Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Announces (More) Hate-Speech Fighting Tools (Again) (cnn.com)
Building on anti-harassment tools announced in November, Twitter is now "trying to shake its reputation as a haven for online harassment" with still more new internal algorithms and features, reports CNN. An anonymous reader quotes their report:
The changes include preventing serial abusers from creating new accounts, a new "safe search" function and blocking potentially abusive and "low-quality" tweets from appearing in conversations, Twitter's engineering chief Ed Ho said in a blog post. Twitter is working on identifying users that have been permanently suspended and prevent them from creating new accounts, Ho said. This new measure specifically targets "accounts that are created only to abuse and harass others," he said, a problem that has long plagued the platform.
The new safe search function prevents tweets that are abusive, or from blocked and muted accounts, from appearing in users' search results. Those tweets can still be found if people want to see them, but they "won't clutter search results any longer," Ho said. And Twitter will now collapse tweet replies that are potentially abusive or low quality -- like duplicate tweets or content that appears to be automated. But those tweets "will still be accessible to those who seek them out," Ho said.
The blog post announces Twitter's ultimate goal is "a significant impact that people can feel," arguing that freedom of speech for all viewpoints is "put in jeopardy when abuse and harassment stifle and silence those voices."
The new safe search function prevents tweets that are abusive, or from blocked and muted accounts, from appearing in users' search results. Those tweets can still be found if people want to see them, but they "won't clutter search results any longer," Ho said. And Twitter will now collapse tweet replies that are potentially abusive or low quality -- like duplicate tweets or content that appears to be automated. But those tweets "will still be accessible to those who seek them out," Ho said.
The blog post announces Twitter's ultimate goal is "a significant impact that people can feel," arguing that freedom of speech for all viewpoints is "put in jeopardy when abuse and harassment stifle and silence those voices."
âoePolitical correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.â
and
"Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be manners"
- George Carlin
Twitter wants to have it both ways: it wants to have a big room where they can put in all the liberals and conservatives, all the Islamists and Zionists, and have them talk about whatever is happening in their world... and then it wants them all to get along. It doesn't work that way.
To put it more technically, Twitter's problem is that, as a social network, it reflects a connected graph of hundreds of millions of people. A lot of those people aren't going to like each other very much. Now they're making themselves responsible for the safety of their users, and that does two really bad things:
1) It announces that Twitter is presently an unsafe platform, and
2) It puts them in the middle of whatever fight any two people might have, equipped with no tools to resolve the underlying conflicts that drive those fights, and only their own subjective morals (with all the attendant biases those bring) to resolve them.
Twitter is at war with itself here.
Twitter will be going down a long dark path as long as they allow white cis females in positions of power to run all the "little" people out of Twitter.
Let me give you an example of "Hate Speech" that I have been harassed and attacked over saying, including on this very website.
"There are only two genders. Male and Female."
Which pretty much sums up the problem with fighting "hate speech." The regressive left has co-opted and twisted the meaning of the already meaningless term "hate speech" -- along with other terms like "racism" or "nazi" -- to the point that they've lost all semblance of meaning.
But "Twitter announces more [UnAmerican Political Censorship] tools (Again.)" doesn't have the same kick to it, I guess.
Jack and Marissa should get together and compare notes on how to fuck a once prominent company.
Dearly Beloved, please let me be young enough to join the Trump Youth.
And of course, the thin-skinned Twitter twits get to decide what's "abusive" or "low-quality."
They have no problem with censorship, as long as they're the ones doing the censoring.
Do you know who the *real* brownshirts were? They called themselves socialists fighting fascism and liberalism (Nazi being short for national socialist in German). They would show up at opponent political rallies and start a fight. Or infiltrate opposing organizations as someone in the crowd and start a fight to make the other org look bad. Look to who is doing that now, and try again. Seriously you should read up on them. It is actually pretty fascinating how he came to power and used the groups against each other. Then once he had power he took them out. Jews were not the only ones who went to the camps. To see someone compare what is going on now to the third Reich is actually kind of insulting to the intelligence of anyone who actually reads history.
Go TarHeels!
@jack doesn't care what someone says if they are on his side politically. However, if you happen to offend someone on @jack's side, twitter will shut someone down with no warning and little explanation.
After banning (and shadowbanning) quite a lot of Trump supporters, it seems like the Brownshirt alliance of Anti-Trump fascists is now only allowed to persist, but to prosper.
Ask the people in Berkely who just wanted to hear Milo Yannopolis speak but were assaulted with flagpoles instead just who are the violent brownshirts of today...
But I guess you consider it OK to beat women with flagpoles because they are just Trump supporters, right?
Watch that video, I dare you to come back and say that Trump supporters are the brownshirts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I recently came to learn what Left and Right used to mean, and when that definition is applied, the main difference between what the so-called left and right is what they want the government to tell the people they have to do. Right apparently used to mean that a person didn't want the government telling people what to do.
"There are only two genders. Male and Female."
Disproved by genetics. Your own science disagrees with you. You must be some kind of ignorant idiot. Go educate yourself.
Ignoring your textbook SJW stupidity... (Genetically XX and XY are the two genders. Everything else is a birth defect.)
See everyone? Point proven.
