in civil and/or criminal court over (as opposed to their corporation which is abuse to hide corruption.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Nobody who actually listens to #BlackLivesMatter people will find them saying that black people are the superior race. That's hilariously nutty. Boogoo nutterballs. These videos reflect more on you than they do #BlackLivesMatter.
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
Yeah... poor poor white people like myself. If only we had real political representation, like maybe a super majority in both houses and senate for 200 years running or 97.6% of presidents. I have a dream! If we all dream together maybe we can make it a reality!
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
"SJW's" is a very divisive and ill defined term. But I think most social justice is an attempt at exactly that. It always strikes me as incredible how much some people fear change. They look at it like it's "discrimination" to treat people with basic respect. I'm not sure if that's what you're doing in this comment, I'm not sure exactly who you're talking about. I would be opposed to more discrimination myself.
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
The only kind of wedding a gay person CAN HAVE is a GAY wedding. There's nothing special about "weddings" that allow a person to discriminate. Any other celebration can be substituted with "gay" prefixed and suddenly it's impossible for a gay couple to buy anything anywhere. Just because of who they ARE.
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
So I've already denied it was sexism; in fact, that's how I entered this thread. Just what kind of "scientist" were you anyway? Gender studies? Social sciences?
Bro, do you even read? You made a claim, I made a counter argument, and you made no further comment. That's called losing the argument.
Will you make a new /. ID to post again in 4 years when all the doom-and-gloom you're predicting fails to materialise?
again? this is is about 13 years old. And what predictions have I made, eh? I could use some insight into your weird fantasy. I look forwards to you claiming I've made all sorts of claims that other people made because libruhls all think the same amirite?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Can you still call it terrorism if it's carried out too ineptly to inspire terror?
Well yes, if the intent was to inflict terror. And that speaks to the frame of mind of the person doing it.
At this point, I'm not sure whether it has been established that Abdul Razak Ali Artan was a terrorist or a wacko. But I'm leaning heavily to the former, because there is evidence that he was inspired by online material from ISIS.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
According to the American Bar Association, hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits."Christ, the ABA are almost as fascist as SPLCenter... did no one teach these sociopathic simpletons that offense can never be given, only taken??
Call it what you want. It's still filtering out a lot of messages so that you'll never see them.
The only real difference that I see is that the filtering is done by users of the site, rather than by an administrator. And as I said, the administrators still intervene at times. I also think that Twitter might be too unruly a setup for a moderation scheme. It's not really a discussion forum.
Once again, you are missing the point that religion is in the eyes of the beholder. It need not be rational or consistent. But perhaps a similar example would illustrate the point without veering off topic or being too hyperbolic. What if they ran a flower shop and said that they were willing to sell as many flowers as the couple wanted and of as many varieties as the couple wanted, but they would not make floral arrangements for the wedding because they would feel it made them endorse the proceeding in the eyes of [Gg]od? You may have made my own argument when you said that the state has a right to regulate a business. It does. But it does not have a right to regulate a religion. In fact, forcing any business to perform any custom-made (as opposed to generic) service is slippery slope to giving the state the right to compel any action. Just as gedanke experiment, consider what if they made half the cake and said this was it? They would then agree to sell the half or refuse the business. Would they then be required to make the 2nd half of the cake? If there were, then this would be a state compelling a private business to not only take an action, but also micromanaging how that action is to be taken. Remember I said that they would agree not to be paid, so the material loss by the consumer does not come into play.
This kind of reminds me of the prohibition for businesses to sell liquor in Salt Lake City. All the bars and restaurants just declared themselves to be "private clubs". And everyone had to sign their name on entering the bar or restaurant to become a member of a private club. Private clubs do not serve general public -- only members. This is going to (with time) create the same situation for any wedding services owned by religious people who do not wan to assist in gay weddings. They will simply create a procedure which will make it every aspect of business which deals with custom-made items into a private arrangement. It will make these services not for-general-public de jure. But the standard that the government has a stronger hand in when it can compel someone to abandon religious practice will have already been established.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Then, perhaps, you should not be doing so much talking on the matters of United States, huh, dumbass?
Ran out of your own problems? Your country already bans "hate speech", that's one. A sizeable minority — your cocksucking self included — swallowed Putin's propaganda with not only the hook, but line and sinker. Deal with that, before you weigh-in on problems abroad — or lack thereof.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That only works if you are willing to kill all of the pretenders in the next generation(s) and rape their women until you snuff out the memory.
That is a shorter term option, there are also longer term options available which include regulations and censorship and time.
Give it another decade and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who remembers directly.
Exactly. So if you extrapolate that over multiple generations over long enough time, eventually even the most powerful symbols become meaningless.
Sure, but I never appealed to the First Amendment, just the principles behind it. On top of that, Twitter lies about how they enforce their rules, so we can't look to the written rules to determine whether they are acting immorally, illegally, or both.
I can see how these would appear openly racist under a "colorblind" view of race relations - a view which ignores context and history, and under which the "find and replace" test is seen as an infallible, almost mathematical tool which zeroes out cultural biases to objectively measure the racism of a statement.
