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!
And they wonder why Trump won?
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?!?!
Ah, yes. Let's ban, ban, ban on our way to obscurity.
The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
You need a safe space?
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 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
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/
I support Twitter having the choice to make any rules they want within the law.
Yes. The real issue in this story is not that Twitter is free to make their own rules for their own service, but that the American Bar Association defines "hate speech" as "speech that offends". Rational people would be offended by the ABA's definition, so the ABA is itself guilty of hate speech.
I don't consider it hate speech to offend, and insulting people who share the "other trait" of "being criminals" isn't, either. In fact, just insulting people shouldn't be.
And all of its users are free to stop using their service
I walked away from them the day they started dumping "sponsored tweets" into my client. Didn't lose anything at all.
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.
Won't happen. Those who walk away from Twitter because they object to Twitter's rules will figure out they don't need a Twitter-alike, and there will be enough people who seek a place where they think they won't be offended by anything anyone says to keep Twitter alive forever. Counting the number of the latter would be like counting the number of snowflakes in a blizzard.
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!
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's only a First Amendment issue if the government is taking the action to limit or suppress your speech. Twitter could ban someone for any reason they like. They could have a ban for cats are better than dogs if they wanted. Nobody's free speech would be violated. Similarly, Slashdot could decide to ban people for any reason they want. This is their site and they get to determine who posts here and who doesn't. To give an offline example, it would be like someone in your house going on a rant. You have the right to ask them to leave. If they don't, you can call the police to eject them by force if necessary. The person being booted from your house has no right to complain that you are infringing on his freedom of speech because it's your house and your rules as to what speech is allowed and what isn't.
On the other hand, If President Trump declared that nobody was allowed to say that he had small hands, then that would be an example of the government infringing on our free speech rights. This would be a government official (or entity in the case of Congress passing a theoretical "Trump Hand Size Protection Act") regulating what we could and could not say.
One last point. Free speech is not absolute. I can't wave a knife at you, shout "I'm going to kill you" and expect to escape the legal system by claiming First Amendment rights. This is where "hate speech" originates. From people trying to make threats to people (based on their race, religion, etc) and then claim that it was just free speech. I'll admit that it's gotten expanded and overused to the point that many people laugh at the mere concept of hate speech. It does still exist, though, and the people who overuse it hurt the cause by cheapening the phrase. I will also admit that it's hard to define since what one person thinks is an innocuous comment could sound threatening to someone else.
And, yes, I've been the target of hate speech. In high school, a kid who was known for worshiping Hitler and who knew I was Jewish told me to my face that his only problem with Hitler was that he didn't finish the job and all Jews should be killed. This was clearly meant to intimidate me and make me scared of him - though all it did was make me want to punch him right in his nose. (I'm not violent at all, but I had to be held back that day.) One on one, I could definitely have taken this guy, but suppose he had five friends with him and they all were telling me how someone needed to "finish what Hitler started" (what the kid told me that day). I'd definitely be scared for my safety without them touching me at all.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's twitter. They don't need the fucking government in order to operate their services.
"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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
They are - not facetiously, seriously - quaking in their boots.
My personal hope is that CDA section 230 is repealed. It is a distinct possibility. The follow-on effects will be delicious for actual freedom of expression. It'll also break all the social media giants. And good riddance to the whole bunch.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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!
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.
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.
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
Because like brexit, if you support Trump, you are automatically a racist, bigot, sexist etc. No matter what actual real reasoning used to support Trump. People don't want it attached to their identity due to the harassment, shouting down and inaccurate name calling of supporters recieved instead of having a conversation lead to many people not discussing it and just voting in the booths, the use of anonymous posting is another.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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.
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."
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.
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.
I could maybe accept that argument if Trump were saying things that were truly racist, sexist, etc. If he were tweeting things like "I wish black people would go back to Africa" or "Man, I hate women" or "I think Asians are inferior to white people" then yeah, I could see your point. But when the SJW left has so expanded the definitions of "racism," "sexism" to include saying things like "I think we should deport illegal aliens" or "I think we should build a wall on our border" or "I love fucking supermodels" then the terms have lost all meaning. Calling someone a racist/sexist/blah/blah just because they disagree with a radical social agenda that's completely out-of-line with mainstream America is part of what got Trump elected (and what's probably going to help get him reelected in 2020).
And just remember that the same vile paintbrush can be used by the other side too. 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? Well, it cuts both ways. The lower you sink, the lower your opponents will sink too.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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.
Twitter's online service is categorically not like anyone's home, so what I call that hypothetical situation is irrelevant.
If that is your example of racist, sorry but you have not experienced racism.
150 years ago blacks were slaves, the GOP and whites fought to the death to free them.
50 years ago blacks were treated as second class citizens, again the GOP fought to give them equal status despite the DNC opposition.
That is racism. Trump calling out a "gold star parent" after making unfair attacks on him is not racism (Clinton voted for the war that their son to be killed NOT Trump). Trump not remembering who David Duke is the first time he is brought up in the campaign is not racism.
Grow up. Trump is not racist and you are not helping your cause making false accusations, you are making your side look like crybabies.
Thanks for clarifying that none of the tweets Trump has posted violates Twitter's rules.
Proof that Obama made the IRS do any such thing, thank you. The president is not all-powerful, you know. He does not micromanage every part of the government.
Eat the rich.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
since you obviously think that the constitution only applies to people like yourself and their opinions.
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
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.
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