What does Japanese theatre have to do with anything?
Shut down twitter, nobody wants to buy it anyways, and tell those feminist whiners to go back to tumblr.
Blasphemy reporting about a faith or cults reaction to cartoons? No cartoons posted, links to cartoons? SJW approved news sites about cartoons that might show cartoons then also get banned?
Communist party officials don't like been reminded of any terms surrounding Tiananmen Square and the use of numbers like 1989?
Whats left on the site that teams of SJW approve of?
Celebrities posting about events or their new projects? Only happy movie reviews are allowed by teams of SJW?
Governments posting "fictional" accounts of tourism in their repressive nations?
No mention of human rights issues or import/export deals to support wars?
SJW approved officials promoting their city or town projects can be helped to trend?
People posting real news or comments about such policies are removed and reported to their own governments?
Everyone fun or interesting expecting freedom of speech and freedom after speech will just follow the fun people to real US sites offering real freedoms.
Been banned and reported on by gov workers from other nations, by SJW and other groups does not make interesting people want to stay with any brand offering social media.
Censorship by a SJW in the name of a faith, gov, political party is not a selling point that attracts users.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
You just don't like that I poke fun at AC's like you.
Just like the Dems did, paying people to start fights at Trump rallies during the election.
Hey, nobody said they have a problem with censorship.
Yes. we should support a 0 tolerance policy for those who preach hatred and intolerance. We must round up and either kill or deport all those individuals and groups that do not want a multi-ethnic multicultural plurality of post national association of cultures.
Truth be told there has always been hate. Those who rally against hatred are generally the most hateful and least understanding of the irony of their position. White liberals who hate those white conservatives who hate the erosion of their culture are totally unaware that the 'latino' and 'black' cultures hate the white culture and especially the doo good ' cum by yah' cracker craziness exhibited in places like Portland.
Think about this... If all the white men were to vanish tomorrow, there would still be hate. Hate will go on and on and on...
But I am gland Twitter is taking a stance against this. I think it will succeed for sure.
The social expression of ones sex (gender) is disproved by... genetics? Genes govern whether we wear trousers or skirts? If we like pink or blue? If we are tops or bottoms? Or did you mean sex? The physical expression of ones genes.
And this, in a nutshell, is a large part of the problem. The words sex and gender are used by different people to mean different things.
Yes, your particular subculture has decided to define gender to mean "whether we wear trousers or skirts. If we like pink or blue." This particular definition has not been adopted universally within the English language.
From Merriam Webster, you apparently think definition 2b is the only definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
Definition of gender
1
a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c : an inflectional form (see inflection 3a) showing membership in such a subclass
2
a : sex ("the feminine gender")
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Fuck you indo-chimp, none of your business, get the fuck out my country and back to your caves, finish evolving out of monkey.
It almost seems as though Twitter's going down the same road as Apple & Microsoft, chasing unicorns. It won't end well.
There are technically four genders: XX, XY, X0, XXY.
I don't mind if X0 or XXY want to have a sex change to look/feel more like a normal XX or XY. Let them. It probably means the doctor made a bad choice when they were infants.
But anyone who's XX or XY and claims to be the other gender needs to immediately see a psychiatrist (as opposed to a psychologist) and get put on some strong anti-delusional meds.
do you realize that Nazi stands for National Socialism ?
I was writing a lengthy response that contained observations and conjectures about social media, when I hit upon one important factor. For some reason YouTube and Twitter seem to have sort of "media darlings", and that factor more than any other seems to indicate whether harassment happens.
Wouldn't this be a much nicer world if we just gave all leftists Uncle Dolphie's Gas and Grill treatment?
I don't really care for the content of that post to be protected, but I know that if I start drawing lines, it will only encourage people to draw lines that endanger speech that I think should be protected.
Twitter allows you to follow and block people. That alone seems like "Free Speech" to me. I don't believe you gain much by 140 characters and links, and quite frankly never thought it would be as popular as it is. I thought it would be Nagios channels for everyone who needed it. That said, you don't have to read things you dislike and can sign up for things you like.
Twitter got into trouble by blocking Free Speech. Many people stopped using it or went on the offensive because of Twitter blocking people who Twitter's board and execs didn't like politically. People banned from Twitter were all of the same political view. Same crap as we see on campuses with claims of "violent speech" so that physically attacking people and damaging property are justified, "violent" and "hate" speech were used to justify banning people. Death threats, calls to violence, calls to riot, and personal attack abound targeting conservatives. Twitter laughs them off as "those people are just joking". They have continued to ratchet up the political blocking instead of looking at why their platform has turned to crap. Twitter is extremely averse to ban people who are abusive on the left.
Yeah yeah, Twitter is not the Government so they don't have to protect first amendment rights and all that. Food for thought: Remember when a teenager went to jail for saying on Facebook that he'd like to shoot President Obama? Well how many people have gone to jail for threatening to shoot Trump exactly?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think there is still an #assassinatetrump tag.
Thousands of such threats are posted all the time.
On the hand, Twitter has recently disabled the account of a cartoonist, with 1.3 million followers, because he offended a feminist.
Any kind of anti-white hate is fine. Okay for Muslims to post hateful tweets against Jews, or anybody else, but it is not okay to offend Muslims.