But it's not. The problem is that the "cultural biases" it zeroes out ARE the context and history. For example, prejudice against white people is both much more rare and, in almost all societies, vastly less damaging than prejudice against other races because of the position of dominance and privilege whites enjoy in nearly all societies. In some societies the imbalance is so great that to equate prejudice against whites to prejudice against other races is to trivialize most forms of prejudice.
To look at another one of his posts, a "black tears" cup is vastly worse than a "white tears" cup in the US for example, because the former is an insult to injury, celebrating a dominant position. The latter on the other hand, is merely a distasteful joke because of the same dominant position of whites. It's like a poor person owning a "1%er Tears" cup.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's a mighty big shift of the goalposts but do you really think a traitor like North has got your back if you decide you need to fight?
I suppose he's more likely than all those weekend weenies in the NRA who couldn't shoot anywhere near as well as my sister or those nanny state NRA idiots who wanted the government to put armed guards in schools - you definitely don't want those losers to watch your back.
Looks like you've got nothing. Those guys in Afganistan had their shit together far more than you and were better armed than you but some kids from a refugee camp bulldozed over them and set up an extreme fundamentalist loonie regime.
Having the guns and liking to fight just doesn't seem to be enough to be more than a faded red stain on the pages of history.
Thanks.
From reading that page Gay is definitely the new Black - it sounds like the sort of stuff I saw as a kid. "We don't serve your kind here" is stuff I heard every now and again when someone without white skin dared to wander into some stores.
I should add that those store owners that did that back then had strong beliefs that they considered just as valid too, and they sometimes even claimed that their bigotry was supported by God.
There's a lot of that shit about, it may be gays this week but remember that the guy running Enron said he was doing God's work by cheating Californians out of their money. Maybe it will be you getting picked on by someone taking God's name in vain next time.
Oh, so more than half of women don't have cramping, 20 percent don't lose work or school day, etc.?
My wife says you're full of shit
Does your wife also say that a female professional at the very top of her profession should have what she says undermined because she might be on her period rather than having her interview taken seriously and addressed directly? Does she also feel that this world class reporter would be so impaired by her period that she couldnt possibly conduct an interview mostly asking questions she and her staff had quite likely come up with days prior (she was interviewing a presidential nominee after all)?
Not that I think your wife is some sort of divine arbiter for all things women mind you. In fact I thought it was funny you basically said "Not-uh I asked my wife" as if that has some sort of major influence in the world.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
In fact, go ask your wife if you should be able to dismiss whatever she says on the grounds that you say she's on her period. Film it with your phone and post it on youtube for me.
She's going to either tell you that "you're full of shit" or she's a total door mat.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
That is funny. A dumbass Ukrainian immigrant tells a German what to do. Sorry, no. And stop protecting your homoerotic fantasies onto me.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Blue eyes, Ginger hair. I could say more, but you need educating anyway. Go read something.
Anyhow, I'm well aware of what people are thinking when they say "Fourth Reich", but as it's silly and wrong, I like to point that out.
It's a non-obvious fact. One would have to be steeped in German history to know it intrinsically. I'm not, but I have gotten the broad brush over the last few decades.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't know, probably the mustache thing. Remember that everyone cooler or tougher than you is just a hipster
Well you've just contradicted yourself there. Hipsters have large waxed mustaches anyway.
ertainly, obsession with computers is really cool...
Look, dude, you're the one that brought up this "alpha male" crap in the first place. If you're trying to dismiss it with sarcasm you're actually dismissing your own argument.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you, from a nation beaten to a pulp not too long ago by an alliance including Americans (and Ukrainians), feel comfortable not only to participate in American political discourse, but call participants names and offer other "advice", why should an odd Ukrainian hold back from treating you likewise on occasion?
My grandpa was telling yours what to do in 1943, why should not I continue?
Why couldn't a Ukrainian be pointing out your stupidity and susceptibility to propaganda? Or indeed, proneness to strange perversions? (German porn is rather famous among connoisseurs!)
Seriously, this comment of yours is so typical of German society, it is funny in a way... See, in America immigrants become Americans within years. Oh, some people preserve their heritage — Ukrainian, Irish, German even — but we are American. In Pittsburgh you can buy "pierogis" on the street, but the city is as American as baseball... In Germany — and you are the latest confirmation — an immigrant remains an outsider for life. Some times even his German-born children aren't considered "fully" German.
And I'm not just talking about laws on naturalization — which are much harsher in Germany too — but acceptance by society. So, maybe, it is you, who should not be doing too much talking on matters of other countries — be it Ukraine or the United States.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If there is situational and societal influence, then it is a learnable trait.
False dichotomy. Things are not divided into "learnable" and "not learnable". I can, and have, learned to play chess. I am however incapable of learning to play at IM level (let alone GM level) no matter how much time I put in. Some people can get that far with a lot of effort, others can get there easily.
Being gay is a mixture of innate and external things.
Everything sounds like word-salad if you don't understand it fully.
And some things sound like word salad because they are word salad.
Since gayness is influenced by social factors like how we frame its cause and why someone would be gay, we should make sure we are using scientific reasoning in how we talk about it.
That's nice, except you're not being remotely scientific.
Especially since it would interfere with a fundamental aspect of life, reproduction.