Right means conservative. Left means liberal. Conservative means "let's do the things we have always done." Liberal means "let's change how we do everything"
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Oh, it's protected. It's just not protected in my fucking house. Or in Twitter's fucking house.
And the person posting that does not have a right to demand there are no consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Funny how Twitter pretty much ignored complaints and requests from users to implement tools to stop harassment and hate speech for the longest time back when this all started, several years ago waaaay before everything that the election brought with it, but now that the company's ass is on the line with failing stock prices they finally decided to do something about it... I'm guessing too little too late. Just too many users lost because of the problems they refused to solve.
Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.
The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.
This video is an excellent illustration of how the media lies about "online abuse" (and how even the crumbs that are true are exaggerated for false impact):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
P.S. It's also entertaining as Hell cuz Milo's a riot.
There are two sets of traits that are genetically necessary for human reproduction. Most of the characteristics for those traits are encoded on X and Y chromosomes. I am not sure what traits that are required for reproduction are contained elsewhere. Also, the traits encoded on those chromosomes include traits not necessary for reproduction. So, no it isn't as simple as people make it out to be. And I avoided the terms sex or gender in this analysis on purpose.
Have I missed a change in law? My understanding is that phone companies, ISPs, etc., are not responsible for what is carried on their network because they are considered "common carriers". However, it seems to me that the more a company "curates" the content it carries, the greater the responsibility it has for that content. I'm wondering whether Twitter has stepped into a huge legal minefield by effectively censoring content that is not clearly illegal.
It's not bigotry if you hate a white culture, it's only bigotry if you hate brown people. Keep drinking the fucking koolade.
If the government doesn't get to tell people what to do, why even have a government? Just let people do whatever they want and see what happens.
2. Delete anyone who uses all CAPS LOCK
Doesn't fix everything, but the volume would reduce dramatically.
Liberal: "Hey, let's try this new thing!"
Conservative: [sound of door being slammed] "Sorry, we're closed now."
-- Steve Martin
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
That seems to be what it generally means now, but what gives you any indication that is what it means historically? I asked Reddit to explain what was so wrong with Fascism, my way of asking what are the essential characteristics of Fascism without giving away that the way it is used these days gives me no indication of what Fascism actually is, and they came up with alternative definitions of Left and Right: https://www.reddit.com/r/expla...
That is one of the beliefs behind some people's desires for smaller government, the Right under the definition that has the appearance of being somewhat historical. Note my use of one and some.
Right means conservative. Left means liberal. Conservative means "let's do the things we have always done." Liberal means "let's change how we do everything"
That has never really been true, and it certainly isn't true today, when many liberals want go back to the social policies of the 1960s and the economic policies of the 1950s.
I think the main difference between right and left is not the policies, but the justification for the policies. The right justifies their policies by saying they are good for the country, while the left says their policies are good for the citizens. The actual policies are not that different. Donald and Bernie have much more in common with each other than either has with moderates.
It's pretty obvious that you just enjoy being contrarian and have no real content to add.
Donald and Bernie have much more in common with each other than either has with moderates.
If you truly believe that, then you have your head up your ass.
Do you realize that the Nazis considered themselves a traditionalist party of the future, and were relentless exploiters of whatever was convenient for them to utilize, no matter how dishonest or inconsistent.
They were also quite eager to associate their opponents with whatever negative traits they could find.
Communists, Anarchists, Jews, Atheists, whatever was handy.
do you mean the same as being treated of "racist", "bigots", "misogynist" ?
Republicans and Liberals are both different flavours of far right.
Green party might be considered somewhere in the middle.
There's no left since they were mostly hunted down and shot during the "communist scare"
Damn right! Punch a nazi!
Fucking facist scum
With no real content to add. If you really had any evidence to what you say, you would say more than what amounts to, "Uhn Uh, you're wrong,"
Universal Anarchists are the far Right, from what I can figure.
I find it strange that some people believe that they have a right to be on a private website. What I find even stranger is that many of the people arguing that Twitter is somehow being unfair also support the idea of "my business, my rules" but persist on complaining anyway. If you don't like twitter, there are other sites you can visit. Secondly, you don't have the right to be read by other people. People are free to ignore you, regardless of your cause, just or otherwise.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud owns more stock in Twitter than Jack Dorsey.
In any case, none of this will help Twitter. Let's not kid ourselves, the only thing that makes Twitter even marginally interesting is that people aren't shy to be mean to each other; without that, the platform has nothing.
Erh... I hope you still mean that freedom of speech does mean freedom of state controlled consequences. Else the old joke Radio Yerevan starts to work in the US.
Question to great Radio Yerevan: Is there freedom of speech in Soviet Union?
Answer from great Radio Yerevan: In principle, yes. But not necessarily after the speech.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do you realize that the Nazis considered themselves a traditionalist party of the future, and were relentless exploiters of whatever was convenient for them to utilize, no matter how dishonest or inconsistent.
They were also quite eager to associate their opponents with whatever negative traits they could find.
Communists, Anarchists, Jews, Atheists, whatever was handy.
Ah, they were original SJW.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%22and%20while%20Trump%20was%20claiming%22&src=typd&lang=en
This phrase was tweeted like en masse back in June, probably due to a misconfigured bot setting from the Correct The Record (now ShareBlue) botnet. They all still seem to come up on a twitter search, though.
Maybe they are just interested in shutting down conservative spam, not the liberal type?
None of that "up to moderator discretion" BS.
For example, Kellyanne Conway is known for saying/writing things (including untruths) which results in a torrent of hostile and trolling tweets sent her way.
Other prominent figures such as journalists and activists are also known to say things (including untruths) that result in hostile tweet storms directed their way.
Would a barrage of calling someone dumb constitute abuse and harassment? We need clarity and transparency.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
How will that work? Social media users could get a new ip from their ISP as part of low cost ISP accounts.
So if not every ISP account gives out a static IP whats the next step in tracking banned users?
Linguistic analysis?
Expect the banned user to reuse some of the same details when creating a new account?
Seeing who quickly comments on a new account and see if they had a past connection with a banned user?
Ask governments globally to track banned users ISP logs and see if they create a new account?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Seek professional help before you cut off your nuts. Just sayin'...
If the board of Twitter directors think it is a good idea then sure, why not? If they lose clicks then they will roll back on the policy.
False. American conservatism is small, limited government. American liberalism is "Government is God and can solve all of humanity's problems if we just have more of it". Most of American Conservatives dislike both Democrats and Republicans because they are both for Big Government. What you describe are traditionalists. Our Founding Fathers were conservatives. Comparing them to people who say "Let's do the things we have always done" is beyond ridiculous.
I don't have a Twitter account so all those fucktards have no voice in my universe. What's your excuse?
Given how wide "hate speech" can be defined with the political correctness fascists, there is no chance at all this will be used for censorship.
Free speech should be unalienable.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
No, you lack basic knowledge of politics.
1791 - The Democratic-Republican Party is formed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson against Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans strongly opposed government overreach and expansion, the creation of a national bank, and corruption.
1804 - Andrew Jackson purchases the plantation that will become his primary source of wealth.
1824 - The Democratic-Republican Party split. The new Democrats were supported by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, and the National Republicans were supported by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.
1828 - Andrew Jackson is elected President of the United States.
1830 - Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, whereby the Cherokee and other native tribes were to be forcibly removed from their lands.
1831 - Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, whereby the Supreme Court ruled that Cherokee Nation was sovereign and the U.S. had no jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Andrew Jackson had already started to enforce the removal of the Choctaw.
1832-33 - The Whig Party is formed in opposition to Jackson’s government expansion and overreach in the Nullification Crisis and the establishment of a Second National Bank. The Whig Party successfully absorbs the National Republican Party.
1838 - Many Indian tribes had been forcibly removed. Under Jackson, General Winfield Scott and 7,000 soldiers forced the Cherokee from their land at bayonet point while their homes were pillaged. They marched the Cherokee more than 1,200 miles to the allocated Indian territory. About 5,000 Cherokee died on the journey due to starvation and disease.
1854 - The Whig Party dissolves over the question of the expansion of slavery. Anti-slavery Whigs and anti-slavery democrats form the Republican Party with their sole goal being to end slavery.
1861 -The election of President Lincoln spurs the beginning of the Civil War.
1862 - Lincoln writes a letter where he declares he wishes to preserve the union regardless of the morals on slavery. He issues the Emancipation Proclamation, whereby all slaves in Union territories had to be freed. As states came under Union control, those slaves too had to be freed.
1863 - Frederick Douglass, former slave and famous Republican abolitionist, meets with Lincoln on the suffrage of emancipated slaves.
1864 - Lincoln revised his position on slavery in a letter to Albert G. Hodges stating “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”
1865 - Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrenders at the Appomattox Courthouse to Union victory. After Lincoln’s Assassination, Democrat President Johnson issues amnesty to rebels and pardons the slave owners of their crimes.
1865 - The 13th Amendment which ended slavery passed with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat support in congress.
1866 - The Klu Klux Klan is formed by Confederate veterans to intimidate black and Republicans through violence, lynching, and public floggings. They gave open support to the Democrat Party.
1866 - The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is vetoed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson. Every single Republican voted and overturned the veto.
1868 - The 14th Amendment which gave citizenship to freed slaves passed with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The first grand wizard of the KKK, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest is honored at the
1968 Democratic National Convention.
1868 - Representative James Hinds who taught newly freedmen of their rights is murdered by the KKK.
1870 - The 15th Amendment which gave freed slaves the right to vote passed with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
1871 - The violence of the KKK grew so savage that congress passed the Enforcement Acts to repress their influence.
1875 - Democrat Senator William Saulsbury speaks out against the Civil RIghts Act of 1875, claiming it will allow “colored men shall sit at the same table beside the white guest; that he shall enter the same parlor and take his seat beside the wife and daughter of the white man, whether
Everything is fine until the trolls and griefers outnumber the normal users by 10 or 20 to 1... then it all becomes a shit show.
But that's wrong. The largest group of abusive posters aren't likely serial offenders- normal users that don't usually post abusive comments are the group responsible for the vast majority of abuse.
In Wikipedia's case, "80% of attacks come from the over 9000 users who have made fewer than 5 attacking comments", as per a research paper available here. (https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08914).