Reproduction is not a fundamental aspect of human life. Life literally has no purpose.
There is a stronger tendency towards what you could maybe call anti-social behavior among people who are gay or sexually indiscriminate.
You're just making up crap based on cherry picking samples. Among the people I know, I ahve never noticed a greater tendency towards antisocial behaviour among gay and/or sexually indiscriminate people.
Look at something like 4chan/b
Yeah because 4chan is representative of... well nothing.
And they are all gay/bi or turned on by animal costumes and much worse
You're ragging on furries now? Seriously why the fuck do you care? Furries don't do you any harm.
The second largest gang in Atlanta, behind Black Mafia Family, is the Gay Mafia.
*sniff* *sniff* smells like bullshit to me. And even if it's true (which it isn't), you're cherry picking to support your poing.
I am not advocating for gay reeducation. I am trying to frame gay for what it is, instead of the emotional argument currently in place.
You're claiming it's a choice. I pointed out examples where it manifestly is not and you're persistently ignoring evidence you don't like. I'm beginning (lol) to suspect you have an alternative agenda.
That is pretty much what I am saying.
Well then you're talking crap because the only person saying it is you. i.e. you just invented it to support your point. You're also entirely ignoring the point I'm trying to make.
We hold fat people responsible for their appearance.
Except we have various obesity reduction programmes, aimed at tackling the problem because we recognise that it's not a simple choice internal to the people who made it.
We even hold crazy people responsible for their actions (although there are mitigated punishments).
Actually we don't: that's where diminished responsibility and related things come in. We lock them up since they're a danger to others, but we put them in secure psyciatric hospitals, not maximum security prisons. Just because they're not responsible, doesn't mean they can go free.
A person may end up gay if they disregard mental health (sounds bad, but let me explain)
Oh yes that sounds bad.
As far as our physical body is concerned (and what else is there), we should be procreating
Utter crap. Many straight people go through life without procreating quite happily. In fact more straight people do that than there exist gay people.
But as far as the phenomenal world is concerned, we are organisms whose main responsibility is to procreate.
Nope. Evolution has tautologically made those with a better chance of procreating pass on their genetics. But there is no responsibility, because that implies that there is an entity to whom the responsibility is due. There is no higher power that we have a responsibility to.
This phenomenal world is the one that science deals in
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I see you have decided to not actually address anything
Ah fantasy meets reality, I guess. I addressed most of your points. My guess is that my rebuttals were so devastating that you've fantasised that I did no such thing and have transmuted that in your mind to me not addressing your points.
oookayyy...
Look at how many of your responses here are simply different forms of "you are wrong".
That's because you make a bunch of wild-ass claims without any evidence, like "gays are criminals". Basically it has become apparent that you are deeply bigoted and are using scientific-sounding language to justify your bigotry post-hoc.
I think I also understand why you thought I was insulting you! You porbably thought I was implying you are gay. It's sad that you think that's an insult.
Now I think you are a bigoted closet case. Lose the attitude, find yourself a nice twink (or bear if that's you scene) and you'll be much happier.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I proposed that white, straight males are often discriminated against because of a perceived stereotype (alpha-male).
Except there's no even remotely consistend definition lf "alpha male" because "alpha male" isn't a thing. There's also no evidence you gave for being discriminated against merely for being male and fitting to some stereotype you refuse to define.
You might be discriminated against for acting like a raging douchebag, but yeah I'm cool with that and "raging douchebag" is not currently a protected category. Also, it spans the enture gamut of humans and you can find raging douchebags of all stripes (any race, male, female, transgender or other, gay, straight or bi, tall, short, any ethnic background, any culture, any religion etc etc).
You are the one who started talking about mustaches and nonsense
I was mocking you for your use of the meaningless term "alpha male".
So go on, define it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Like telling people to check out Alicia Machado's nonexistent sex tape?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
If Twitter banning Trump sets him off and he starts attacking the Silicon Valley elite, then perhaps they can annihilate each other in an all-out war and there is hope for us after all.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or, you know, able to see.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Comment removed based on user account deletion
.... that a small minority of people actually like him. The rest of us who voted for him had no better alternative.
So I hope Twitter bans him. It would do everyone a favor (protect Trump from Trump, and us from Trump),
Not all physical conditions are expressed via genetics. We have things like epigenes, proteins and environmental factors and about a gazllion other things that change someone's "physical condition".
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Typical: "anyone who is critical of gay propaganda is a closet case".
Except you're note being "critical of gay propaganda", you're literally making shit up to support a point you already hold.
If you want evidence that gayness is represented at a higher rate in criminals, drug-abusers, pedophiles, and mental illness I can get it for you
You mean unlike your made-up fact about gay gangs?
Anyway I'm sure your data corrects accounts for some underlying causitive factors like for example the general marginalisation of gay people.
Being gay was one and the same with the psychological disorder of neuroticism until it was changed in the 80's due to, get this, not research but people protesting and yelling "bigotry"
Yep. Because it was a stupid medical opinion based on bigotry, not evidence. I like how you implicitly take the status quo to be true.
The previous classification was the result of almost 200 years of research.
lol. That's such a wild claim, I don't even know where to begin.