Sure, 10% of abuse comes from a very small minority of users. But that low-hanging fruit is an insignificant fraction compared to the rest of the userbase. It's also worth noting that anonymous comments are also not a large part of this problem either; sure, an anonymous account is more likely than a registered account to post abuse, but those instances are dwarfed by the number of registered accounts posting abuse.
And I'm not convinced that Twitter is significantly different as the motivations are the same in both cases: post and comment on stuff they're interested in.
It's unlikely that any given user starts off wanting to abuse other users; their state of mind is the limiting factor as to whether they refrain or contribute to political discourse, or how politely or abusive they are while doing so. And while that state of mind might be much more challenged by the political nature of content on Twitter itself, most users aren't 100% abusive- it's always a mix.
The problem is in solving for "regular user had a bad day"; something no amounts of captchas, algorithms, or anonymity-destroying features your site implements is ever going to solve. This abuse floor is currently the price of entry- whether or not Twitter offers enough content for that price is still up for debate.
Damn, I almost became involved in "social" media.
Is this how an SJW is made?
Lordy, I do get carried away, sometimes.
Thank gawd, I'm anti-social, and on /.
For fuck's sake, people. It's Twitter! Quit feeding them thar trolls.
It's dead, Jim.
Cool. Someone should beat the shit out of you then, to demonstrate what you are advocating, and what you deserve.
And the politically leftist management doesn't understand why they are losing money & why their stock goes down...
Freedom = money! That's all folks.
2017:
Republican = represents the preferences of rural counties (aka "fly-over country")
Democrat = represents the preferences of urban counties (aka "them big-city folk")
You've purposely ignored the switch that occurred between Lincoln's Republicans and today's Republicans.
So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.
Here's another source:
1896: William Jennings Bryan incorporates the Populist Party vote, giving the democrats a sizable left wing on economics that it didn't have before.
1912: Theodore Roosevelt breaks from the republicans and runs as the candidate of the Progressive Party - this makes the republican progressive wing - once a third to a half of the republican coalition, much less committed to the party going forward and they never really reconcile. Republican leadership comes more and more from its conservative wing after that.
1932-45: Franklin Roosevelt essentially adopts most of the old Progressive platform and pretty much incorporates that whole vote into his Democratic coalition. This puts the party on a collision course when it comes to social policy.
1964: Lyndon Johnson essentially divorces the longest marriage the democratic party had: the one with southern whites. By making Civil Rights part of the Democratic platform, the republicans lose basically all of what's left of their black constituencies - which had been a significant part of their remaining progressive vote in northern urban areas. The democrats start to hemorrhage southern whites rapidly - you see George Wallace run for president in 1968.
2000: The process is 98% complete. By this time liberals are in the democrats and conservatives in the republicans for the most part.
thats how 'murika was made great. haven't you been paying attention to revisionist history of north america since 1630?
What you're describing is minarchism, most closely aligned in the US with libertarianism, and not at all conservatism.
Women, on the other hand, control 85% of purchases made in the United States, and with that comes clout. It's more important to Twitter that women find its service congenial than some pack of alienated, juvenile blowhards.
Women "make" 85% of the purchases, but that is not control. I would argue that the opposite. Women ARE controlled by media, advertising, messaging, and social pressure to "make" purchases. If you want to believe in equality 50% of the money in circulation comes from men. Are the women stealing men's money? (Generally speaking men bring home _more_ money than women, as you would expect. That's not bias, it's called motherhood.)
The distinction is important.
Does Twitter help economically? Not really. It's a much more successful tool for boycotts, and has been used for that effect with success.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Unfortunately for you, a majority of SJWs are racists.
SJWs calling conservative black people "Uncle Tom" (Larry Elder, Ben Carson), calling Asian conservatives "Traitors to their race" and "Self hating $*&@" (Michelle Malkin), etc.. has been normalized by the left. They are a religion, and has become far more dangerous to the US than other Religions. Hell, the Westboro Baptist Church was 16 wackos yelling slurs at people and was demonized by Media and largely ignored. The Left has exponentially more people and the Media treats them like heroes.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"1953 - Senator Robert Byrd is elected into congress and remains a staunch Democrat until his death in 2010. He was a prominent member in the KKK and praised by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton."
This kind of fuckwittery completely belittles your argument.
Racism in US politics today is a problem, primarily, of the GOP, and the story you should be plotting is the story of the GOP. Why, in the 1970s, did they pivot towards racism? Answer: The Southern Strategy. A deliberate, structured, planned appeal to racism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
If all you can cling to is that Byrd used to be a KKK member (an organisation he repeatedly and regularly repudiated long before his praise from Obama) and that the Democratic Party used to be the party of racism, rather than the OBVIOUS AND FUCKING UNDENIABLE FACT that the GOP is now the party of racism, you need help.
Byrd, for what it is worth, did everything he possibly could to make up for his past racist beliefs and received this eulogy from the NAACP:
https://donate.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd
Get a grip or shut up.
CAPTCHA: recycled. Like your list.
Oh, so we're judging ideologies by how a minority of supporters behave?