I would, however, classify that as a mental illness.
I'm very glad then that you have absoloutely no say in what is and is not a mental illness.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you are arguing that the stereotype of alpha-male doesn't exist, when we are both sitting here using the term, you are just being ignorant.
Yes, i am arguing that it is so ill defined that it is absolutely useless. I notice that you have yet again refused to define it. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you have conceded my point but won't admit to it.
You accuse me of being a "raging douche-bag" for what?
I'm accusing you of being a "raging douchebad" for not having good reading comprehension and misunderdtanding what I read so poorly that you thought I was accusing you of being a raging douchebag.
For classifying gayness as a mental illness when even the psychiatric association only retracted their classification after lots of protesting as opposed to research?
There was no solid research that put gayness as a mental illness in the first place. Just some very old, very recycled anti Greek propaganda, fresh out of Canaan.
I am sure hearing facts
I'll let you know when I hear one from you. So far, you haven't provided any, just opinions.
If you can give me a good reason that one is "born gay",
I've given you the same reason about 4 or 5 times now. You keep ignoring it. I'll do it once more. People have tried and failed to "pray away the gay". They live in societies where gayness is considered bad, they really REALLY don't want to be gay and they put in a lot of effort to not be gay. And yet they keep on failing. That sounds like it's pretty innate to me.
or that being gay is not equivalent to an illness from a biological standpoint
No, you have to give one good reason why it is. Reproduction doesn't cut it. If I simply choose (as a straight man) to not have kids for various reasons, then I'm not ill. If a gay man goes one of the mildly convoluted routes like using a surrogate to have a kid, then he even gets to reproduce.
Your criteria are entirely arbitrary.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Twitter doesn't care about hate speech, it only cares about harassment, incitement and threats. Like the law in the US does.
That's not what the article says.
"Separately, reporting hateful conduct will also help Twitter better process reports from bystanders, alleviating the burden on the person being subjected to the abuse, Harvey said.
Second, Twitter has retrained support teams, offering sessions that teach the cultural and historical context to help moderators recognize hate speech, and has put in place an ongoing program to refresh employees on abuse and update them on new forms of it, Harvey said."
If they didn't care about policing hate speech in the past they sure will now.
The point I was failing to make was that YOU can do whatever but the corporation for which "own" you CAN NOT do everything you want.
People get jailed for STEALING from their own corporation (and other crimes) because their corporation is not them.
I know a man who used to work for a bank and his job was to go to small corporations and take them over for the bank so they wouldn't default on their loans. Sometimes he would fire the founder and "owner" from the corporation and put somebody else in charge. Often he would end up catching a family member employee doing something illegal and it was the corporation that pressed charges, not the relative (or a deal was made... interesting stories.) I did some work for 1 of these places: CEO's wife wasn't even an employee but she used the biz like it was her bank account, so did her son (the IT guy) and both are now in jail.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Much like the UC Berkeley free speech movement in the 60's. It was more of a question of private property vs public property then speech/no speech. Say what you want in public but not in my living room, my restaurant, my campus, or my online service.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And I'm not convinced that baking and preparing a cake or weaving flowers indicates endorsement. Sanctification of the ceremony? Ok, that is. Cake? Flowers? No.
There in lies the rub. This is really the reason why you reject the argument. Providing custom service requires a degree (however little it may be) of creativity. The vendor, at the time of performing the creative work, has to put their mind into how to better that one specific occasion. And that amounts to a tacit endorsement of the occasion. If such endorsement goes against their religious beliefs, then the court is forcing them to put their creative efforts into something which, in their mind, goes against the behavior prescribed by a higher power. They are literally being asked to chose between law and [Gg]od. And that's precisely the type of situation which the disestablishment was meant to address.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
This is like all the people who claimed that marriage was somehow belonging to religion
Side note, but no, I don't think that can be the case. I don't even think marriage can be decided on state-by-state basis. So there should be a federal statute on age limits, too. Not because it's the right or wrong, but because immigration is clearly within the domain of the federal government and immigration is inseparably entangled with marriage. Israel tried to put marriage in the religion-only domain (and has no civil marriage) and the only result is that any couple which doesn't pass a muster of one of the religions' norms for marriage has to marry outside the country. So not having a fully federally-regulated marriage is actually quite cumbersome on our system as well.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
During the Bush era (Bush the 2nd) the lefties made a movie about assassinating him. Can you imagine the fervor if the right had made such a movie about Obama? But since Bushitler was President there were no howling wailing complaints about hate speech, just a torrent of hate coming from the left.
And now we have that same tired old argument that you nailed that the American left uses as often as it can. It's very simple. If I can get your opposing viewpoint declared hate speech I can suppress your opinion and therefore in the name of free speech I take your free speech away.
The only thing you can't do is scream fire in a crowded theater for crissakes.
As the Democrats haven't been this angry since the Republicans force them to free their slaves, or forced them to give the vote to women, this is only the beginning of insanity to come the next four years. Make popcorn...
Let's take the feigned righteous indignation over the flag remark. Justice Anton Scalia said pretty much the same, exact thing two years ago. No outrage then. Didn't even make the news.
Murphy was an optimist
And churches have already had to deal with issues like childcare, rummage sales, and even leasing out their parking lots. Not to mention their public spaces. Only allow members of your church to get married? Ok. Start letting non-members do it, uh-oh. Start charging money for it? Oh-my.
Yes, and not allowing any degree of selectivity forces them to lose their counseling capacity. As I am sure you know, "it's fun to stay at the YMCA" doesn't refer to it being a place to marvel in gospel.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I remember enjoying sexual play with both males and females from the age of around 4 onward. I certainly don't remember choosing to enjoy looking at both male and females as attractive, yet I do. I certainly do remember all of the snide comments about homosexuality, all of the subtle pressures and expectations wrapped in coded language fomenting heterosexuality, and all of the overt actions and words used by parents and peers that conveyed a heteronormative presupposition. All of that could be considered cultural hypnosis, a psyche mold forced on to myself and others without the knowledge of the ones doing it or the consent of the ones they are doing it to.
If you are used to going with the flow, following the herd, and submitting to authority I can easily see how you would not see a choice there. You would do what was expected of you, as most do when presented with pervasive subliminal persuasion compounded by cultural norms and standards. I have been distrustful of humans and authority since I was very young - that I did not choose. As for my sexuality, I still haven't "chosen." Also, just because you don't remember your imprinting doesn't mean you didn't participate in it.
A further example: A friend of mine was raped at gunpoint by a man most likely in his mid 20's to early 30's. He was 17 at the time and identified as heterosexual and had heterosexual experiences with young women. As he relates the experience he enjoyed the rape so much that he now identifies as homosexual. He has not been with a woman since and has had, by his account, innumerable sexual encounters with men. He is in his 40's now. He calls it a choice. Who am I to question him?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Only in the sense that you are choosing to be engaged in business where you will be expected to follow the state's laws, rather than rise in revolution, or stop baking cakes. Or even just stop baking custom cakes.
No, not only. It's the subtle difference between putting your creative energies into bettering the occasion rather than enabling the occasion. Having had this discussion has allowed me to actually think my position through a bit more and I actually now think that the court's decision is squarely at odds with disestablishment clause. But the civil rights are guaranteed through bills and, to the best of my knowledge, have not been tested as to whether they take precedence over the right of religious expression. This isn't about the right to reasonable accomodation, mind you. Not having that one bakery be the one which bakes the cake does not prevent the marriage from taking place. It's about the right to a special accommodation.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Disestablishment was meant to keep the state from compelling religion on people, not the other way around, and the state maintains its forms of compulsion. Thats why jury duty can still be compelled. Military conscription.
I was under impression that Quakers were exempt from military conscription.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
the government investigates marriage claims for immigration purposes. Even overseas ones, making a federal-state issue moot.
Not quite. The fact that it has to take it case-by-case basis already makes it the rule of men rather than a rule of law. The federal government has to address the issue of what is and what is a marriage in immigration cases. Which makes it the federal government's domain to define what can or cannot be considered a marriage. An opinion that it should be done without a law in-place is a pro-anarchy view.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Those childless couples, regardless of their sexual predilections or ability or decision to reproduce, are paying for the basic intelligence of the people they interact with on a daily basis with those taxes.
Do you want a cashier that can count your change? How about a taxi driver (omit obvious joke about international drivers please) that can read street signs? What about neighbors that have been exposed to the cultural implications of lawlessness and violence through studying history? Maybe even the expediency of using actual spoken English to conduct business in your workplace, instead of various dialects and pidgins based around different localities in the US?
You can thank our education system for that. If you don't want to participate in civilization I suggest you move somewhere without taxes. You pay your taxes and in return you receive civilization. Thinking that the education of the citizens of the US is merely the responsibility of the people who have them is so incredibly moronic and short sighted I can't even believe you would utter that nonsense in public, even on a relatively anonymous board like this.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
What is the only thing that simple lifeforms do, from single cell organisms to more complex beings? Procreate in order to perpetuate the species. The reasons that people come up with not to procreate have no basis in reality as far as biology is concerned.
No, they have no basis in reality as far as _you_ are concerned. Biology doesn't care. It has no reasons. It simply exists.
We classify problems that impede normal function as mental or physical illness.
Except you have chosen yourself to be the arbiter of "normal", and come to think of it, the arbiter of "problems" too.
The only basis we have for judging something as normal or healthy is pure biology, not vague philosophies created by people. ... says the guy who has a philosophy where biology has reasons and concerns.
I literally could not get any more basic in empirical observation (aka fact), than this.
There's no empericism in anthropomorphising biology.
If we were being farmed as domesticated animals, being looked upon by an alien race whose comprehension was far outside our understanding, the ones that were not reproducing would be looked at with wonder, "what is wrong, here?".
And that's relevant how? Firstly, there is no higher power farming us for meat. There is no one to care. And if there were, why would I give a fig what they thought?
I would include straight people that refuse to reproduce for some philosophy in the same regard,
See, this is where you're being very hypocritical and your biases leak through. You classify gay people as mentally ill because they don't "reproduce", even though some of them in fact do you haven't dropped your classification of them as mentally ill. So, you keep trying to argue one thing but you're deciding where you end up a-propri. You've now as a sop to my inconvenient fact decided to call something like 20% of the population mentally ill. Of course you're not even being consistent there: you're not classifying people who have few offspring as somehow more deficient than those who have more.