We do when the majority it does not condemn, and mostly cheers violent action... it was not a minority of people cheering on that "nazi punching" video. That's all great until people realize you are the Nazi... good luck with what you have normalized and deemed acceptable.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No facial in the ending, -1 egg!
Arbitrary? Really?
You either have XX or XY chromosomes in every cell of your body if you are a normal human. Even if you go through hormone therapy and sexual re-assignment surgery your cells contain the same chromosomes.
Everything else is a birth defect and considered a syndrome. (Turner's syndrome, Klinefelter's syndrome, etc..)
Like you are doing, that group you mentioned in the 1930s didn't like science much either when it hurt their ideology. Your pathetic appeal to emotion does not counter facts.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There are 2 genders and multiple disorders. Far more than the 2 you display here, but then again it's no surprise that SJWs ignore science to promote their ideology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Rights are given to all humans by nature, we call these "Natural Rights". Natural rights have been a foundation most western governments for over a thousand years, and smaller governments longer still. The US Government codified their belief in Natural Rights in the Declaration of Independence. Individual rights (Liberties) needed to protect our natural rights under a Government are covered in the US Constitution.
You have a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Individual rights are your right to free speech, or your right to defend yourself.
The Government's job is to ensure that we all have our rights and liberties and defend those rights and liberties from both internal and external threats. If you attack someone for speaking the Government should arrest you for interfering with another person's rights. It is also codified to prevent the Government from removing your rights.
"Just let people do whatever" is pretty much the idea of Conservatism, as long as our Rights are protected. The people on the "Right" believe in limited Government, and see Government as the biggest threats to our Rights. The people on the "Left" believe in big government which is involved in every aspect of life.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Look, you set rules for using the service..
they are broken, ban the individual from using the service, block the host name, block the IP, block the MAC addr, the list goes on..
or, get lazy, and offload that stuff on to the constituents whom use the service..Self fulfilling..
so make some tools, unleash them to the community, and tell them too manage your down falls.
Why should twitter spend any $ to help the community when they can get it for free and still collect the revenues from the free labor of others..
You seemed to have left out the Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs, which went a long way towards splitting the parties.
Conveniently towards the end of your timeline, Nixon during his 1968 campaign appealed to many dixiecrats who were upset about the passage of the civil rights act, stating it was a form of government encroachment on their lives. This in turn led to a party shift where former dixiecrats turned republicans and in time, the former republicans turned progressive. Once the parties flipped, you've got the War on Drugs for the 1970s and 1980s that heavily criminalized communities of color and anti-war liberals. Or as John Erlichman said it "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news,"
Blacks, who were outright demonized by the right, turned to the left, which accepted them because who would not turn down the free vote. The left still treats black voters in a passive-agressive manner, knowing they can reliably count on the black vote, but the relationship is not as antagonistic as what is seen on the right.
So many right wing people love to crow about how Republicans freed the slaves and were responsible for most progressive legislation early on in this country. All that is true, but the conveniently leave out the part where Nixon and Lee Atwater flipped the parties, and when both Reagan and Bush used race based fear mongering to further drive the republican base whiter and more conservative.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/...
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
My post didn't mention Democrats and Republicans. It mentioned liberals and conservatives.
Up to the 1960s, the Democratic Party was conservative and the Republican Party were liberal. Ideologically they switched places during that decade.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
This.
Those fuckheads who drew cartoons of the prophet Muhammad ...
Heard much from them lately?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Really? So what I was taught and what my kids are being taught and all of those textbooks across the country are all wrong? All of these graphics and websites are wrong https://www.google.com/search?...
Citation please
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
He issues the Emancipation Proclamation, whereby all slaves in Union territories had to be freed.
That's a common misunderstanding of the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln had no authority to free slaves in Union territories. Instead he used his wartime powers as commander of the armed forces to take possession of rebel properties (slaves) and dispose of them appropriately (set them free).
As states came under Union control, those slaves ... had to be freed.
That is correct.
in Twitter's fucking house.
yea. because who cares about impartiality for public accommodations. amirite?
A socialist defending property rights.. how interesting..
So while you're correct that twitter has the right to impose whatever restrictions on expression it likes, it does not mean what it's doing to online discourse isn't harmful. I'm sure you'd agree if they were banning people based on race or sex instead of expressing political opinions that clash with left wing doctrine... or perhaps you're one of those 'power+privilege' socialists who think bigotry is perfectly ok as long as it targets whites and males.
compared to what? communist europe?
see what I did there?
It's just not protected in my fucking house. Or in Twitter's fucking house.
Sure, but do you not see a difference between Twitter's "house" and your house?
- twitter's house is bigger than your house
- the rules of your house are (I hope) a negotiated consensus of the stakeholders within it, while you suggest Twitter is entitled to a colonist's discretion
- twitter advertises itself as friendly to free speech
- there is only one twitter. It is a fact of the moment. It is probably a structurally permanent reality because of network effects, but objectively it is true right now.
- given that "polarization" and "inequality" are problems we face and "filter bubbles" worsen them, having one twitter is arguably good, provided discussions can happen there without one side of the polarization using manipulated rules to silence instead of challenge those who disagree
It reminds me of the "walrusing" cartoon: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzLpSedCAAAWu43.png
The "walrus" is not "in your house." Making the analogy shows that you feel entitled, as a high-social-status person, to exclude low-status people from your notice on demand whenever you wish. You bring your house everywhere.