TL;DR You've invented a philosophy about a sentient version of biology in order to reach a conclusion you want to reach and are presenting that as a fact.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Actually no, they're not that simple. You can read them here.
I reaffirm: nobody is banning speech. Twitter is banning people who break their rules of conduct on their forum.
Actually yes. They've banned people that simply stated facts. Facts that certain groups feel are offensive. Sorry, facts aren't offensive, they're facts.
Sensitive groups include feminists, black groups, the gay or whatever the hell they want to be called now so they won't act offended if you don't get it right.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are just splitting hairs whenever I make a point.
No I'm splitting paragraphs whenever I have a point. Zing!
But no, you're dismissing arguments you don't like without addressing them. Your philosophy seems to be based on what biology wants. I claim, biology wants nothing so your entire line of reasoning is void.
You're also glomming on to my individual words (like "outside") while completely ignoring the point. Free will is very poorly defined. Every definition you use I can pick holes in. So, when you claim being gay is a matter of free will, I claim your argument is invalid because you can't even define what free will is.
In fact you have an incredibly black and white view of the world which doesn't account for the large amount of nuance present. You dismiss anything not fitting this as "pedantry", "splitting hairs" or other things.
You are also willfully ignoring half the points I'm making by playing dumb, viz:
what claim did I make that you require evidence of?
You claimed biology cares who people have sex with. There is no evidence biology cares about anything.
You're claiming gay people are mentally ill, again with no evidence. You cite a something thoroughly discredited as evidence even that itself had no evidence for it which is why its now discredited.
Oh yeah, you claimed a gay gang was the second largest (? or merely very large) in the country or some gang filled area or something. Again, not a single little morsel to back that up.
Would you like me to continue?
if there was any kind of evidence that being gay is an immutable trait one is born with, then you would have cited it long ago.
I've given the same example something like 4 times now. Instead of addressing it, you pretend I never gave it. I shall not give it again, but this another great example of you simple making shit up to fit your prejudices. If you don't like some evidence, just keep pretending your opponent never gave it until he gives up!
If we observed a cell that refused to divide, we would say it is dead or inert.
No, we don't. Heart, brain and neural cells don't generally divide in adults. That's why neurological injuries or heart attacks have such long term effects. I can assure you however that my heart cells are very much alive. Red and white blood cells don't divide either.
Oh there you go! There's another thing you claimed without evidence which is not in fact true.
If we observed a domesticated animal refusing to mate, we would take it to a doctor and ask what is wrong with it.
Doe that apply to any of the following domesticated animals: mules, hinnies, capons, bullocks, gelding, steers, barrows or wethers?. Does it apply to spayed or neutered dogs and cats too? The very fact we have those words proves that we place considerable value on animals for purposes other than mating.
You keep putting forth the "fact" that mating is the only goal in life. This is not a fact. It does not matter how much you mate. In 1e9 years, the earth will run out of free carbon. In 2 or 3e9, the earth will scorch because of the rising luminosity of the sun. In 6e9 years, the earth will fall into the sun and be consumed. Eventually the sun will cool to a black dwarf, red dwarfs will burn out and stellar formation will cease. Breeding won't delay that.
There is no moral reasoning or feel-good explanation needed here. We see how biological machines are generally supposed to operate.
No, we take a non-breeding animal to the vet only if we want it to breed for some specific purpose. We don't attempt to fix every example of non-breeding because we claim to be some enforcer of how biological machines are supposed (and supposed by whom?) to operate. In fact we purposely create animals that can't breed.
Penis is made for vagina,
No, it's not made for: it evolved for. Splitting hairs? You'd like to think so, but no. You lack precision in language when trying to de
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Cool story, bro.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
straw man dude. she sometimes apologizes for actions done during that time though; also rests a lot, feels bad and needs Advil.
hardly a doormat by the way, her daily workout includes an hour on the full body punching bag. Except for three days a month that is....
I never said anything about biology "wanting" anything. All you can do is try to twist my words,
Sure you did. You said:
The reasons that people come up with not to procreate have no basis in reality as far as biology is concerned.
Biology has no concerns. It does. not. care.
Biology "cares" (I will use your own poor word choice) because reproduction is one of the qualities of life as far as the actual science of Biology is concerned.
Life is harder to define than you think. If you naively pick criteria you end up with mules not being alive. But either way, biology doesn't care, and doesn't form any kind of sound basis for morality.
Just do a search of homosexual gangs to see examples of gay street crime.
Ah I see, the onus is now on me to find evidence to support your points.
My point is that there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever
Oh I see, itt's not evidence because you don't like it. Gotya.
At worst, they are sick and depraved individuals.
aaah now your true colours finally show. You couldn't keep in the moralizing any longer, I see :) I knew it would pop out eventually.
Obviously...
No, not obviously. You spew shit then get offended when I don't magically realise what your point is supposed to be under the poorly chosen words you used.
You give examples of domesticated animals...