1862 - Lincoln writes a letter where he declares he wishes to preserve the union regardless of the morals on slavery. He issues the Emancipation Proclamation, whereby all slaves in Union territories had to be freed. As states came under Union control, those slaves too had to be freed.
- buck-yar
[A]ll persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free
- Emancipation Proclamation
No slaves in Union territories were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.
Yes, Jim Hoft and Alex Jones are in the White House press corps now.
Any other questions?
You are welcome on my lawn.
That you think harassment and hate speech are merely "expressing political opinions that clash with left wing doctrine" says everything about why nobody takes you seriously.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you're all here now calling people names, I'll go check my twitter instead.
Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone's got one. Thanks for your opinion, it differs from mine.
^hahaha. Wow minorities group should take the time to learn this history before voting for a party that aligns closely with their current interests & values in the present day. The fools! Can't they see Republicans have their back by offering tax cuts to millionaires along with cuts to... any and every program of value not related to military spending?
If a shop owner has restrictions due to religion people simply won't shop there. If the customers are predominantly gay and purchasing lots of wedding cakes either a different shop selling them becomes stronger economically putting the first shop out of business, or the bakery starts to do business differently.
Unfortunately Government mandates by fiat (AKA allows lawsuits against people exercising their Religious beliefs) the effect is negative. Demand that a Jewish or Islamic store purchase and sell pork products. People normally shopping there would be offended and not shop there. So the store loses business by following the State Mandate. (see below)
The wording in the Constitution is very clear. We are not granted the right to "be" of a certain Religion, we are guaranteed the right to _exercise_ our Religion. Nobody forced the couple to go to a specific store, they chose to go there. They could have chose to go elsewhere just as easily. And as with many other cases of Religious persecution, the "story" is most likely just a narrative for effect. Do you know that a different investigation showed that _every_ Muslim bakery asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple refused? The narrative is to persecute Christians, and it's a trend going back decades.
In case you need another example: Do you know how many Pizza shops they had to call to find one that would not serve Pizza for a gay wedding due to Christian beliefs? Exactly how many Muslim restaurants were called to see if they would cater to a gay wedding? How about Jewish bakeries?
Nothing here should be taken out of context. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and anyone else should be able to _exercise_ their Religions as long as they do not interfere with other people's Rights under the Constitution.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
A socialist defending property rights.. how interesting..
It's only interesting if your entire view of politics is "Trump vs commernists".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So based on the +insightfuls and +informatives in this thread so far, the consensus seems to be boo twitter for moderating its users. On slashdot. Which moderates its users and buries spam/flamebait. If anyone bothered to have the level of interest on this site to follow its users around from thread to thread and reply to whatever they say with irrelevant screeds, slander, and so on i'd wager there'd be a bit more 'Hey what the hell mods, do something' and/or people quitting the site. Which is precisely what's occurring on twitter. If I follow a journalist on twitter and I bother to look at the comments and see some nazibots posting nazi crap I never want to read again - b/c I have no interest/regard for their opinion and really...who has time for that shit- me hitting that block/mute button is no different from filtering comments on slashdot for +1 or higher. And when that nazibot creates a new account/bot just to do the same again to circumvent their deserved ban, mute/block doesn't really matter much does it? And yes that's a significant problem on twitter today 2-12-17 that makes the experience on that site much shittier.
In summation, a whole lot of people on /. saying they want unfettered discussion while bitching on a very fettered discussion forum. So get out there ya wild, anti-SJW cowboys and create that unmoderated website, see how long it lasts, best of luck to you. I gather it'll resemble an unpatched PHP board from 2002 in no time but hey, yay freedom of speech right?
Your question was answered a little over 200 years ago:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The true party name is even more damning for the left - NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker's Party). People often argue that they were no more socialist than the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic,but their policies tended to be a combination of socialism (see German Labor Front (DAF)) and populism.
The first one.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Smoking pot does not just impact you, it impacts anyone around you including your kids if you have them. It impacts your thinking and reaction time, kind of critical if you are exercising your right to travel freely while others are on the road with you. (A lack of road rage does not mean you are driving well or can react to things like a kid running out in the street.).
Sodomy laws were State laws, not Federal. Some are still on the books, so petition your State to have them changed. Perhaps you were referring to "marriage"? In that case, Marriage for thousands of years was not a function of Government but a function of Religion. The Government got involved to increase child birth rates so that they could collect more taxes. I agree that it should never have been done, but show me how many people today want to lose their Tax write offs for dependents. (Nope, I won't wait).
Abortion is too long of a conversation to have and very few will have the conversation with any degree of intellectual honesty. Again, this was not a Constitutional issue and left to the States, where I hope it goes back. Abortion has existed for thousands of years, and the founders intentionally did not mention it to leave it to the States.
Burning a flag is not illegal by Federal Law, but check your State.
Federal Law is not supposed to cover suicide, or assisted suicide, or unplugging life support. Again, this is supposed to be a State issue and in most cases still is.