You're the one who claimed the purpose of domesticated animals is to reproduce, not I.
I am sure you can see that reproduction is a normal and healthy part of a life form on Earth.
It's pretty common, and generally healthy. But by no means universal. Many, many organisms do not reproduce. Many completely healthy individuals are physiologically incapable of doing so (hive dwelling insects and mammals for example). But anyway so what? It's not normal for life to wear clothes. That's uniquely human. It's not normal for life to cook its food either.
If being gay is such a normal and healthy thing, why don't we all try it.
Because we can't. There is no mechanism by which I could choose to be gay. OOh tell you what! Since you believe that gayness is a choice, prove it. Go be gay for a week, then stop. Spend that week fucking men. If you can choose to do it for that week, then I'll concede that it is under your control.
So what? You think that using an appendage other for something other than its evolved intent, while completely ignoring its biological intent is a sign of health and normalcy?
Given our brain evolved to do so, yes.
Do you think bonobos eschew normal breeding to engage in lifelong homosexual behavior? No they stick their dick in whatever, but they don't ascribe to some philosophy that they only screw other male monkeys, you retard.
Ah I see. You came up with an easily disproved claim and your counter is to call me a retard. Smooth.
I am saying reproduction is a fundamental part of life.
What about mules, other hybrids, worker bees, naked mole rats, the wide variety of homosexual animals out there and so on and so forth? They are all alive.
If you are compelled to behavior that completely obviates reproduction, that is what we call unhealthy behavior for a life form.
Except (a) it doesn't---you keep ignoring where I point out the opposite---and (b) it;s what YOU and other like minded moralising closet cases call unhealthy behaviour, not what WE do.
That is different from "wanting to wiping out all life"
So why did you equate the two?
although all life would be wiped out if it engaged in the same practice.
Life is doomed either way.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Because Ukrainians are generally too stupid to run a country. And that "not too long ago" was before both of our fathers were born.
Given that Ukraine was freed in 1944, this is highly unlikely. And given your general attitude your grandfather was probably a Hiwi so he was doing what he was told by Germans.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You are the one spewing propaganda around and besides, 90% of child porn comes from Ukraine. Who is the pervert now?
Well, except when they have brown skin or arab sounding names, then they'll get beaten up by the likes of you. Especially now that Trump won the presidency the likes of you feel suddenly empowered in their xenophobia.
In fact, it is worse than over here. Immigrants stay immigrants in Germany, but if they integrate themselves into the society, they are perfectly accepted. In fact, at my workplace we have an Ukrainian (the worst IT guy I've ever met in my life and the most unpleasant person as well), three Russians (two guys and a gal, all decent software developers), two Arabs, two Croatians, a few Italians and Poles, several Turks - obviously, they are the largest minority after all and so on and so on. Everyone is perfectly well integrated (except the Ukrainian) and respected by the German colleagues (also except the Ukrainian). I actually enjoy the opportunity to practice Russian and learn Croatian since I love Slavic languages (except Polish). Too bad I have no Czech colleagues to practice my (nowadays rusty) Czech as well.
At every workplace in the past it has been exactly the same - many immigrants who weren't treated any different from Germans. In fact, since Germany itself is very fragmented, there were more intra-German rivalries (for example Bavarians were generally disliked in NRW, or the sometimes serious rivalry between the citizens of Frankfurt and citizens of Offenbach).
Lange Rede, kurzer Sinn - don't confuse my strong dislike of you personally and nationalists generally with my attitude to immigrants.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Oh, wow, you are still moving? I may need a new broomstick...
My grandfather was working the long-range bombers, which bombed Berlin in 1941. His brother finished officers-school in 1943 and commanded an artillery battery with sufficient distinction to get join the "Red Banner" order. In Ukraine.
There there. Straight from Putin TV — whoever wishes for independent Ukraine, must have been a German collaborator. Sorry to disappoint, but they weren't taking Jews into Hilfswilliger. You probably have heard of it — it was quiet a controversy for a while.
More of the KGB-sponsored talking points — whoever is for strong America, must be a racist.
Baseless and totally false accusations — slander, actually.
Separate but equal, right? Thank you for confirming my point — and accepting my accusation. Like I said, a German has no right to lecture Americans on the treatment of immigrants.
Its been less than 100 years since a German led my great-grandmother to Babiy Yar. Today, his asshole descendant is telling me of the evils of "nationalism"? Wow... Had you been trolling, this would've been a good one, but you are on defensive and thus obviously sincere. Sincerely stupid...
He-he... You are doing the lecturing wrong too...
I neither know nor care for your attitude towards immigrants. The entire nation of Germany has a long way to go, before it has the moral standing to lecture Americans on the subject of interracial relations and nationalism.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So I've already denied it was sexism; in fact, that's how I entered this thread. Just what kind of "scientist" were you anyway? Gender studies? Social sciences?
Bro, do you even read? You made a claim, I made a counter argument, and you made no further comment. That's called losing the argument.
Nope. GGP made a claim. I denied his claim. My first post to this thread was a denial, stating my position - you want I must continue restating the same position? Why?