History lesson: Once power is given to Government it is extremely difficult to remove. This is why the founders were intentionally restrictive of the Federal Government, and why the Progressive Left has been forcing more and more power into Federal hands over the last century. The Federalist papers describe this very well.
Where you may be a bit confused is that the actual amount of Conservatives in Government with a "R" in their name is quite small. The term RINO was coined to label them, but they don't have to hold that in their titles (IMHO they should).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
1832-33 - The Whig Party is formed in opposition to Jackson’s government expansion and overreach in the Nullification Crisis and the establishment of a Second National Bank.
Funny that you don't give the actually facts on this one. Jackson actually sough the disestablishment the Second Bank of the United States, which had been chartered (for 20 years) in 1816. Jackson even opposed government expansion, and the Nullification Crisis was South Carolina's attempt to control the federal government's tax policy by pretending it had its own independent veto, a sentiment which would later lead to secession in order to protect slavery.
Do take your copy-paste screed elsewhere. I'd bother with the other errors, but plenty of people are taking them on.
The only thing that this does is to defend leftist hate, which almost always gets a pass.
Would be a nice thing to see someone buy them out and clean out this stuff.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Why should we trust Wikipedia when they make it impossible to post a rebuttal unless it fits a leftist narrative?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Just a hunch, because I find it hard to believe that anyone can be so idiotic and can not comprehend the basic purpose of a paragraph. The Muslims, Christians, and Jews all have Religious doctrine which says that being homosexual is a sin. They also have doctrine that states A Man must Marry a Woman. That's not being against cake, it's being against homosexuality. Pulling the next paragraph into the conversation means you can't read, not that you have a rational point.
If you are not a paid troll, you need to get off the Internet and get back to Elementary school so that you can understand the basics of grammar and writing.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Their company has tanked *since* they implemented narrative control tools.
Their only problem that they appeased the INGSOCJUS crowd too much to the detriment of their original mission.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Take off those political correctness-colored glasses and you'll see that reality isn't that way.
The only reason that Twitter survives with its selective defense of hate speech is that they have leftist investors.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
When they do it, it's OK.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I did actually watch the video - leftists that are vocally and violently opposing Trump are the brownshirts.
FTFY, facts.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Democrat : See, see there is ONE time the republicans were racist, never mind that we Democrats killed the Indians,started the KKK, put Japanese in internment camps and the 1000s other times Democrats were racists. I tell you the parties have switched sides,the Republicans are the real racists, I swear.
Republicans: Man,we totally love the Founding Fathers and how they made sure to compromise on the issue of slavery, and support States Rights like the Confederate Rebels did, but yeah, it's a Democratic thing, we don't even know what racism is, we aren't the party that embraced Strom Thurmond, the famous Dixiecrat, nor did we support the CIA selling drugs to blacks in the eighties. Pay no attention to the man in the hooded white robes behind the curtain.
So basically like slashdot and other forum that rate post. If the post is agreed by the mass then it stays. If the post is not agreed by the mass then it get hidden.
It looks ok... or is there something missing?
do you mean the same as being treated of "racist", "bigots", "misogynist" ?
I can't quite parse your sentence(you accidented a word), but actually, the Nazi's exploited the ideas that people were racially mixed, not pure, to attack them, as criminals (see Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor) as well as utilized the concept that women had their place in life, which was endorsed the Kinder, Küche, Kirche slogan. Women were forbidden from the law, medicine, and civil service. Instead, they were paid to get married and have children.
For Nazis, racism, bigotry, and sexism were actually characteristics they endorsed as morally exemplary.
So yes, describing Nazi's as racist, misogynistic, and bigoted, would be accurate.
Right means free market, Left means socialism (or sometimes, communism).
Here in Europe. With more than two viable parties.
This is so obviously about silencing dissent, how can anybody not see that?
If a tweet is not displayed, then how do you know what it was about, or what was said?
The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny?
If I'm white, and I say I want to live in an all white country, would that be "hate" speech, in the eyes of Twitter?
So 99.999% of white people who existed prior to 1950 were "evil racists", according to that logic.
So only white people aren't allowed to simply have their own countries any more? And that isn't "racist"? (i.e. it applies ONLY to white people.)
One time?
Don't be a twit.
The entire platform of the party shifted in a calculated appeal to racism. That shift has not been reversed, which is why you have Trump ranting about a lunatic about "inner cities".
Actually, what you are saying is that it's okay to say whatever you want as long as nobody can hear you. This is precisely the same as censorship. Freedom of speech was supposed to mean freedom of speech everywhere, not in preapproved locations, such as a free speech zone, where nobody can hear you. This is along the same lines as not baking the gay people's wedding cake. They are free to get a wedding cake anywhere, just not at my bakery. How well did that work out?
That you think hurling epithets like 'harassment' and 'hate speech' invalidates criticisms of your political views says everything about why progressives lost big time with brexit and Trump. I also love the arrogance of your assumption that you speak for everyone else. How progressive of you.
Obviously not since that is not my view.
Hate speech is just a sign of times we live in. Take care, change, of the society will make it go away. Blocking people from making the posts is just censorship. Fighting violence with violence has never been a good way to tackle things.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
funny, they missed some.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/09/toronto-black-lives-matter-co-founder-so-racist-even-huffpo-turns-on-her/