Will you make a new /. ID to post again in 4 years when all the doom-and-gloom you're predicting fails to materialise?
again? this is is about 13 years old. And what predictions have I made, eh? I could use some insight into your weird fantasy. I look forwards to you claiming I've made all sorts of claims that other people made because libruhls all think the same amirite?
Well, *you* are quite predictable, so no surprises there. However, you've made plenty of claims about how Trump is the next Hitler, and about all the bad things that will happen if Trump is president. I look forward to seeing your posts when those doom-and-gloom predictions of yours do not materialise.
I predict that you will either go silent on your claims of doom-and-gloom, or you will say that your predictions failed because he was actively prevented from doing what you said he will do, and from becoming what you said he will become. Remember, I predicted both that he'll win and that he'll adopt more moderate positions.
A hallmark of good science is testing your predictions. If the test fails it's not reality that is wrong, it's your hypothesis.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
There's no evidence any more that women are getting paid less for the same job.
There is substantial evidence that women get paid less than men for the same jobs. It's not even a debate. Your assertion is plainly contradicted by the evidence. Women get paid less even after controlling for factors like child rearing, working hours, education, etc.
Hardly a straw man since you set your wife up in this spot (and maybe go try to answer some of my other far more insightful posts to you rather than focus on this incredibly minor one).
To be honest, I could care less about your wife since I'm talking to you which I felt I made clear when I said "Not that I think your wife is some sort of divine arbiter for all things women mind you. In fact I thought it was funny you basically said "Not-uh I asked my wife" as if that has some sort of major influence in the world." In another post to you.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I appreciate the knowledge. Would have thanked you for it sooner, but I'm behind in my correspondence.
If you have an apple and 50 oranges, does the apple stop being an apple? You're fucking stupid. Racism is racism, it doesn't matter how often one group or the other is the victim. People like you don't seem to understand this, and that's part of the problem. If you want true equality, you can't scream at someone for being racist and then proceed to be racist yourself. Now do us all a favor, sit down and shut up. You're so ignorant and stupid on the subject it's astonishing.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
It's about mutual respect. If you can't have mutual respect you won't have an end to the problem. The "mutual" part is the thing you seem to be having problems with.
How do you think statements like the ones Manveer makes improve the situation for other races? If anything, it gives the truly racist white people more reason to want them gone.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
You're quite confident in your "colorblindness"...just don't fool yourself into thinking it isn't harmful.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Common sense tells us that two wrongs don't make a right no matter how much you'd like them to. If you stopped to think about it, randomly blaming every white person for problems generated by a very small subset is bad enough - you can and will create white on black racism with that. If you continually make someone the bad guy without any reasonable provocation you'll just wind up with a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What's worse is when you think that racism perpetrated by the very few justifies racism as a whole. An attitude that is in and of itself racist. If you really want tolerance and equality (which you don't seem to want at all, what you really want is one group that has more rights than everyone else) then you wouldn't tolerate it in any context at all regardless of who is the instigator and who is the recipient.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
By condoning and defending "hate speech" of their own while defining it as anything that breaks leftist narratives, they're becoming the ones that aren't civil.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That's complete tosh.
While proof has shown otherwise. Look at those who use favored positions on platforms like Twitter(where a leftist will never be banned or disciplined, but conservatives will) or Reddit (e.g. the edits made from the Fuck Spez incident) to harass others.
Oh, and your sig needs to be revised to say "This is fascism, Clinton fits."
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
problems generated by a very small subset
Ahaha if only that were true! Racism would be as small of a problem as colorblind people believe it is. Klansmen, neo-nazis, and racist old men from the South are actually the smallest part of the problem, the jutting tip of the iceberg. They're easy to defeat because they acknowledge what they're doing and can be easily marginalized. The majority of white people (in the US) are in fact responsible for the majority of racism through unconscious efforts such as the colorblindness you're advocating, and because they don't even know they're doing it and will invariably deny their involvement when confronted with the damage they've been doing, it's an incredibly hard problem to solve.
you can and will create white on black racism with that. If you continually make someone the bad guy without any reasonable provocation you'll just wind up with a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And here we are having a discussion on race centered around the protection of white feelings. A discussion where you categorically absolve virtually all white people of any responsibility by simply not recognizing the reality of their unconscious racism. This is colorblindness in full force, a safe space for white people who want to avoid confronting race issues, composed of an impenetrable turtle-shell of denial with egalitarian posters on the inside for reassurance. It's not "actively racist" and blinds adherents to the very "passive" racism it perpetuates, which is good enough to keep it going forever I guess?
What's worse is when you think that racism perpetrated by the very few justifies racism as a whole. An attitude that is in and of itself racist.
No, I'm saying that it's not racist to point out that in the US, most white people have a racism problem because they in fact do. Just as surely as white South Africans during apartheid did, except that present-day Americans' problem is subtle and mostly unconscious.
Recognition of this fact is colorblindness kryptonite, and most of Manveer's posts which have been called racist are only identified as such for highlighting this fact in some way or mocking its denial (such as making fun of the idea that anti-white racism is just as common and damaging as any other form of racism in the US). He's not helping by being dismissive and mocking instead of trying to have a meaningful and informative debate, but to call it racism only serves to deny the reality of the problem and perpetuate it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel