Slashdot Mirror


Ex-NSA Hacker Is Building an AI To Find Hate and Far-Right Symbols on Twitter and Facebook (vice.com)

Motherboard reporter Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai has interviewed Emily Crose, a former NSA hacker, who has built NEMESIS, an AI-powered program that can help spot symbols that have been co-opted by hate groups to signal to each other in plain sight. Crose, who has also moderated Reddit in the past, thought of building NEMESIS after the Charlottesville, Virginia incident last year. From the report: Crose's motivation is to expose white nationalists who use more or less obscure, mundane, or abstract symbols -- or so-called dog whistles -- in their posts, such as the Black Sun and certain Pepe the frog memes. Crose's goal is not only to expose people who use these symbols online but hopefully also push the social media companies to clamp down on hateful rhetoric online. "The real goal is to educate people," Crose told me in a phone call. "And a secondary goal: I'd really like to get the social media platforms to start thinking how they can enforce some decency on their own platforms, a certain level of decorum." [...]

At a glance, the way NEMESIS works is relatively simple. There's an "inference graph," which is a mathematical representation of trained images, classified as Nazi or white supremacist symbols. This inference graph trains the system with machine learning to identify the symbols in the wild, whether they are in pictures or videos. In a way, NEMESIS is dumb, according to Crose, because there are still humans involved, at least at the beginning. NEMESIS needs a human to curate the pictures of the symbols in the inference graph and make sure they are being used in a white supremacist context. For Crose, that's the key to the whole project -- she absolutely does not want NEMESIS to flag users who post Hindu swastikas, for example -- so NEMESIS needs to understand the context. "It takes thousands and thousands of images to get it to work just right," she said.

509 comments

  1. Awesome by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing can possibly go wrong with this. It has everything: NSA, hacking, white supremacists, reddit, AI. Definitely worth funding.

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Definitely worth funding.

      Unfortunately for them it is missing the most important factor: Blockchain.

    2. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Awesome by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate".

    4. Re:Awesome by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But...Nazis. You don't like Nazis do you? If you are against this, you must be a Nazi. Look everyone, a Nazi!

    5. Re:Awesome by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Hmm....why aren't they building this for extremists on BOTH sides of the aisle?

      There's plenty of hate and violence on the left these days to match those on the far, far right.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you deny being far right and full of hate? You know we can read your whiny rants, right snowflake? You can't hide your nazism any better than Trump can hide his treason.

      Just be thankful Mueller isn't on your case instead, lol. :D

    7. Re:Awesome by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It takes a special kind of guy to cut his penis off and then complain about being treated differently "as a female in IT".

      And then to go on a crusade against "far-right" symbols? There is no greater "far-left" symbol than cutting off your own junk and then demanding everyone else pretend you're a woman.

      This is what feminism is now? Men are even better at being female hackers? Well done feminism.

    8. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha this doesn't actually exist

    9. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did you stop beating your wife?

    10. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are all the feminists - modified males?

    11. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Him and Bradley "Chelsea" Manning are sure making the case that it's a good thing to hire transsexuals to work in intelligence.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      IS a woman jackass, not "pretending to be". Get your facts straight then jump in front of a speeding train, the world is better off without small-minded bigot shitheels like you

    13. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really aisles, it's more like a mountain. If you are grasping for a dichotomy there are the people living on bullshit mountain, and then there is the rest of the human race.

    14. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do you think they call him a 'hacker'? He hacked his junk off.

    15. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because if you're liberal, somehow you're not an extremist in the current climate. Let me know when people figure out that one man emasculating another isn't love but hate. Let me know when people begin growing and maturing again rather than lashing out at society for your problems (every rights movement save ending segregation).

    16. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mad, Bro? Doesn't take much to trigger you!

    17. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He that is not with me is against me, Jesus dun said that, so it must be wrods to live by

    18. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you go protest against the cold weather?

    19. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because real women don't need feminism.

    20. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He, is not a woman. He is a male that has severe mental issues that have allowed him to justify severe self mutilation.

      He doesn't need an article. He needs therapy.

      He is no more a woman than I am a toaster because I emit a lot of heat.

    21. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When gay people said they didn't want to get attacked for being gay I supported them.

      When gay people wanted to get married I supported that.

      But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes and trans people want to punish people for 'misgendering' or 'deadnaming' them you know what? They can fuck right off. It's not longer about gaining rights for themselves, it's about taking rights away from other people.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    22. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to live in reality. Get out of the basement sometime.

    23. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H(Sh)e's just sloganeering for 2018.

    24. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kind of scary that those are the people spying on your familys Internet activity.
      People with severe mental problems get jobs in intelligence.

    25. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism (aka TERFs) are a thing.

    26. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wishing death on someone for having a different opinion than you is not ok. It's clear that you don't see the monster that YOU are.

    27. Re:Awesome by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Didn't you see the Slashdot posts from the past couple of days? Cold weather and all individual weather events are now officially evidence for global warming.

    28. Re:Awesome by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with it, but I see people complain about "Nazis" and then they start applying it everything else.

    29. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who get triggered when their birth sex is mentioned, are on a personal crusade to silence 'the far right' and have access to all your data. What could possibly go wrong...

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    30. Re:Awesome by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me know when people begin growing and maturing again rather than lashing out at society for your problems (every rights movement save ending segregation).

      Feminism was originally a just movement, true to its stated goals.

      ("Feminism" today is a sick, twisted perversion of the original. It's so bad they retroactively redefined feminism. Now if you want to talk about the feminism that cares about equality, respects men and women the same, etc. you have to talk about "first wave feminism".)

    31. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of heaven; justify it in the end. There won't be any trumpets blowing, come the judgment day. On the bloody morning after, one tin soldier rides away.

    32. Re:Awesome by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of all the recent politically-motivated protests, the left has been far more prone to violence. Then there's also the property destruction, looting, etc.

    33. Re:Awesome by sexconker · · Score: 1

      When did you stop beating your wife?

      Oh, you're getting your beating tonight, honey.

    34. Re:Awesome by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i'm sure it would go something like this...

      "cold weather is intersectionally related to white supremacy and thus the patriarchy because cold weather is typically found in northern climes, where the white people are originally from. Therefore, cold weather = white people = racism = patriarchy"

    35. Re:Awesome by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Would you also think it's wrong for a baker to be forced to make a cake for an interracial wedding if he didn't wish to? Just for the record, lady. You don't mind me calling you a lady, do you? It's my right.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    36. Re:Awesome by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Nothing can possibly go wrong with this. It has everything: NSA, hacking, white supremacists, reddit, AI. Definitely worth funding.

      I hope this was sarcasm!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    37. Re:Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      trans people want to punish people for 'misgendering'

      Quite a lot of people react badly if you misgender them.

      If you don't believe me, find a biker bar with a nice rough reputation, go in and misgender some of the bikers.

      After you've collected all your teeth and had your broken bones re-set come here and tell us how only SJW care or some such.

      They can fuck right off.

      it's about taking rights away from other people.

      You have a right to be a dickhead if you want. You don't have a right to not be fired, ostracised and disinherited for being a dickhead.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    38. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Funny

      People who get triggered when their birth sex is mentioned,

      I've never met any, then again I'm not on a crusade to be as much as an arsehole as I can to my transgender friends.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    39. Re:Awesome by Ichijo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.
      Reg: What!?
      Stan: It's my right as a man.
      Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
      Stan: I want to have babies.
      Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?!
      Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
      Reg: But you can't have babies.
      Stan: Don't you oppress me.
      Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
      (Stan starts crying.)

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    40. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Calling a 6ft tall, 280lb angry clearly male biker a woman and getting the shit beat out of you isn't the same as calling someone sir that looks male, acts male, is trying their hardest to be as socially defined as male as possible, but is actually a man pretending to be a woman pretending to me a man that gets offended if you use the wrong gender they felt like being at that moment.

    41. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, this will blindly catch anyone displaying alt-right hate symbols. Nazis and their sympathizers are gonna be upset and attack him.

    42. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. We all need a government funded bot with a sinister name going around trolling pepe meme posters. Because racism or something.

    43. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly. Most violence today comes from big government

    44. Re:Awesome by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate".

      So it complains about working in IT - did I read that correctly?

    45. Re:Awesome by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      H(Sh)e

      You can really save some time and hand wringing by just using the correct pronoun - it

    46. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or radical Islam.

    47. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antifa plans on rioting and comes armed to riot. For example, the Charleston nazis were peaceful until antifa showed up with "protesters", whose flights are paid for by antifa.

    48. Re:Awesome by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      When gay people said they didn't want to get attacked for being gay I supported them.

      When gay people wanted to get married I supported that.

      But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes and trans people want to punish people for 'misgendering' or 'deadnaming' them you know what? They can fuck right off. It's not longer about gaining rights for themselves, it's about taking rights away from other people.

      It's still about gaining rights for themselves, it's just that now it's more explicit that they are doing so at the expense of your rights. I agree with your sentiment about not promoting violence (hear that Antifa types) and civil aspects of gay marriage (ie inheritance and such). The rest has been utter rubbish and I expect to see the US splinter over it this century.

    49. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jim Crow and segregation is a special case. But not that much of one. E.g. look at the Woolworths case

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      On February 1, 1960, Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair, Jr. (later known as Jibreel Khazan), and David Richmond, four young African-American students from the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NC A&T), entered the downtown Greensboro Woolworth's and sat at the "whites only" lunch counter. Although a Woolworth's waitress told them "we don't serve Negroes here," the four students refused to leave their seats for the rest of the day. During the following days and months the four students were joined by other students in their sit-in demonstration, Sit-in protests spread to over one hundred cities across the United States during the next year, and are considered the onset of the Civil Rights Movement.

      On Monday, July 25, 1960, after nearly $200,000 in losses due to the demonstrations, store manager Harris quietly integrated the lunch counter when he asked 3 black employees of the store to change out of work clothes into street clothes and order a meal at the counter. These were the first black customers to be served at the store's lunch counter. The event received little publicity

      I.e. given a free market, companies that discriminate will go out of business and companies that don't discriminate will prosper. You don't need the government to intervene. In fact the government did intervene and on the wrong side - there were laws enforcing segregation. Get rid of those and let the market sort things out.

      And gay people wanting wedding cakes is not the same thing as Jim Crow and segregation in the 60's. It's not like any of the wedding cake cases meant that the complainers couldn't get a wedding cake somewhere else. For example

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver to order a custom wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is Christian, declined, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins left the store without discussing details of the cake design. The following day, Craig's mother called Phillips, who told her that he does not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states that have anti-discrimination laws against sexual orientation. Craig and Mullins' complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop. The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."

      Craig and Mullins actually got their cake from another bakery - and Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't refuse to sell them a cake, it refused to make them a custom one. I.e. this is not the same as Jim Crow. This is about Craig and Mullins wanting to bully someone they disagreed with politically and threaten them with bankruptcy unless they made a "I support gay wedding" cake and agreed to go on 'comprehensive staff training', aka have some SJW type tell them all they were scum.

      Fuck 'em.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    50. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely is not a woman.

      Mutilating your dick, taking pills, and prancing around doesn't make you a female. It makes you mentally ill.

    51. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and I tell my friends with schizophrenia that the voices are real and I hear them too.

      You think you're not an asshole, but you are. You're fucking evil too.

    52. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also if you call a biker a woman and get beaten up the biker is breaking the law. Misgendering laws like this mean you'd be breaking the law

      https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/...

      New York City issued guidelines in December 2015 for employers and landlords on the correct pronoun usage for transgender men and transgender women. Violating the guidelines intentionally or repeatedly could result in a fine as large as $250,000, especially if doing so appears to be malicious. The guidelines say that to avoid the fine, transgender people must be asked what their preferred pronoun is.

      The guidelines require anyone who provides jobs or housing to use the transgender person's preferred pronoun, such as "ze," "hir," "they," them," "he," "she," "him," or "her." "Ze" is the third person singular, used in place of either "he" or "she," while "hir" is third person possessive, used to replace "his" or "her." Pronouns like "ze" or "hir" represent a break from traditional male- or female-only roles.

      "Gender expression may not be distinctively male or female and may not conform to traditional gender-based stereotypes to specific gender identities," said a city official.

      While some say that the conversation over transgender pronouns represents progress toward equality, others note how easy it might be - even for the parents of transgender people - to also sometimes forget or mix up the pronouns.

      The guidelines are the country's first of their kind, coming from the New York City Commission on Human Rights. About 75,000 transgender people live in New York City.

      "I think it comes down to respect. People identify how they want to identify and it's not up to anyone else to determine that," a pedestrian told Fox 5. "There are a lot of social norms that are changing and people need to understand that this is someone's life, it's not just a flippant choice."

      Others however think the fine is too high. "I understand the intent," another pedestrian told Fox, "but $250,000 is excessive." Writer Paul Joseph Watson at InfoWar said the notion of businesses asking every customer what pronoun they want to use is "absurd," given that even Facebook delineates 71 gender options.

      "So people can basically force us - on pain of massive legal liability - to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it's a lie," writes Eugene Volokh, law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

      It's also pretty obvious that laws like this violate the First Amendment as Volokh points out. Be able to threaten people with $250,000 fines unless they call you "ze" is fucking mental.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    53. Re:Awesome by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My parents were married as an interracial couple in the 1940s, they had to rent their apartment through a straw buyer. Now it's all well and good to say, "you have the civil right to marry anyone you want," but it's not very meaningful if that means giving up on a roof over your head.

      Now wedding cakes are a cause celebre specifically because it's a trivial issue. But confronting this level of triviality is an intrinsic consequence of line-drawing. Either you draw no lines, in which case you as a person whose personal life choices may be unpopular are in possession of legal rights are effectively meaningless. Or you draw the line somewhere, in which case somebody is giving up something.

      I'd argue that the fact that what is given up either way on this question is trivial, it's somewhere in the general vicinity of "right" when it comes to line drawing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    54. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fallacy of screaming "fallacy" when confronted with reality.

    55. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being black is genetic. Homosexuality is psychological and linked to gender role confusion. It was only delisted from the DSM under pressure from the gay rights movement because some homosexuals claimed it didn't bother them.

    56. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wedding cakes aren't a trivial issue. And of the opinions I've read on this, this seems to sum it up best

      https://www.desmoinesregister....

      It was nice to read the essay by the gay couple who got married in Iowa without any discrimination issues to deal with [Glad to live in Iowa, free from discrimination, Dec. 29]. It is fair and reasonable for the government to prohibit discrimination against gay couples and others in the selling of standard goods and services that are offered to the public like most products retail stores, rooms at hotels and meals at restaurants. But when the product or service needs to be customized or personalized by the seller, then discrimination by the seller should be allowed and the buyer should not be able to enlist the force of government to require the seller to provide the product or service.

      So, for example, cake bakers should be required to sell what is what is on their shelves and available for sale without discrimination, but they should not be required to create custom cakes against their will. At the same time, buyers are free to choose other sellers and to organize peaceful protests and boycotts against such discriminating sellers. This way everyone's liberty is preserved and no force needs to be used by government or anyone else.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    57. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's talk about 'respect.' How exactly are you respecting me when you ask me to participate in your delusions? Want to claim transgenders aren't delusional? Let's go over this. The APA gave us a hypothesis in DSM V: that transgenders aren't delusional. Like any hypothesis, we can test this one. A delusion is a strong held belief despite strong evidence to the contrary. Saying you are a gender that is in contrast to your biology clearly meets this criteria.

      For bonus points, from a psychological perspective, you'll notice that transgenders spend a large amount of time trying to answer this question: "How can gender be both biological and a social construct?" The problem is the question is caused by their inherent confusion. What they're missing is that gender is biological while gender *roles* are a social construct. This comes, by the way, from their parents never bothering to teach them about gender and gender roles.

    58. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even attempting to equate hate on the left with the hate and violence on the right is detached from reality. Why trolls like you get any upvotes ... It's vile.

      Sure. It's all those campus Republicans that shout down speakers they disagree with, and violently attacked the Secretary of Education.

      Dude, what color is the sky on your planet?

    59. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also a mentally ill tranny, complete with trigger glasses.

      http://theheroines.blogspot.com/2017/09/interview-with-emily-crose.html

    60. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this how the Nazis are trying to get people to think being a Nazi is ok? Kind of like they tried with racist?

    61. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Single parents and broken families are a huge problem.

    62. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bakeries can't discriminate against people they don't like.

      But social media companies like Twitter and Facebook certainly can!

    63. Re:Awesome by hey! · · Score: 1

      When you buy a wedding cake you pick the design out of a book. The only reason they're made to order is that they're larger than the cakes people usually need, not because the baker has to come up with a unique design that reflects his opinions about your specific choice of spouse.

      I can see this argument if you're talking about a wedding photographer, who is at least a participant in the proceedings. But a baker isn't. He just needs to make the cake the customer picked out and have it ready on a specific date.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    64. Re:Awesome by skam240 · · Score: 2

      Nice.

      "hate and violence" is on the Left but then only on the "far, far right", Way to advocate for political neutrality while being completely non-neutral.

      Extremism is what defines political violence. Me telling you that probably won't change anything though.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    65. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure man, you weren't screaming your mouth off over how marriage had nothing to do with the state, and never threatened a hypothetical homosexual for making a pass at you.

      Here's a hint: the baker wasn't forced to bake a cake. They had a business that they freely formed to bake cakes for people who paid them money. Normal commerce like any others. They wanted to have the power to reject people based on sexuality. They were told their business wasn't allowed to discriminate against people for their sexuality. Sorry, but the states of Colorado and Oregon aren't going to sanction the breaking of contracts for such reasons. They don't want to have some baker's putative religious strictures imposed on their court systems. Or any other professional.

      Sorry, but you get into business, you don't have the right to fuck over other people merely because you think your sky god tells you that you can. That's taking the right of people, even if they are gay, to engage in business like anybody else.

      And referring to people by their proper name and gender is a long-estrablished right in the law that predates the trans-population. Poll deeds have been enforced for quite a while.

    66. Re:Awesome by skam240 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Drive a car into protesters and kill one or shoot up a bunch of church goers lately? Maybe hit up a gay night club with an automatic weapon?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    67. Re:Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      Let me know when people begin growing and maturing again rather than lashing out at society for your problems (every rights movement save ending segregation).

      Feminism was originally a just movement, true to its stated goals.

      ("Feminism" today is a sick, twisted perversion of the original. It's so bad they retroactively redefined feminism. Now if you want to talk about the feminism that cares about equality, respects men and women the same, etc. you have to talk about "first wave feminism".)

      When you get down to it, that's the normal trajectory of pretty much any mass movement which doesn't have extremely well-defined goals which are kept to. Some of this can be easily inherent in the movement from its start.

    68. Re: Awesome by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Maybe conservatives who are triggered by people who want to be refereed to by an opposite sex then their birth?

      How horrible is that?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    69. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a special kind of ignorant. Bikers don't for groups for lobbying politicians to outlaw people for 'misgendering' them. Your analogy sucks and you have absolutely no critical thinking skills.

    70. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hatred TERFs receive is a very interesting facet of all this. To remain politically correct women must surrender the idea that women are more qualified to talk about women's issues than men, thereby rendering the entire concept of feminism obsolete.

    71. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Conversion therapy sounds sane by comparison.

    72. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's always fun to look to the more or less recent past and find that the craziness we used to mock mercilessly is now mainstream left-wing "thought".

      Other examples

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1tFbZ5kaY8
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJX1kqrAbTg
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4pTejRBxSc

    73. Re:Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Lucky for them that there was another bakery near by. Unfortunately the market doesn't always provide alternatives, so this kind of discrimination can do unavoidable harm to people.

      Imagine if you arrived at the hospital with your wife about to give birth, and they said "sorry we don't deliver white babies".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    74. Re:Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So it's fine to force a company to recognise a gay marriage and pay out a pension, but not okay to force them to provide cake baking services.

      Can you explain that logic?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    75. Re:Awesome by Z80a · · Score: 2

      It's quite hard to not have an equivalence.
      There are a pool of horrible people looking for an excuse for being horrible, and they will find it on both sides with a bit of distortion.

    76. Re: Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      If you look past the Fox spin on this law it's obvious that it's just recognising a form of bullying. Bullying and harassment had been illegal for a very long time and repeatedly found to be compatible with the first amendment.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    77. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Masterpiece Cakes refused to sell them a cake expressly because of their sexuality, a policy against the laws of the state of Colorado.

      Baking a cake is a commercial service, for which Masterpiece Cakes wants the state of Colorado to sanction their particular discrimination under the false aegis of religion.

      http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

      Much like the Heart of Atlanta motel:

      The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a large, 216-room motel in Atlanta, Georgia. In direct violation of the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964â"an act which banned racial discrimination in public places, largely based on Congress' control of interstate commerceâ"the motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons. The owner, Moreton Rolleston, filed suit in federal court, arguing that the requirements of the act exceeded the authority granted to Congress over interstate commerce. In addition, Rolleston maintained that the act violated his Fifth Amendment rights to choose customers and operate his business as he wished and resulted in unjust deprivation of his property without due process of law and just compensation. Finally, he contended that Congress had placed him in a position of involuntary servitude by forcing him to rent available rooms to blacks, thereby violating his Thirteenth Amendment rights.

      In response, the United States countered that the restrictions requiring adequate accommodation for black Americans were unquestionably related to interstate travel, and that Congress, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, certainly had the power to address such a matter in law. It further argued that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid reasonable regulation of interstate commerce, and that such incidental damage did not constitute the "taking" of property without just compensation or due process of law. Lastly, it asserted that the Thirteenth Amendment applies primarily to slavery and the removal of widespread disabilities associated with it; as such, the amendment undoubtedly would not place issues of racial discrimination in public accommodations beyond the reach of federal and state law.

      The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in favor of the United States and issued a permanent injunction requiring the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. to refrain from using racial discrimination when providing services or goods to guests or the general public on its premises. This case was combined with the case of the future Governor of Georgia Lester Maddox concerning his Pickrick restaurant and his case to refuse to serve blacks.[3]

      Decision Edit
      The opinion of the court, announced on December 14, 1964, was delivered by Justice Tom C. Clark, with concurring opinions by Justice Arthur Goldberg, Justice Hugo Black, and Justice William O. Douglas.

      The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its authority under the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act's Title II in question. While it might have been possible for Congress to pursue other methods for abolishing racial discrimination, the way in which Congress did so, according to the Court, was perfectly valid. It found no merit in the arguments pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, finding it difficult to conceive that such an amendment might be applicable in restraining civil rights legislation. Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. Accordingly, it upheld the permanent injunction issued by the district court and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all ethnicities.

      Sorry, Hal, but you lost this case over half a century ago.

    78. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Masterpiece Cakes did refuse to sell them a cake, that's why there was a complaint filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

      In particular, Masterpiece Cakes admitted they refused to sell a cake based on the sexuality of said persons, which violated Colorado law.

      They want their religion to allow them to deny other people the freedom to buy cakes for reasons the state of Colorado finds unacceptable. They want to compel the state of Colorado themselves.

      Much like Heart of Atlanta Motel. They wanted the right to throw out customers and violate contracts.

      The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a large, 216-room motel in Atlanta, Georgia. In direct violation of the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964â"an act which banned racial discrimination in public places, largely based on Congress' control of interstate commerceâ"the motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons. The owner, Moreton Rolleston, filed suit in federal court, arguing that the requirements of the act exceeded the authority granted to Congress over interstate commerce. In addition, Rolleston maintained that the act violated his Fifth Amendment rights to choose customers and operate his business as he wished and resulted in unjust deprivation of his property without due process of law and just compensation. Finally, he contended that Congress had placed him in a position of involuntary servitude by forcing him to rent available rooms to blacks, thereby violating his Thirteenth Amendment rights.

      In response, the United States countered that the restrictions requiring adequate accommodation for black Americans were unquestionably related to interstate travel, and that Congress, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, certainly had the power to address such a matter in law. It further argued that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid reasonable regulation of interstate commerce, and that such incidental damage did not constitute the "taking" of property without just compensation or due process of law. Lastly, it asserted that the Thirteenth Amendment applies primarily to slavery and the removal of widespread disabilities associated with it; as such, the amendment undoubtedly would not place issues of racial discrimination in public accommodations beyond the reach of federal and state law.

      The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in favor of the United States and issued a permanent injunction requiring the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. to refrain from using racial discrimination when providing services or goods to guests or the general public on its premises. This case was combined with the case of the future Governor of Georgia Lester Maddox concerning his Pickrick restaurant and his case to refuse to serve blacks.[3]

      Decision Edit
      The opinion of the court, announced on December 14, 1964, was delivered by Justice Tom C. Clark, with concurring opinions by Justice Arthur Goldberg, Justice Hugo Black, and Justice William O. Douglas.

      The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its authority under the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act's Title II in question. While it might have been possible for Congress to pursue other methods for abolishing racial discrimination, the way in which Congress did so, according to the Court, was perfectly valid. It found no merit in the arguments pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, finding it difficult to conceive that such an amendment might be applicable in restraining civil rights legislation. Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. Accordingly, it upheld the permanent injunction issued by the district court and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all ethnicities.

    79. Re:Awesome by judoguy · · Score: 1, Informative

      ... Maybe hit up a gay night club with an automatic weapon?

      If you talking about the nightclub in Florida, I'm not aware of an automatic weapon being used.

      Oh, you're just making stuff up for fun. Never mind.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    80. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft, there is no hate on the left. You are just signaling g dog whistle micro aggressions.

    81. Re:Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Lucky for them that there was another bakery near by.

      It wasn't nearby. At the time, gay marriage was not legal in Colorado; in fact, if memory serves, the wedding was to take place out of state and the cake for that wedding already arranged for.

      The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law is actually likely to get struck down for being enforced in a discriminatory way, looking at the way argument went and SCOTUS has ruled in the past--Justice Kennedy, in fact, was the author of the majority opinion in the case where they said you cannot do an end-run by having the text be fine but still being a bunch of bigots. And yes, this is actually rather explicitly stated by Justice Kennedy in the opinion in question. It's not something to protest, because it also means you cannot have a law be a de facto DWB.

    82. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "enforce some decency on their own platforms, a certain level of decorum" Translation: Only allow the dissemination of comments and opinions that I personally support. Any dissenting comments and opinions are indecent with a total lack of decorum.

    83. Re:Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      When you buy a wedding cake you pick the design out of a book. The only reason they're made to order is that they're larger than the cakes people usually need, not because the baker has to come up with a unique design that reflects his opinions about your specific choice of spouse.

      Custom and made to order are not the same thing. I am not a baker--my partner, though, has worked as one--but I've been inside quite a few bakeries that do custom cakes of various types.

      However, I've also actually been in several different cake stores when people were placing an order for a custom wedding cake, and... A custom wedding cake is a custom wedding cake, not merely a made to order deal. This was not just 'pick a design out of a book' deal; you sit down with somebody and work out all the details, quite possibly with sketches to confirm that the cake designer understands what you want correctly, with prices being negotiated.

      A made to order cake? There is a description and a price under the photo and possibly a couple options. The book will include all types of special occasion cakes, ranging from wedding cakes to "Happy [Pick A Holiday]!" cakes.

    84. Re:Awesome by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      So we need global warming in order to combat racism, better go burn some more coal!

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    85. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a tranny.

    86. Re: Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      People who get triggered when their birth sex is mentioned,

      I've never met any, then again I'm not on a crusade to be as much as an arsehole as I can to my transgender friends.

      It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else. If you look and dress like a big burly 1%er biker dude or like a bubble-headed cheerleader? You might wanna wait until you've changed out your closet and been on hormones a while before expecting people will automatically know you're respectively really Jennifer or Bruce.

      Labeling people discussing this sort of issue as transphobic only shuts down discussions--some of which are going to be important discussions among transgender people, given that assuming people have psychic powers does not precisely make us look like we're mentally healthy.

    87. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quoteIt wasn't nearby. At the time, gay marriage was not legal in Colorado; in fact, if memory serves, the wedding otwas to take place out of state and the cake for that wedding already arranged for.

      The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law is actually likely to get struck down for being enforced in a discriminatory way, looking at the way argument went and SCOTUS has ruled in the past--Justice Kennedy, in fact, was the author of the majority opinion in the case where they said you cannot do an end-run by having the text be fine but still being a bunch of bigots. And yes, this is actually rather explicitly stated by Justice Kennedy in the opinion in question. It's not something to protest, because it also means you cannot have a law be a de facto DWB.

    88. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

    89. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They refused to design a cake, not bake one. They offered to sell them everything, including the decorations, and they could have decorated it themselves. Are you saying an artist must put their talents into something they disagree with?

      Would you support the same decision if it was a Nazi demanding that a Jewish bakery bake a cake with a swastika on it? And forget the whole bullshit "protected class" angle, because that's another problem in itself.

      This is my issue with the Left. They always have this need to force their views on other people, and they never do it themselves. They cowardly go crying to some other authority. Looking back, you could tell who these people were on the elementary school playground. Always crying to some teacher because someone else wouldn't do what they wanted them to do. It's a mental disorder, and need to be classified as such.

    90. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't nearby. At the time, gay marriage was not legal in Colorado; in fact, if memory serves, the wedding was to take place out of state and the cake for that wedding already arranged for.

      There was another local cake for the in-state celebration. That Colorado did not yet recognize same-sex marriage is irrelevant, a cake is a cake, and not an official act, and the Cake shop did not require any other couples to supply proof of a marriage certificate. In-state or otherwise. (Amusingly, my sister did need to have one to get a newlywed sweet at a hotel after her wedding.)

      The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law is actually likely to get struck down for being enforced in a discriminatory way, looking at the way argument went and SCOTUS has ruled in the past--Justice Kennedy, in fact, was the author of the majority opinion in the case where they said you cannot do an end-run by having the text be fine but still being a bunch of bigots. And yes, this is actually rather explicitly stated by Justice Kennedy in the opinion in question. It's not something to protest, because it also means you cannot have a law be a de facto DWB.

      Kennedy might try to punt, but it won't help. There are three more states with lawsuits in the pipeline. Maybe more. Besides the arguments for bias were as facetious as the ones in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Or Roy Moore's defense when he tried to weasel out of his actions in response to Obergefeld.

      A decision on that basis? It'd only discredit the Supreme Court as badly as anything since...Bush v. Gore, I guess. Maybe Bowers v. Hardwick.

    91. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same kind of hate that conservatives used to demonize and dehumanize liberals for the past 30 years? The same kind of hate that launched a concerted effort to turn the word "liberal" into a slur? That kind of hate?

    92. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. First Amendment, end of story. You don't get to tell me what I call you. If you don't like me calling you "he" when you look male then you are free to fuck right off and do business elsewhere with someone who will tolerate your childish tantrums. Of course, AmiMojo is a fucking Britfag where there is no such thing as freedom of speech, so what a goddamned surprise it is that the resident Britfag SocJus troll thinks freedom is bad.

    93. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe conservatives who are triggered by people who want to be refereed to by an opposite sex then their birth?

      How horrible is that?

      I don't get triggered, I just refuse to play their little pretend game.

    94. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Craig and Mullins actually got their cake from another bakery - and Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't refuse to sell them a cake, it refused to make them a custom one. I.e. this is not the same as Jim Crow. This is about Craig and Mullins wanting to bully someone they disagreed with politically and threaten them with bankruptcy unless they made a "I support gay wedding" cake and agreed to go on 'comprehensive staff training', aka have some SJW type tell them all they were scum.

      Fuck 'em.

      Nonsense. It's wasn't a case of "bullying" someone over a political disagreement. You're mischaracterizing the issue.

      It was a case of discrimination, plain and simple. And they rightly got slapped for it.

    95. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe shoot a few congressmen playing baseball, smash some random people on the head with a bike lock, murder 5 police in Dallas, tie up mentally challenged people and film yourself burning them, dress up in black with hundreds of your closest friends to burn down buildings, attack women, mace elderly, and silence peaceful speakers with violence?

      You are a fucking imbecile.

    96. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Left uses whatever suits their needs. They'll point to science as their ally when it appears to support them. They'll ignore it when it doesn't. They'll falsely accuse their enemies of acts they themselves are committing. They'll attack an action their enemies are performing, and then defend it when their side is doing it. It's easy to spot them because what they do and say doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

      All that matters to the Leftist is gaining power, achieving their goal, crushing their enemies.

      There is no honor.
      There is no honesty.
      There is no integrity.
      There are no morals.
      There are no ethics.
      There is no logic.
      There is no Truth.

    97. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A pension isn't a hand-crafted work of art.

      If I want an artist to paint a picture of Hillary Clinton shoving raw beef into her vagina, you're suggesting that they should not have a choice to reject that, and MUST do it...

      You, as always, are a fucking imbecile.

    98. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes

      But they have cooties!!1!ONE!

      Ya lil boi is sooo scared of cooties.

      But have no fear, da Trumpet hasn't twitted about that yet.

    99. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might be a Nazi - I've been called a Nazi and I'd probably put half the country into camps given the chance, so I'm probably a Nazi now, yeah. I like Nazis, they're the only group these days which seems not to hate me for being a straight, white male. I guess we had the Boy Scouts but now they've gone gay/trans/female.

      I think we're going to need to expel the Jews again pretty soon.

      Yeah, I might be a Nazi now. I voted for Obama. Incredible.

    100. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They refused to design a cake, not bake one. They offered to sell them everything, including the decorations, and they could have decorated it themselves.

      Bake, design, ultimate result, MasterPiece Cakeshop still refused to provide to the couple the same services they were offering to others simply on the admitted and express basis on said couple's sexuality, a violation of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Law which forbade not providing:

      “the full and equal enjoyment of the foods and services of a place of public accommodation”

      Are you saying an artist must put their talents into something they disagree with?

      If Masterpiece Cakeshop disagreed with providing Wedding Cakes, they could have refused to bake them for anybody. Since they didn't, and since they took on commissions, they had to obey Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Laws. Notice how they're not being challenged on their refusal to bake cakes for Divorces, or Halloween, or with Alcohol in them.

      Just on the blatant violation of Colorado's law against discrimination based on factors such as the sexuality of Craig and Mullins.

      Which said law was enforced by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

      Would you support the same decision if it was a Nazi demanding that a Jewish bakery bake a cake with a swastika on it?

      I don't know of any state expressly protecting a particular symbol for inclusion(however, I will note that the Swastika is not exclusively a Nazi emblem), and I'm not sure that membership in an organization intent on oppression and exclusion would merit protection either, even aside from their numerous criminal acts they committed in advancing their agenda. It certainly does not seem to do so in Colorado. Do you have a state where such a law is in effect?

      If you want the laws to forbid that, you can argue for it, but I doubt you'll make a convincing argument that extends as far as you want.

      And forget the whole bullshit "protected class" angle, because that's another problem in itself.

      What problem? That we can recognize the problem in your faulty argument by relying on a poor example that isn't supported in the law? Yes, I imagine you'd want people to forget how poor your argument is, but no, I'll point it out:

      There's nothing harmful or offensive in a same-sex relationship, the same cannot be said of the Nazi Party.

      This is my issue with the Left. They always have this need to force their views on other people, and they never do it themselves. They cowardly go crying to some other authority. Looking back, you could tell who these people were on the elementary school playground. Always crying to some teacher because someone else wouldn't do what they wanted them to do. It's a mental disorder, and need to be classified as such.

      You're funny, as you're actually expressing the character of the Right, forcing its views on other people, and cowardly crying that they are the martyred victims. Looking back, you can find that their bullying also happened in schools, and it's a common excuse of abusive spouses as well to blame the other side for making it happen. And yes, that includes how other people are crazy.

      Rather amusing how many of the mentally deranged insist that it's others who have a problem. Of course, sometimes this does include the purported experts, see the Nazi party for an example.

      They were quite aghast that their policies of war-making, genocide, and other acts like the Commando order were found to be crimes.

      Surprisingly, they were nonetheless hanged until dead.

    101. Re:Awesome by Cito · · Score: 1

      we plan to

    102. Re:Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He didn't say that specific instance, you made that bit up... Just saying, of anyone is inventing straw men here, it's you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    103. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. And I wouldn't expect anyone to force a Muslim baker to make a cake for a Catholic wedding, or an Athiest restauranteur to cater an Islamic wedding. Freedom of assembly includes freedom from assembly just as much as freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

    104. Re: Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This post reminds me of classic "rational" racism and homophobia. It tries to sound reasonable, by not explicitly stating the assumption that transgender people are not trustworthy.

      Transgender people being deceptive is probably the oldest transphobic meme going.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    105. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clear you can't make a coherent logical argument.

    106. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wedding cakes aren't a trivial issue

      FWP

    107. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stupid twat. âoeReferredâ and âoethanâ are the correct answer. Try again you third rate retard.

    108. Re:Awesome by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      It's because he knows nothing of guns and just believes what the media says.

    109. Re:Awesome by fredgiblet · · Score: 2

      Exactly. And this is a very large portion of what 1984 was actually about. People focus on the other things, but the thought control was perhaps the most important and relevant part of it.

    110. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else.

      They're not. The transgender people I know personally, like most people, just want to get on with their lives in peace.

      If you look and dress like a big burly 1%er biker dude or like a bubble-headed cheerleader? You might wanna wait until you've changed out your closet and been on hormones a while before expecting people will automatically know you're respectively really Jennifer or Bruce.

      And once you have you don't need some arsehole deciding to call you by a gender that you haven't looked like for a decade out of some misguided sense of correctness.

      Labeling people discussing this sort of issue as transphobic

      Try actually read the comments I'm respoding to. This is not "people making a mistake over someone who's made no effort to change their external appearance", this is about people absolutely 100% insisting on referring to someone by their birth gender no matter what.

      Huge difference.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    111. Re:Awesome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The people who are in denial are the ones who think that arbitrary biological factors determine gender.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    112. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My eyes are purple cuz color is like subjective maaaaaan....

    113. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are all proving her point.

      You make it so easy.

    114. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes"

      No they don't.

      They want the same rights as straight people.

      The cake maker will make a cake for straight people, but not for gay people.

      Gay people don't want to force anything.

    115. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they take offense at 'it' - the government revoked a coworker's security clearance and he lost his job for using that pronoun to refer to a trans that didn't like it.

    116. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially when the dick-sucking "feminist" is a homo pretending to be "a little girl" while getting his filthy gay shit pushed up his faggot ass.

      Practically non-human.

    117. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reg: *urinates in Stan's faggot face*

    118. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm I wonder why only white people would be targeted. Oh well itâ(TM)s probably just a coincidence

    119. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm a Britfag too. And I think he's authoritarian fanatic.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    120. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, dismiss the experience of billions of people for thousands of years...

      Nevermind what is normal! We have to make the batshit crazy one-off the new normal, and anyone of the VAST OVERWHELMING FUCKING MAJORITY who disagrees is the bad guy!

    121. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Also if you call a biker a woman and get beaten up the biker is breaking the law

      It still demonstrates my point that people all across the political spectrum care a lot about misgendering. In fact... you that supports my point. Some people care os much they're willing to break the law to prevent it from happening.

      New York City issued guidelines in December 2015 for employers and landlords

      Employers and landlords have a lot of power over people. There are huge numbers of things they are flat-out not allowed to do under those auspices that people in general are allowed to do.

      The guidelines require anyone who provides jobs or housing to use the transgender person's preferred pronoun, such as "ze," "hir," "they," them," "he," "she," "him," or "her." "Ze" is the third person singular, used in place of either "he" or "she," while "hir" is third person possessive, used to replace "his" or "her." Pronouns like "ze" or "hir" represent a break from traditional male- or female-only roles.

      Lolnope!

      Here's the quote from the actual guidelines http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-...

      Intentionally failing to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman him or Mr. when she has made it clear that she prefers female pronouns and a female title.

      There's no mention of those weird pronouns anywhere on the actual page. As far as I can tell that source you linked to simply made it up and you gredily guzzled it down because it's what you wanted to hear.

      "So people can basically force us - on pain of massive legal liability - to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it's a lie," writes Eugene Volokh, law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

      It's well established already that if you're an employer or landlord there are many things you cannot do that provate citizens can.

      If you want to use your free speech, don't be a fucking coward and only use it when you have power over people. Grow a spine and do it as a private citizen where anyone is utterly free to tell you you're full of shit.

      It's also pretty obvious that laws like this violate the First Amendment as Volokh points out. Be able to threaten people with $250,000 fines unless they call you "ze" is fucking mental.

      God job that's not the case then.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    122. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Fallacy of false equivalence, right up there with Trump.

      It sure is. Modern leftists are fare more prone to threaten and use violence against political opponents.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    123. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The guidelines require anyone who provides jobs or housing to use the transgender person's preferred pronoun, such as "ze," "hir," "they," them," "he," "she," "him," or "her." "Ze" is the third person singular, used in place of either "he" or "she," while "hir" is third person possessive, used to replace "his" or "her." Pronouns like "ze" or "hir" represent a break from traditional male- or female-only roles.

      Lolnope!

      LOLYES

      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

      Facebook now offers 50 different gender identity options for new users, including gender fluid (with a gender identity that is shifting), bigender (a person who identifies as having two distinct genders) and agender (a person without an identifying gender). There are day cares that proudly tout their gender-neutral pronoun policies - so kids don't feel boxed in - and college professors who are skewered on the Internet for messing them up.

      In New York City, new clarifications to the city's human rights guidelines make clear that the intentional misidentification of a person's preferred name, pronoun or title is violation of the city's anti-discrimination law.

      The article is clearly saying that if you refuse to call me by my preferred pronouns of His Lordship, I can complain and you will be fined.

      And the NYC legal guidelines make this explicit. NYC have taken down the page, but you can get it back from the Wayback Machine

      https://web.archive.org/web/20...

      1. Failing To Use an Individual's Preferred Name or Pronoun

      The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual's preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual's sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual's identification.

      Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

      All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL.

      I.e. you have to call people Ze if they tell you to. Best hope your mailmerge software supports it.

      Not that any of this will survive a SCOTUS case now that Lord Gorsuch is on it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    124. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > "hate and violence" is on the Left but then only on the "far, far right", Way to advocate for political neutrality while being completely non-neutral.
      >
      > Extremism is what defines political violence. Me telling you that probably won't change anything though.

      No. Commonality is what defines extremism of any sort.

      How popular and accepted is the idea "You can hit someone just because you hang some arbitrary label on them". This idea is shockingly popular amongst modern liberals.

      You're trying to redefine terms to suit yourself and that's precisely the problem here. The left likes to distort terms to suit their political agenda. This includes YOU redefining the term "extremism".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    125. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > You mean the same kind of hate that conservatives used to demonize and dehumanize liberals for the past 30 years? The same kind of hate that launched a concerted effort to turn the word "liberal" into a slur? That kind of hate?

      Now who's peddling a "false equivalence". Calling you an idiot is not remotely the same thing as saying we should beat you up for your views. Calling you an idiot is also not the same as shouting you down, rioting when you speak, and seeking to prevent you from speaking.

      You remind me of the 80s Xian fundies that tried to cry oppression.

      As if.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    126. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Quite a lot of people react badly if you misgender them.
      >
      > If you don't believe me,

      You want to comment on this nonsense and you haven't even experienced this yourself. How cute. How much of mundane little Herbert do you have to be to have managed to avoid something like that your ENTIRE life.

      Get out of here you sad little breeder.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    127. Re:Awesome by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      >> He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate".
      >
      > So it complains about working in IT - did I read that correctly?

      I wonder if it thinks that working in IT would be all utopian and shit if only it was normal. Kind of makes me wonder why I've been wasting my life in all these crappy companies. I can pass for normal (in this one area). I wonder what I've been doing wrong all my life. =p

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    128. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if you want to talk about the feminism that cares about equality, respects men and women the same, etc. you have to talk about "first wave feminism".

      Even that's dubious. The first-wave feminists - the suffragettes, who won the right for women to vote - overlapped heavily with the white feather movement, who gave white feathers to any able-bodied male to signify that he should be overseas, fighting to defend them. The right of women to vote and the ending of conscription of men are, I would say, the two biggest advances for equality of the 20th century - and of these, the first-wave feminists won one (and good for them!) but actively opposed and hindered the other.

      (Things get morally darker a decade or so later, when the suffragettes formed the core membership of the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists.)

      The tension in feminism - between erasing the privileges held by men (pro-equality) and enhancing the privileges held by women (anti-equality) - has been there from the start.

    129. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      LOLYES

      Nope.

      Because the guidelines don't say that.

      And the NYC legal guidelines make this explicit. NYC have taken down the page,

      So what you're saying is they're not the guidelines any more. So what are you complaining about?

      In other words you're complaining about an old set of guidelines wich

      I.e. you have to call people Ze if they tell you to.

      Is that smoke I smell because your pants are on fire!

      You already said yourself that they took these guidelines down.

      The actual current guidelines are online. I gave you the link. The thing you claim IS a requirement is not a requirement.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    130. Re: Awesome by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      It helps when they're are not on a crusade to be as much of an arsehole as they can to everybody else.

      They're not. The transgender people I know personally, like most people, just want to get on with their lives in peace.

      Please note my choice of pronouns here, it might help you slightly since you missed my point--and are clearly thinking I'm leaving other transgender people out of the 'everybody else' when nope, they're being an arsehole to us too.

    131. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Your page links to this

      http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/d...

      Which is down. But if you go to Wayback you find this

      https://web.archive.org/web/20...

      Which contains

      Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and
      titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns
      other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir.10 Many
      transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than
      the one they were given at birth.

      A broken link on a web page doesn't mean the guidelines have been retracted. It just means they suck at running a web server.

      If they wanted to retract the legal protection for ze/hir/zxhim/zxche, they'd have to say it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    132. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dave Chappelle said it waaaay better:

      "If someone WANTS to cut their dick off...I don't understand it but I sure as hell believe them"

      (paraphrasing)

    133. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course there is...at the RNC! Both sides of the aisle check /sarcasm

    134. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing can possibly go wrong with this. It has everything: NSA, hacking, white supremacists, reddit, AI. Definitely worth funding.

      Except ... the hate is mostly on the left.

    135. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or black men.

    136. Re:Awesome by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Oh shit, I got the weapon used wrong! My whole point is discredited because I got something wrong that has fuck all to do with my point! What a brilliant conclusion you've come to! You are truely a cut above!

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    137. Re:Awesome by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Unless they take offense at 'it' - the government revoked a coworker's security clearance and he lost his job for using that pronoun to refer to a trans that didn't like it.

      I'm sure that endured 'it' to it's coworkers. This makes them feared and despised. The backlash will be fierce.

    138. Re:Awesome by skam240 · · Score: 1

      """You can hit someone just because you hang some arbitrary label on them". This idea is shockingly popular amongst modern liberals."

      No. No it is not. You're making that up.

      "You're trying to redefine terms to suit yourself and that's precisely the problem here. The left likes to distort terms to suit their political agenda. This includes YOU redefining the term "extremism".

      Please observe word order. I did not define extremism at all, I defined political violence. Do try to keep up.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    139. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I could give you a thousands intertubes points redeemable wherever you want.

    140. Re:Awesome by JillElf · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about "the breaking of contracts" you speak of. If someone asks the baker to create a cake and the baker says no (for whatever reason), there is no contract. If someone asks the baker to create a cake and the baker says yes, then there is a contract. The state and/or city where your business is located may dictate that you either serve everyone or no one but I wouldn't consider that a contract. That said, I sure as hell wouldn't want to consume any substance that someone was forced to make for my own peace of mind. Also, the baker that shows any reluctance in creating a cake or attends a holy roller church (or other place of worship) that frowns on or goes postal on certain issues is now going looking at a very real possibility that the purchaser will complain that the cake wasn't right because the baker is discriminating against them. The fact that it *may* have been a perfectly good cake won't matter. Luckily, I am not a baker and I really don't care what two consulting adults do anyways.

    141. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But if you go to Wayback you find this

      Yes if you go back you can find something that's no longer applicable.

      So why are you complaining about it? It's gone away.

      If they wanted to retract the legal protection for ze/hir/zxhim/zxche, they'd have to say it.

      There is no extant document you can get to from their website which says those are protected.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    142. Re: Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      http://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/...

      Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

      http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/acs...

      New York City Human Rights Law

      The following are excerpts from the New York City
      Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement
      Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender
      Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); NYC
      Admin. Code Section 8-102(23):

      * The NYCHRL requires employers and covered
      entities to use an individual's preferred name,
      pronoun, and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs./Mr./Mx.)
      regardless of the individual's sex assigned at birth,
      anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or
      the sex indicated on the individual's identification.

      * Most individuals and many transgender people
      use female or male pronouns and titles. Some
      transgender and gender [expansive] people prefer
      to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/
      hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. Many
      transgender and gender [expansive] people choose
      to use a different name than the one they were
      given at birth.

      * The Commission can impose civil penalties up to
      $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for
      violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or
      malicious conduct."

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    143. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious about "the breaking of contracts" you speak of.

      Ok, what's your curiosity? I'm not seeing much of a question to your remarks.

      Perhaps you wanted to ask is how that could happen? All a baker has to do is agree to bake a cake, receive payment, which forms a contract(and yes, many of them do have that sort of thing all written up in a form), and the legal implications that go along with breaking them, and the state having to sanction said actions or not. I believe it already happened in one case where one member of the couple came in, started the process, and paid, with the expectation of the other to come in later and look, but my searches aren't quite delivering which one it was.

      That some states, like California, Oregon, and Colorado go even further, and expressly provide in their statutes that it is unlawful to refuse to provide any service just makes it simpler, but it doesn't eliminate the contract issue anyway.

      That said, I sure as hell wouldn't want to consume any substance that someone was forced to make for my own peace of mind.

      If you're a baker, and you can't control your behavior enough to avoid acting out of spite, I wouldn't trust you not to act irresponsibly in the first place. I wouldn't want you cooking at all.

      Of course, these problems have also cropped up with florists, photographers, and a few others in the professions serving weddings.

      Luckily, I am not a baker and I really don't care what two consulting adults do anyways.

      I do, but insofar as this case goes, when it comes to the sexuality, it's not one that rises to particular concern, and to be honest, it's why I wouldn't go into the business of serving couples for wedding ceremonies, they just don't listen anyway.

    144. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black people are born black. They're black walking down the street.

      Gay people are unknown until they reveal themselves as hostile sjw assholes abusing the power of the state to crush small business owners because they're Christian.

      Fuck you.

    145. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the case, but nice try.

    146. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's plenty of hate and violence on the left these days

      You don't hear bombs go off and corporate executives getting kidnapped, do you? To test the theory, try spitting on some faces of these left-wingers during a protest and see what they do. If they beat you fatally and leave you there to die, they are as violent as the co-called far-right. Fortunately it's not the 00's, 10's, 60's and 70's anymore, but things can change. At least now we catch them sooner, and know better how to protect the targeted people.

    147. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I do think a swastika is a very convenient and versatile building or architectonic complex architectonic plan... :|

    148. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything that makes you hate others is hate speech, except that it's always targeted at white people. Hating white people is okay. It's the objective. Anti-hate is just anti-white.

      If a colonizer of a white nation (a fake "refugee") rapes an indigenous person and someone reports about that rape, just reporting that crime makes you a Nazi committing a hate crime against a minority.

      The people who cry Nazi and who are anti-hate are some of the most intolerant, hateful bullies I've ever met. The very act of me posting this is a hate crime. The AI bots are triggered.

      We have all been brainwashed to think this way. There's no way to talk about it because it's a hate crime and hate speech. Western civilization is doomed. The media and the universities have been hijacked to push this anti-white genocidal campaign.

    149. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not really.

    150. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's with cakes being sacred? you do a job selling things to the public you don't discriminate against people. you have to let gay people and black people in the cab if you drive one. you have to let them in your office if you're a doctor. why is baking a stupid cake suddenly the pinnacle of expression?

    151. Re:Awesome by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The point is that you can't discriminate and refused to sell a good to someone but you can refuse to perform a service.

      As Ben Shapiro put it "If you're the one forcing me to do something, you're the bad person because that's tyranny"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      And if it's all so stupid, why doesn't your side back down?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    152. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that would be mission creep, and there's no possibility of this kind of thing ever expanding or getting out of control.

      It might be considered potentially dangerous if that were the case, so thank goodness there's zero chance that this thing will ever be used for such purposes.

    153. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I want an artist to paint a picture of Hillary Clinton shoving raw beef into her vagina, you're suggesting that they should not have a choice to reject that, and MUST do it...

      Nope. We're saying you can't refuse to do it for them because they are homosexuals, black, deaf, or any of the other criteria protected under anti-discrimination laws.

      You, as always, are a fucking imbecile.

      You're the one confusing content and customer.

    154. Re: Awesome by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

      That as far as i can tell is non normative text. Also, with the arguable exception about ze/hir, it's 100% reasonable.

      http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/acs...

      Interesting. That's different from the one I found and different from the no longer extant one you were initially referring to. It's also substantially weaker.

      Not only that, it's a document specificaly about juveniles and kids in positions where the adults in question have vast amounts of power over the kids. Yes I think it's entirely reasonable that people cannot use the full force of their free speech at a juvenile over which they have full power, and should err very much on the side of caution here.

      Nonetheless what you have provided is links to the guidance, not the law. Here is the text of the actual local law:

      http://legistar.council.nyc.go...|Text|&

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    155. Re:Awesome by spkay31 · · Score: 1

      Because the left is protected from this. Hatred spoken from the left against conservative principles = Free speech. Spoken from right/conservatives to the left/liberals = HATE SPEECH.

    156. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that you can't discriminate and refused to sell a good to someone but you can refuse to perform a service.

      Actually, you can do both. There are many reasons that are acceptable to refuse to sell a good or perform a service. But you can't do so for certain reasons that are discriminatory in ways that are prohibited. Not if you don't want to violate the law.

      Besides, in the cases of Arlene's Flowers, Masterpiece Cakes, and Sweetcakes by Melissa, they categorically refused to sell goods for the purposes of same-sex weddings, and even to allow their other employees to do such services.

      They also admitted that baking cakes for others did not constitute an endorsement, and stated that they never investigated other weddings.

      As Ben Shapiro put it "If you're the one forcing me to do something, you're the bad person because that's tyranny"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      So Ben Shapiro is confused, and doesn't realize that operating a business and taking money for it, is not somehow tyranny when you're told under what conditions your business needs to operate

      Is that really what you want to go with? Empty, vacuous rhetoric that expects us to ignore reality?

      Besides it's the bakers, florists, and others are the ones who want to force people not to use their readily available commercial services, with an odd and particular fixation on homosexuals. And they expect the state to endorse it, just like in the past.

      Probably because they want to pretend that their arguments aren't the same as this one.

      And if it's all so stupid, why doesn't your side back down?

      That's what we keep asking all the people clamoring to support these bakers, pizzerias, and florists. Not to mention chancellors, judges, and court clerks. What's with sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into these self-serving panderers and con-artists? Can't they find something worthwhile besides screaming that a "gay" wedding cake will give you cooties? Do they really have to call the police because some homosexual asked them to put their name on a cake?

      Then again, they got upset that Wal-Mart wouldn't bake them a Confederate flag cake.

      How's that freedom doing you? Glorious liberty of thee I sing!

    157. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about first wave gender, not third wave gender.

  2. cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel safer already

  3. signal to each other in plain sight by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Dude, there isn't some sort of secret hate group code. Everyone knows those douches when they talk about "dem liberuls" or "dose imagrunts". They are not even trying to hide, they wear their status proudly.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's even better than that. Not only are they not drying to hide, they pop up whereever some offended snowflake deems them appropriate. Can't win an argument on merits? Call the other guy a Nazi and you're golden! I'll demonstrate:

      1. American immigration laws should be enforced.
      2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens.
      3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy.
      4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age.
      5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime.

      All of those are either factually true or present an opinion within the mainstream of acceptible American thought. How long will it take for someone to label one or all of them extreme and me an extremist beyond the pale of acceptable civil discourse.

    2. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of this exercise is not to find these bigots and racists. It is to demonstrate that corporations who operate social media networks cannot claim that it is impossible to implement AI algorithms to enforce civility online. What we have seen as a result of the leveraging by the so-called "far right" of these modes of information dissemination is that the old argument of "fighting hate speech with more speech" is not a viable approach, because a large proportion of society is unable to engage in rational, evidence-based thinking, instead making judgments of credibility on the basis of emotional appeal. This results in what one might call "credibility asymmetry" that cannot be overcome by factual evidence or appeals to reason. Furthermore, it doesn't take a majority of individuals to behave irrationally to threaten social cohesion--it only takes a small number of uneducated and disenfranchised people to wage an ideological war. This is how cults and terrorists come into existence.

      The days when companies like Twitter and Facebook could cling to the excuse of "we don't believe online speech should be censored in any way" are long past. The importance of free speech cannot be overstated. That is not to say, however, that there are no consequences to speech. Use of social media by right-wing extremists to inflame and indoctrinate others with their propaganda has left them largely unaccountable to these consequences. The goal is to restore that accountability for their words and actions.

    3. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Glock9mm · · Score: 1

      I also consider the Obama "O" (known as a "GOATSE") to be offensive. So what of that symbol?

    4. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Shotgun · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't you have an Antifa meeting to attend? You know, one where they play in traffic?

      Your dimwitted screed promoting brownshirt tactics fits in well with your cowardly brothers.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    5. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what part of the U.S. that you live in, but you would have lost in my area with #1 (and theme continues all the way down).

    6. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statements lack quantifiers (for example, "always", "sometimes", "occasionally") For example, enforcement of laws (#1) is always going to be matter of degree.

      And then many of your terms are vague. For example, "government benefits" could include military pensions and government pensions, generally.

      Depending on the quantifiers and precise definitions your statements could be very extreme or fairly bland.

    7. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      #2 and #5 are factually wrong. Wrong facts alone cannot constitute an opinion.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      Do you realize that you're pretty much a nazi sympathizer now? How does that feel?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People posting "hate speech" should have to post non-anonymously or face censorship from the owners of the platform. (ironically posted as AC because I've done moderation, but I hardly think this is hate speech)

      That way companies can pass the response to the hate speech off to those that actually deserve it - the posters of it.

      Since you've no right to free speech on any of these platforms, I don't see how anyone could complain.

    10. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Wrong facts alone cannot constitute an opinion.

      Welcome to the modern world.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      No, they aren't false. The myth that they are is pushed by people who stand to profit monetarily and/or politically from a wide-spread belief that they aren't true.

      You can usually tell when a talking point is propaganda by the fact that it is asserted to be incontrovertible fact and that it is already commonly known, thus there is no point talking about it. Both of those tactics are repeatedly employed by both the gun grabbers and and ghetto strongmen politicians to score points in the sound-bite competition that we have allowed to pass for public debate in this country.

      You've just done it yourself.

    12. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

      While I do agree these claims by themselves are not racist, I did notice a strong correlation between these claims and people who are racist or support racists. Does it mean that everyone with these opinions is racist? No. Does it make sense to mistake them for one? I dont know, for me it is just the same as commenter "Train0987" who used "trans" as a pejorative.

      Ironically enough, i just realized, I admitted the reason to associate these claims with racism is because the person doing the association is a bit of a bigot on his own. Like all of us, I guess.

    13. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      This is all true, and part of my point. You can read it either way, but there will be people who assume the worst and demand censorship immediately without discussion. Discussion will be pre-empted by labelling the speaker a nazi sympathizer and shaming any who would engage in the conversation as "normalizers" of extremism, using as justification for this overreach the assumption that the statements are meant to be read in the worst was, and that they are "dog-whistles" to use the terminology from the summary.

      Some people hear dog-whistles all the time, not aware that it's just the ringing in their own ears.

    14. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      I live in a similar part of the country. But I arrived there as an adult after having been born and raised elsewhere.

    15. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because the right forms mobs that block traffic, assault police and riot. Oh wait, that's the left. Wonder what the left hate symbols are? Pretty much anything Soros related. But hey, can't call a spade a spade.

    16. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ugh, here we go.

      https://www.vox.com/cards/poli...

      https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

      I hope these facts will persuade you to stop spewing lies.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf the guy call out someone who is trying to have other suppress discordant opinions and suddenly he is the Nazi

    18. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler was a vegan.

      Thus, you are a fucking imbecile.

    19. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Train0987 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all I didn't use "trans" as a pejorative. I did use "crazy" as one though.

      Since you call me a bigot/racist, exactly which race do you imagine me to be? That I've put you on the spot with that question should indicate that you're already wrong and that you've been caught. The only dog-whistles here are those in your own head that you've been conditioned by others to hear. In other words, you are the bigot - not me.

    20. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slightly more blacks per capita are killed as compared to whites, but when you look at the racial breakdown of violent crimes they are disproportionately committed by blacks. When you scale for criminal activity, blacks are actually shot less than whites.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #2 and #5 are factually wrong. Wrong facts alone cannot constitute an opinion.

      From the GP post:

      All of those are either factually true or present an opinion within the mainstream of acceptible American thought.

      Reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

    22. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ugh indeed.
      1. Vox and Mother Jones (which one of your links cites) are partisan publications, not neutral reporters of fact.

      That aside,

      2. Disproportionate police use of force with and arrests of members of different population groups do not imply different enforcement standards unless there is parity in overall rates of crime among those groups. Black Americans commit more crimes per capita and live in higher-crime neighborhoods on average. Thus more encounters with police. And often for good reason. Your purported source of neutral facts tacitly assumes things like that don't matter and you tacitly assume that disparate outcomes implies disparate treatment. It doesn't. White people who charge at cops also tend to catch a bullet for their troubles.

      3. Sloppy wording and lose definitions make for the best scatter plots, don't they? "Gun-related" deaths includes suicides. Whether you chose to count it in the same statistic as homicide by firearm is nothing other than that: a choice. Count it to pad the numbers one way. Exclude it to pad the numbers the other way. Half of "gun-related" deaths are suicides in the US and while I don't have numbers for the other countries on the plot, let's say the slope of that line drops by half.

      The per-state chart is another cart-before-the-horse abuse of statistics. My statement was about gun restrictions. The chart is about gun ownership. The two are not the same, and while the correlation is weak to start with, the argument for causation is not there. Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Utah and Oregon have large populations and high gun ownership but lower gun deaths per capita than Colorado, Nevada, Maryland, and Florida which also have high populations but lower gun ownership. Then there's Chicago and Maryland and Camden NJ in particular which has strict local and state laws and insane homicide rates.

    23. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Oh, and there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and gun murders.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    24. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      It's what the left does - call people what they really are. Hatred, intolerance, and censorship - and fascist behavior in general (especially with regard to the economy) - are now the hallmarks of the left.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    25. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually there is abundant data confirming that minorities get different treatment by police than whites. For example epidemiological research says whites are slightly more likely to use weed than blacks, but law enforcement statistics show that blacks are roughly 3x more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.

      It is also true that police actually shoot roughly twice as many white people per year as blacks, but there are five times as many whites as blacks. This doesn't mean that every time a cop shoots a black man that race is a factor, but statistically it is bound to be a factor in a large number of shootings, although not in the simplistic way favored by many left-wing blogs on the topic -- although that probably happens at least some of the time. Assuming that the police are no better or no worse than society at large they must have enough racist sociopaths to produce at least a few shootings like that per year.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know n i g g e r s kill more people than any other ethnicity in the US? It's no wonder so many people hate them.

    27. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking moron.

      Existing US gun laws are like only setting aside one part of a swimming pool as a "piss free zone" and then getting all astounded when the water in it starts smelling of pee.

      The need to be consistent across the whole fucking country to have any chance of working.

      You're not too good at this whole "thinking" thing, are you boy ?

    28. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That just means more blacks are criminals than whites.

      The white stoner is at home chillin and eating Doritos. The black stoner is cruising da hood with his G's and will probably end up gangbanging some chump for wearing the wrong sneakers.

      That's the difference.

    29. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people are fucking delusional partisan cock suckers.

      Most of the people I know who are far right, are racist as fuck. And I've seen this trend continue each year. Most of the people on the left I know, hate people who are racist.

      Both sides are fucked. Stop towing a party line that doesn't give a shit about you.

    30. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      This isn't about Nazis or even red neck conservatives. This is about having an excuse to call stuff like kek far right. Which is mostly just a symbol used by contrarian kids, quite a lot of non whites, but they don't follow PC.

      "Our impartial AI calls them Nazi, you believe me now they are Nazis right? How can you not? Are you a Nazi? Here, let me tweak my algorithm ... see, you are clearly a Nazi? AI can't be wrong, you are a Nazi, you are wrong, I'm right ... oops, I meant my algorithm is right."

    31. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What standard of civility did you have in mind?

    32. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when a feminist starts a 'Yes all men' rant, you'll fully support censoring her right to free speech?

    33. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the words of left wing extremists?

    34. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by malkavian · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a great example of Cherry Picking.
      A rather fuller examination of the data, and a proper conclusion can be found here.
      A quick hint, Vox are basically using mis-framing of the population statistics to give a completely wrong picture.

    35. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and you just lost the argument by linking to mises.org.

    36. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Where did I mention race? Those who always make everything ABOUT race, are generally racist themselves...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    37. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      How? The data presented is linked directly to the FBI. Or is this a case of the messenger causing the message to be ignored? Intolerant of the messenger, thus ignore the message... How very "tolerant" of you!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    38. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, #5.. Chicago's doing just great, isn't it? But I'm sure it's just the fault of surrounding states where getting a gun is so easy...

      #2 is only true if you base your stats on what's the outrage of the day headline news in the MSM. The main problem is a certain percentage of cops who just want to shoot people. When it's a white cop killing a white guy for no reason, it doesn't get quite the press that a white cop shooting a black guy for no reason gets, because of all the hysteria to make everything a race/sex/etc division lately.

    39. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of those are either factually false or present an opinion within the mainstream of acceptable Unamerican thought.

      FTFY and just as true.

      More alt-fact for nazi! Sad!
      1. The constitution should be enforced.
      2. 72.4% of the citizen killed by the police are white.
      3. All the islamic refugees have killed citizens, except for sleeper cells that will act in the next 5 years.
      4. Public roads should only be used if you have an handicapped sticker.
      5. Firearms have caused fewer deaths than cars in the last year.

      Can I haz a +5 Insightful too?

    40. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Wait, did you just refute his argument with facts and NOT calling him literally Hitler?!?

      Unpossible!

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when that fails, you'll complain that it's the fault of some other neighboring country. And when it's worldwide and still not working, what will you blame?

      It's like the Communism defense, "It was an abject failure only because it wasn't implemented on a large enough scale!"

      People like you designate a pool as a "piss free zone", fail to provide a bathroom, and then blame everyone but yourself for there still being piss in the pool.

    42. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lrn2argue

    43. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You won the argument by making an association fallacy

    44. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of those cops shooting black people are themselves black?

      How many of those black people arrested for possession have priors? Or are hanging around people with priors?

      Correlation does not imply causation. BTW do you want to buy this rock? It repels tigers. Ive not once been attacked by a tiger ever since I picked up this rock. It's the only way you can avoid a savage mauling by a ferocious feline monster. Act fast before it's gone. Only $10,000.

    45. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a professional statistician, let me explain one big problem in your attempt to analyze racial shooting statistics:
      Populations.

      You are attempting to count the number of people shot of a given race against the ENTIRE US population for that race. However, that's not the group your sample is being chosen from. Your group is being chosen from amongst those that are interacting with police - if you never see a cop, you are not at risk of being shot.

      The correct population to use is the number of white/black/etc people that interact with police (stopped, ticketed, arrested, anything) and compare that with the sample proportion that is shot/otherwise killed. Anything else is wrong, either due to ignorance or to perpetuate a deliberate falsehood.

    46. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll never solve this.

      Ethnostates.

      If you want to live in this multiculti multiracial hellscape, go for it, but create ethnostates for those of us who don't - white and black.

      You're going to see a war otherwise.

    47. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol just like communism will only work when the whole world has switched to it.

    48. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      To state that that black crime rates justify police violence against the black population requires acceptance of racial profiling. See this article from a conservative publication:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/...

      All the facts it uses are true, but it fails to confront its implicit acceptance of racial profiling. In the US, statistically a black person is 3 times more likely to commit a crime than a white person, and 3 times more likely to be a victim of (nonlethal) police violence. But violence is not being dealt only to criminals. If there were no racial profiling going on, you should expect similar rates of police violence against all races. Of course you only mentioned lethal violence, which is more specific than the topic at hand.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    49. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Gun ownership isn't what we were talking about, it's gun control. Check my link again, especially the differences between countries, particularly Switzerland which has a high gun ownership rate and heavy gun control.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    50. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      2, Your defense only works if you find nothing wrong with racial profiling:

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      5. Stay on topic. We're talking about whether gun control reduces violent crime. Look at this chart and tell me how gun control doesn't work. If you'd like to imagine that the presence of more guns justifies more gun crime, remember that Switzerland has nearly as many guns as the US, and they're far more evenly distributed among the population there.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    51. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      *Of course I mean that Switzerland has nearly as many guns per person as the US.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    52. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking moron.

      Existing US gun laws are like only setting aside one part of a swimming pool as a "piss free zone" and then getting all astounded when the water in it starts smelling of pee.

      The need to be consistent across the whole fucking country to have any chance of working.

      You're not too good at this whole "thinking" thing, are you boy ?

      The sad thing is you probably really do think you're smart.

      OK, Einstein, explain these FACTS:

      1. Why is the crime rate in WHITE parts of the USA about the same as the crime rate in Switzerland?

      2. Why is the crime rate in the BLACK parts of the USA about the highest in the world?

      Grow a brain - look those up. They're TRUE whether you like it or not.

      If "black lives matter", what are you going to do to protected them from the biggest threat to black lives: other blacks?

      Yeah, right. Now you're going to believe something utterly stupid like whitey makes blacks kill blacks.

      What color is the sky on your planet?

      Because when you ascribe to "critical theory"-based progtard stupidity (Really? The entire world conspired to hold down women? Or blacks? And needs to be torn down? That's science?!?!?! Evidence for these "whitey" conspiracies - none. But we have entire "academic" fields dedicated to spouting such anti-intellectual crap. Grow a fucking brain...) you have to ignore evidence - like starvation in Venezuela. Like the NHS in the UK cancelling 50,000 surgeries. Like workers losing their jobs in Canada as a result of the "Fight for 15".

      You fucking stupid fools.

      I believe someone once called you "useful idiots".

      The fact is, it's poverty, thug culture, and the rejection of education as "too white". Nevermind that by perpetuating such things the Democratic Party in the US has a huge base of captive voters. Note well that high murder rates and poverty in the US correlate directly with areas controlled by Democrats.

      Oh, and you don't think it's a deliberate strategy on the part of Democrats? Well, why don't you read what Democrat Senator Danial Patrick Moynihan predicted would happen to blacks if the "progressive" welfare ideas of "free money from the government" were enacted? You got the balls to read that? I'm guessing not, because it's exactly what happened: the welfare state has trapped the majority of US blacks into a vicious cycle of poverty and crime.

      But hey, they vote Democrat so it's all good, right?

      And you stupidly congratulate yourself on your "wokeness" and how much you care for blacks, don't you?

      You're too stupid to be called dumb as a post. Calling you dumb as a post would be an insult to every acorn that dreams of sprouting, growing into a mighty tree, getting cut down, and hewn into a fucking post.

      Now, it's time to really make your head explode: within one year of coming to power, the policies Donald Trump implemented (lower regulation and lower taxes) have caused black unemployment to drop to its lowest level in DECADES.

      That has to hurt, doesn't it? After 8 years of Obama's Thalidomide-baby "recovery", it takes Trump a year to actually do more for blacks than Obama ever did.

      Some "raaaacist!" there.

      That's why you progtards hate Trump so much - you're afraid his policies will WORK and put more people to work making more money and lay bare the failure of Obama's efforts to "remake the economy".

      That's why you #ResistWeMuch - your entire fantastical world view based on wishful thinking, butterflies, and unicorn farts is threatened by someone with actual experience who just might fucking make things WORK after almost a decade of being told the US is in "recovery" by a racist, divisive community organizer who'd never even run a fucking 7-11 shift.

    53. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To state that that black crime rates justify police violence against the black population requires acceptance of racial profiling. See this article from a conservative publication:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/...

      All the facts it uses are true, but it fails to confront its implicit acceptance of racial profiling. In the US, statistically a black person is 3 times more likely to commit a crime than a white person, and 3 times more likely to be a victim of (nonlethal) police violence. But violence is not being dealt only to criminals. If there were no racial profiling going on, you should expect similar rates of police violence against all races. Of course you only mentioned lethal violence, which is more specific than the topic at hand.

      The crime rate in white parts of the US is about the same as the crime rate in Switzerland.

      The "high" crime rate in the US is driven entirely by the stupendously high crime rate in small areas of the US - most of them black.

      Care to address that?

      Care to address the impact of "thug culture" and how the resulting "fuck the police" attitudes might correlate with claims of police violence? And how those attitudes and behaviors are correlated with race?

      Care to address the race of the police that are accused of violence?

      Or will you hand-wave those facts away in your quest for "social justice"?

    54. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

      I hope these facts will persuade you to stop spewing lies.

      Clearly one of you is lying, it's not hard to guess who...

      At absolute best your table of lies, if we pretend they are true. Still only say American states are just as murdery as each other, and say nothing about other places with sensible gun laws.

    55. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by mjwx · · Score: 2

      It's even better than that. Not only are they not drying to hide, they pop up whereever some offended snowflake deems them appropriate. Can't win an argument on merits? Call the other guy a Nazi and you're golden! I'll demonstrate:

      1. American immigration laws should be enforced.
      2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens.
      3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy.
      4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age.
      5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime.

      All of those are either factually true or present an opinion within the mainstream of acceptible American thought. How long will it take for someone to label one or all of them extreme and me an extremist beyond the pale of acceptable civil discourse.

      Ignoring the fact that 2 and 5 are demonstrably wrong. You are the one trying to change the definition of Nazi, not anyone else.

      The problem you have is that Nazism is a far right wing ideology based on extremist nationalism and institutionalised racism (the difference between a fascist and a Nazi is the fact Nazism has racism baked into it's very foundation). You have trouble reconciling the fact that right wing philosophies can be bad, so you need to change its definition to suit you.

      Further more, you're trying to change the definition to make yourself look like a victim when you aren't one. I'm going to say something controversial... White males remain the most privileged group in modern western society. The problem you have is that you cant reconcile that with your desire to be a victim.

      Finally, if you find you are being called a Nazi often, you either need to examine what you are saying (and how you are saying it) or find a different audience... However its more likely to be what you're saying rather than who you're saying it to.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    56. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so a culture like Switzerland - which is nearly mono-culture, mono-race, and highly wealthy and educated - has different gun results than Somalia? Shocker! Guess what - it's CULTURE, not control that makes the difference. Go to Thailand, and you'll find gun laws more permissive than the US - and a lot less gun death. The CULTURE is different. But go ahead, ban those inanimate objects because of fear...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    57. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about people who make everything about left and right? What kind of people are they...
      I know, I know, delusional partisan cock suckers..., on both sides.

    58. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      LOL is that what you think? Here's a quick overview of Thailand's gun laws:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Also Switzerland isn't much wealthier than the US:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/co...

      There's no relationship between monocultural and monoracial places and lower gun crime. Look at Somalia or any other war-torn African hellhole. Or on the other end of the spectrum, look at France, England, or eastern Canada. Those places are also not far from the US in wealth and have much lower gun crime. Or look at Australia or NZ - mostly white, monocultural or damn near close to it, incomes in the same ballpark as the US, and much lower gun crime.

      On that note, you're right that the US' gun violence is due to a cultural difference. The US has a cultural problem called gun culture, and it keeps them from having sensible gun laws. Australia used to suffer with it, but they got over it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    59. Re: signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad thing is you probably really do think you're smart.

      You hurt that people can recognize their own intelligence, while also identifying your own personal characteristics?

      OK, Einstein, explain these FACTS:

      1. Why is the crime rate in WHITE parts of the USA about the same as the crime rate in Switzerland?

      2. Why is the crime rate in the BLACK parts of the USA about the highest in the world?

      Grow a brain - look those up. They're TRUE whether you like it or not.

      Facts and truth are not always the same thing. For example, what you're claiming is that there are racially divided parts of the United States. Interesting that. When did this law get passed? And why do I suspect you'd refuse to look at any analysis based on poverty instead?

      If "black lives matter", what are you going to do to protected them from the biggest threat to black lives: other blacks?

      You'll want to join Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson at their numerous forums where they keep trying to address the problems of the black community to find out.

      Because when you ascribe to "critical theory"-based progtard stupidity (Really? The entire world conspired to hold down women? Or blacks? And needs to be torn down? That's science?!?!?! Evidence for these "whitey" conspiracies - none

      Except you know, the actual documented practices and behavior of said societal institutions. Like anti-Semitism, anti-Irish, and anti-Gypsy, bigotry and racism towards Coloreds is documented, and yes, it was even made law in the US.

      But hey, good on you, believing in a conspiracy of Democrats to create poverty.

      you have to ignore evidence - like starvation in Venezuela. Like the NHS in the UK cancelling 50,000 surgeries. Like workers losing their jobs in Canada as a result of the "Fight for 15".

      You mean a corrupt state run by a bunch of kleptocrats has starvation? Horrors! The NHS delaying surgeries in Winter? Horrors! Why in the US, you just suffer and die without even being scheduled for surgery! And workers in Canada losing their jobs? Is this like how Papa John had to fire people rather than pay for their health insurance?

      I believe someone once called you "useful idiots".

      Don't worry, I'm sure you enjoy being a useless idiot more.

      The fact is, it's poverty, thug culture, and the rejection of education as "too white".

      Well, yes, you got one right, too bad you aren't willing to consider the causes of that poverty, let alone the barriers to education. You congratulate yourself on how you're the only one with the insight to see it's some cabal of Democrats holding them back down, you've gone through the looking glass and hunted the great reverse vampires!

      Note well that high murder rates and poverty in the US correlate directly with areas controlled by Democrats.

      I'm guessing not, because it's exactly what happened: the welfare state has trapped the majority of US blacks into a vicious cycle of poverty and crime.

      Is this the same welfare state that Newt Gingrinch is responsible for, or the one Reagan created? You do know it's actually conservative policies that have driven US social spending planning for the past few decades, right?

      Now, it's time to really make your head explode: within one year of coming to power, the policies Donald Trump implemented (lower regulation and lower taxes) have caused black unemployment to drop to its lowest level in DECADES.

      That has to hurt, doesn't it? After 8 years of Obama's Thalidomide-baby "recovery", it takes Trump a year to actually do more for blacks than Obama ever did.

      LOL. Actually, what is hilarious is taking credit for things like this, much like Trump's recent touting of the lack of US airline fatalities, it's pure facetious bunk

    60. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find interesting, in this whole debate, is that there's a far greater prejudice that goes near-completely ignored. Consider: blacks get shot by police at around three times the rate for whites. But men get shot by police at over twenty times the rate for women. Why is there a furore over (uncertain, but likely) racism on the part of the police, but none over their far-greater sexism?

    61. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree with everything you said. Except Australia is far from a monoculture, 25% of people are born in a foreign country or their parents were born in a foreign country. It's further toward the other end of the spectrum than the US. But you are right that they don't have American gun culture.

    62. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Those gun laws in Thailand seem very lax compared to California, New York, and most of the US...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    63. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your explanation, however, does not make sense.

      You have failed to explain certain terms you try to use as if they were commonly known to society at large.

      "gun crime" - is it a crime perpetrated while owning a gun, using a gun, or is it the gun itself crawls off a shelf and commits crimes? Yes, the last part is absurd, but it is the image that is created when uncertain terms are used.

      "gun violence" - Like the above, the term implies that the gun was what caused the violence. This is factually untrue as an inanimate object cannot, by definition, CAUSE anything. It is an inaccurate and incorrect term used to elicit an emotional response whose final conclusion can only be the complete ban of owning firearms for the common citizenry. This is further enforced when the 'statistics' used to 'prove' gun violence includes instances where the perpetrator of the initial violence is, himself, shot by the authorities. It is a self-perpetuating myth, rather than an honest and factual look at the real problem, which is PEOPLE violence.

      "gun culture" - Seriously, what is this supposed to be? People fall to the ground in worship of "The Gun"(which is patently not true)? Or is it that our society, which places a high regard on the Right to not be oppressed by others, including our own government, believes that a person has the Right to defend their-self, and expects that person to be a responsible adult with that Right.
      History has shown, time and time again, that when a society removes the Right of the People to defend themselves, tyranny and oppression inevitably follow.

      And, finally:
      "sensible gun laws" - this is potentially the greatest lie ever devised. Every time an anti-gun person wants to restrict the Rights of lawful people to own guns they try to couch their infringement with the term "sensible". Yet their demands are far from "sensible".
      The term "sensible gun law" invariably means "complete ban" because that is the only final outcome that would be accepted by the person uttering that statement. it is usually accompanied by statements such as "you don't need..." or "There is no reason...", which are not only not true, but also imply that the person uttering those statements is somehow omnipotent enough to see the entirety of another person's life to know if they do or don't "need".

      Australia never suffered from "gun violence". They suffered from "people violence". if you look at the history books, you will find that banning guns was not the only thing they did to combat the problem. If you then compare that to major cities in America who have essentially banned guns, but whose crime rates escalated severely, you would come to the realization that it is not the gun that is causing the problem.

      There was a recent article about a 94 year old man who was arrested for having a collection of firearms. He wasn't arrested because he went on a shooting rampage. None of his guns caused the deaths of other people while in his possession. Is Australia really any safer now than it was a week ago when they didn't know about his collection? I know one person who is NOT safer...the former owner of the firearms.

      America does have a culture of violence. It is glorified all out of proportion to any other behavior. I'm not talking about Hollywood, though they certainly play their part in it as well, I'm talking about our "news". You read about all the negative aspects of firearm ownership (I use "ownership" loosely, as a thug with a stolen gun "owns" it at that point), but rarely do you see the positive. So-and-so saved his family, or fed his family, or defended someone who was weaker. These aspects are curiously lacking.
      so you are culturally conditioned into believing that gun ownership is "bad", and that guns have no positive purposes. you become afraid of "guns", and, like most reactive organisms, attempt to remove the object of your fear. In so doing you are perpetuating stereotypes, victimizing innocent people, and, in general, acting like a tyrant by f

    64. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's what you can get away with when you have borders and oceans separating you from jurisdictions with the loosest gun laws this side of a failed state.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    65. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who should we believe...someone who gave us concrete examples, or someone whose links rarely show what he claims, who didn't even bother to provide one this time?

    66. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you never see a cop, you are not at risk of being shot.

      Can I ask how you came up with this? This statement appears entirely untrue. You don't have to see a cop to get shot by one. You don't even need to be in near them.

    67. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Zealand's population is >20% Maori/Pasifika, plus another 12% Asian (mostly Chinese). I don't know what your threshold for "monocultural" is, but that seems like an exaggeration.

    68. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the joke.

      Assuming its a joke.

      I can't tell anymore.

    69. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is not Switzerland, it is not Britain, it is not Japan.

      You want to compare the US to Switzerland? Like comparing Pineapples to grapes. Switzerland is smaller than Maine and has a population like Michigan. Switzerland racial diversity boils down to 94% 'White European' and 6% 'Other'. It's largely a mono-culture country. It suffers relatively little from gang related violence and racially motivated crimes.

      Maybe if the US was 94% white, reduced in size by 99.6%, and had a 98% reduction in population - then maybe we could be like Sweden.

      There is a certain aspect of scale you're missing here. Keeping law and order over a relatively small population and relatively few urban population centers is easy. The difficulty of law enforcement and maintaining lawfulness however, does not scale linearly as landmass and population size grows. The increased cultural diversity and the conflicts it causes complicate things even further. The US is literally having trouble keeping it's vast police force on the same page when it comes to understanding of the law, citizens rights, and how to handle 'potentially dangerous situations'.

    70. Re:signal to each other in plain sight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also worth noting that Switzerland does not have a neighboring country rife with incredibly violent and powerful crime syndicates which routinely spill their conflicts over it's border, bringing with it tons of drug trafficking, violent crime, bribery, blackmail and human trafficking. Switzerland doesn't have an MS-13, Sinaloa, Jalisco NG, Gulf Cartel, Zetas, La Luta, Juarez Cartel, Beltran-Leyva and so on (and on and on).

  4. POINT AT TRUMP'S FEED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you are done!

  5. Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a good way to fight racism.

    1. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems like a good way to fight racism.

      I know..go figure, right?

      I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.

      Seriously?

      Geez....common sense has gone 101% out the door in the US.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.

      Well, dredging strawmen from the bottom of the YouTube comment barrel is hardly epistemologically impressive.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Don't use words you don't understand. The GP's quote has nothing to do with advancing the theory of the nature of knowledge.

      2. No strawman if the videos exist.

      3. Professors have been teaching for ten years that racism is power plus privilege. Naturally only whites have privilege, therefore no one of any other race can be racist.

    4. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the powers that be are concerned is the 'far right' are not nazi's and only speaking the truth; SUPPORTED by all government stats that white people will be a minority(by handing over all their lands to immigrants) within a lifetime. No other non-white countries are doing this...

      This is a genocidal outcome if not corrected.

      Most all the "Far right" are not supremacists, they are simply people who can understand the stats and believe what science (about race and diversity) overwhelmingly supports. Once whites are minorities theres NO reason to believe we will be treated as well as we do others.
      Examples are available 'everywhere'(just look at white minorities where they exist now).

    5. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Ten years? I got that back in a feminist class in college in 1992 that I was forced to take since I needed the credits and it was the only thing that fit my schedule. Only men could be sexist. So myself and the one other guy in the class sat around getting glared at for a semester, until we received a shining C for our effort.

    6. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by hey! · · Score: 1

      So in your mind, the only area of inquiry epistemology applies to is epistemology.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't call videos with hundreds of thousands of views "strawmen from the bottom of the YouTube comment barrel." Here, fast-forward in that video to the part where we hear that you can't be racist towards white people because [redefinition of established terms to suit agenda, then house of cards built on top of bogus new definition]." Videos like that are simultaneously popular and a bunch of steaming bullshit. They're also pretty easy to find. In fact, Vox publishes lots of high production value race-baiting bullshit videos and they get even more views, which sucks because Vox makes good content when they stay away from political opinion-as-fact pieces.

    8. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ten years? I got that back in a feminist class in college in 1992 that I was forced to take since I needed the credits and it was the only thing that fit my schedule. Only men could be sexist. So myself and the one other guy in the class sat around getting glared at for a semester, until we received a shining C for our effort.

      You must have been staring back and got misinterpreted or something, right?

    9. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.

      Why the fuck have you been seeing that?

      I mean sure, you can find the most crazy peope on you tube and watch the videos but... ... ...well, everybody needs a hobby I guess.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by hey! · · Score: 2

      I'll tell you what I told my kids when it comes to information literacy: in a world with seven billion people, you can find examples of any kind of you can imagine. Christian terrorists? Oh, please, that's easy; there are even Jewish Neonazis out there. It doesn't make everyone who calls himself a Christian a terrorist.

      What this means is that if you set out to confirm your preconceptions about some group people, you can find examples that do that. If you set out to disprove other peoples' preconceptions about that group, you will also find examples.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re: Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't affirmative action privilege? Because when you can't compete, change the rules to your favor. If I could change the rules, that would give me a lot of power.

    12. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez....common sense has gone 101% out the door in the US.

      Wow... just... wow. Quod erat demonstrandum. You have proven your own argument. Well done!

    13. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That advice is really irrelevant. These opinions have become heavily mainstream at most colleges in the country among both faculty and students. It fuels a bully culture that results in people losing jobs and highly unreasonable demands being treated as legitimate consumer backlashes that companies respond to in a heavy-handed manner. This trash drives HR paranoia up and gets people fired. Its greatest enemy is logic and anyone who disagrees is "a Nazi" and can justifiably be punched for that disagreement.

      How big does "that group" need to be before it becomes a problem that your apathy can be bothered to move out of the way to resist?

    14. Re: Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy? This is mainstream leftist ideology taught at almost every college in America...

    15. Re: Only white supremacists, right? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Because when you can't compete, change the rules to your favor.

      And your point would be? The argument *for* affirmative action is that the status quo ante competition is unfairly rigged so that people in certain groups can't compete. This can be contested several ways:

      (1) denying that the status quo is rigged.

      (2) denying that the status quo being rigged is a problem.

      (3) accepting that the status quo is a problem but denying that anything can be done about it.

      (4) accepting that the status quo should be changed but denying that affirmative action is the right thing to do about it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re: Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the far right is upset that it's not OK to be racist anymore and that makes them mad. They no longer have the freedom to hate on a group of people for no reason, and that scares them.

      They pine for the days when you could call a black person a spook or ni66er and it was acceptable.

      Sorry bunk, those times don't exist anymore. So if you act like a racist asshole, don't be mad when you get called out for it. It is not acceptable in today's society to be racist. We all need to learn how to live together.

    17. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    18. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a rare opinion, though. If you think that's just something from Youtube, then you are sorely, and sadly, mistaken. If you stop for a second and observe the behavior of a great many people supposedly against racism, you'll immediately know for yourself that this view is widespread. This has led to the absurd notion of "reverse racism", which is just non-white racism, and even more absurd discussions of whether "reverse racism" can exist. Go ahead. Google it. Or just read the Wikipedia article. I'll wait. People are much more crazy on this topic than you assume.

    19. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The great innovation that created the web was hyperlinks. Since the 90s we have been able to not just say "I saw this on YouTube", but provide an actual link directly to the content!

      For some reason some people don't use this facility to enhance their arguments.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re: Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. You're trying desperately to staple your agenda to things, but there's a fucking HUGE difference between having an issue with being told your race is evil and telling other races they're a societal cancer. Franchesca Ramsey and the millions of college kids that follow the same ideology are running amok shouting that black people can do no wrong and white people can do no right. That's racism so clear it could be beside the word in the dictionary. You keep pointing fingers at "the alt-right" which really isn't even a thing in modern America while the social justice warriors are punching people with impunity, fueling riots, and setting cars on fire all under the guise of diversity or inclusivity or (my favorite doublethink) "anti-facism."

      Sorry, sweet summer child, your professors taught you wrong and you have no fucking clue what you're blathering on about. Get out of here while the adults are talking.

    21. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes minorities are treated as outsiders, because they are... literally a different tribe. Minorities are treated terribly by comparison in non-white countries.

      It is only whites that have such feelings of empathy for them and that is leading to our being taken advantage of(downfall).

      We cannot afford to become a minority, why? It's very simple; We will have no-where to return too. Our destiny will not be ours to determine(well short of voluntary extinction path we are on(birth rates, allowing hostile migration). Blacks,Asians,Indians, etc. have their homelands to return to. None of them are buying into the diversity is strength myth that we have. It might be different if they were.

    22. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Yep. Racism has been redefined by the Left to include "power" you can't be racist if you don't have "power" which conveniently means that they can be as shitty as they want, then claim that they aren't racist because they don't have "power."

    23. Re:Only white supremacists, right? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Seems like a good way to fight racism.

      I know..go figure, right?

      I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.

      Seriously?

      Geez....common sense has gone 101% out the door in the US.

      And I have seen of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white colour you are inferior to whites... Amazing what you can find if you look for it.

      The difference between you and I is that I know that the subjects of these videos are nutters and not representative of their society as a whole. Nor would I use such a nutter as a strawman.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    24. Re: Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo. We have a winner. You nailed it exactly. When my father traveled to Morraco they wouldnt serve his wife until he nodded even though she asked. A man had to approve of everything and she could not travel alone without a man.

      Yet if they come here, we have to adhere to their ways? Maybe when they will respect our ways in their country we can do the same.

    25. Re: Only white supremacists, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the far right is upset that it's not OK to be racist anymore and that makes them mad.

      No. The center is upset that the far left wants to call everyone a racist if they disagree with them. The straw that broke the camel's back is that now it's now that everyone that doesn't bow down to progressive ideology is a "Nazi."

  6. NEMESIS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean Samaritian, right...?

  7. Proof of deep state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proof that the deep state is anti-conservative and trying to take down our duly elected government.

    1. Re: Proof of deep state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "EX-NSA"

  8. Yes and only far-right, not left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems fair

  9. Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not all extremist content? What's purpose of focusing only on the far-right? I suspect he or Facebook and Twitter aren't interested in any kind of bot that identifies far-left content. Is this the beginnings of an AI war?

    1. Re:Odd by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because it's Salami Tactics by the Far Left.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The term Salami tactics (Hungarian: szalámitaktika) was coined in the late 1940s by the orthodox communist leader Mátyás Rákosi to describe the actions of the Hungarian Communist Party. Rákosi claimed he destroyed the non-Communist parties by "cutting them off like slices of salami." By portraying his opponents as fascists (or at the very least fascist sympathizers), he was able to get the opposition to slice off its right wing, then its centrists, then the more courageous left wingers, until only those fellow travelers willing to collaborate with the Communists remained in power.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Odd by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Speaking of fascism, dirgisme (private ownership but state control over the means of production) historically has been closely associated with fascism. Can you name an elected Republican who opposes cities forcing businesses to provide abundant, free parking for their customers? (Big Oil funds the Republican party, so probably not..)

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:Odd by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Hilariously you just described this story's comments exactly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Should be fun by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    I give it a day before someone convinces the rainbow flag has been co-opted and is now a symbol of hate.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To many, the rainbow is a symbol of hatred and intolerance already

    2. Re:Should be fun by hey! · · Score: 1

      You can get any result you want out of a machine learning approach to classification. Training the model to give the answers you want isn't cheating, it's how the algorithms are supposed to work.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well there was this: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.797650

      So if you are Jewish you must be anti-Gay

      And Anti-Gay people are clearly Nazis.

      Therefore Jewish people must be Nazis.

    4. Re: Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazis are socialists
      Democrats are socialists

      Therefore Democrats are Nazis!

      Actually, itâ(TM)s more accurate to say that Democrats and Nazis are both at the opposite ends of the same political spectrum - socialists all, but on the populist and state-ist sides respectively. Kinda funny that most people donâ(TM)t understand this when they toss names around.

    5. Re:Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      before someone convinces what? or whom?

      English please

    6. Re:Should be fun by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You can get any result you want out of a machine learning approach to classification. Training the model to give the answers you want isn't cheating, it's how the algorithms are supposed to work.

      ... and proof that such algorithms area terrible method for producing unbiased information.

      Of course, that's hardly the intent.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear..

      We've redefined tolerance into something that it isn't. Tolerance isn't me having to agree with your opinion or not saying what I think about what your choices when asked. That's NOT tolerance... Tolerance is my refusing to force you into any action, belief or admission if you don't agree with my views. Tolerance is NOT me agreeing to accept your views as valid and right, but it IS me not trying to force you into my view and just letting you be wrong if you choose.

      So the couple who hits up the Christian bakery with a lawsuit because a cake wasn't baked are being intolerant, not the baker refusing to bake the cake because it violated his religious belief.

    8. Re:Should be fun by hey! · · Score: 1

      I think the question is broken. These methods aren't supposed to produce unbiased results. They're supposed to automate human judgements.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Should be fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Christian crosses are actually Roman torture devices and clearly symbols of hate and agony. Fortunately people are not yet context free, stateless actors, even if the Internet tries to put their wits into network order.

    10. Re: Should be fun by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And interestingly, socialists who are Statists are about the closest you'll find to a real life fascist - using the State to coerce/force business (and thus, society) to do their own bidding. Meaning populists who are libertarian leaning/small-government focused are about as far from fascism as you can find. And oddly enough they are the ones called fascist by most of the media...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Should be fun by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      These methods aren't supposed to produce unbiased results. They're supposed to automate human judgements.

      Well thank goodness for that! God help us if more people actually thought critically and formed their own opinions, rather than having a corporate algorithm decide our beliefs for us.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  11. Fear this powerful nation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a proud citizen of the fruitful and glorious kingdom of the Netherlands; soon to be holders and protectors of a global hegemony the likes never seen before. Our mighty ships, our mighty crews, they will set fire to the lands beyond. A fire no mortal can put out. Such is the power of the powerful nationstate "Holland": Saviours of the Just, protectors of the Golden Child.

    1. Re:Fear this powerful nation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People all over the planet are recognising the enormous potential of the small, but efficient powerhouse that is called Holland.

      Soon your navies will be ours, soon your armies will be crushed, your fleets reduced to rubble, your women and your economy will be ours. Ready for a brave, new world? Embrace the glorious, powerful and just nation of the Netherlands. Before it is too late.

      We are righteous, we are just, we are the protectors of the Golden Child. Fear us.

    2. Re:Fear this powerful nation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the weather like up in Iceland at this time of year? Are you still clearing the snow off your driveway and basement windows?

    3. Re:Fear this powerful nation! by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Grab me some seeds of what your smoking, mister swamp german.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Fear this powerful nation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, Golden Ones! It is like you have foretold! Great Prophets, gather! The glorious reign of the Golden King is upon us!

    5. Re:Fear this powerful nation! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ahh the Netherlands. Or better known as Northern Spain! :) But really, get it together. Everyone else calls you Holland, you call yourselves the Netherlands, and you speak Dutch! Choose a freaking name for godssake!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Fear this powerful nation! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Saviours of the Just, protectors of the Golden Child.

      Bearing responsibility for yet another K-Pop boy-band is not exactly something to be crowing about.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  12. And the far left by mschuyler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the far left gets a pass!

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:And the far left by Noishkel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course. After all far left academia have been rewriting the definitions of everything for years now. Be it the idea of what is racism to the very concept of gender. All while the news media covers for them by writing puff piece after puff piece proclaiming the virtues of these bat-shit and abjectly false notions.

    2. Re:And the far left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know you can dislike more than one group of hateful people at once?

    3. Re:And the far left by taustin · · Score: 2

      Maybe he'll open source it, and it can be tuned to any hate speech. Left, right, misogynist, misandrist, racist, even people who hate goats.

      Or maybe it won't work worth a shit, like all the rest of the algorithms that are supposed to flag stuff on social media.

    4. Re:And the far left by taustin · · Score: 1

      Actually, some people can't. They're equally common on both ends of the political spectrum.

      Where I come from, we call them "stupid."

    5. Re:And the far left by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the far left isn't dumb enough to actually call themselves Nazis.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:And the far left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like people who hate Nazis.

    7. Re:And the far left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'far left' are busy tying themselves to trees, breaking moneys out of labs and punching Nazis, not spewing hate speech all over the Internet.

    8. Re:And the far left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazis were socialists.
      So you hate all who are socialists? Good, socialist are evil.

    9. Re:And the far left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When i read your comment my brain replaced the word notions with morons.

    10. Re:And the far left by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Did you know that your personal interpretation of "hateful" is just that, personal and therefore meaningless when you try to apply it to real life people. Could be that *you're* the hateful one and just projecting.

    11. Re:And the far left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice deflection. Keep defending your hate symbols. #MAGA

    12. Re:And the far left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate Goat Simulator! Stop oppressing me!

    13. Re:And the far left by taustin · · Score: 1

      Everything is funnier if there's a goat involved. Except porn. Porn is not funnier if there's a goat involved. But everything else is.

    14. Re:And the far left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had to limit the number of matches by avoiding the obvious?

    15. Re:And the far left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's an individual working on her own time. What she chooses to focus on? Entirely her business.

      If she wants to build an AI to detect flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers or people who think Will Smith is cool, that's fine. The interest here is technical and topical, not "our tax dollars at work".

    16. Re:And the far left by mjwx · · Score: 1

      And the far left gets a pass!

      Because the far left doesn't really exist in western societies. Marxism, Trotskyism and Lenninism have long since died, Maoism isn't actually communism any more (China is communist in name only) however fascism (which is extreme right wing) has been coming back with a vengeance.

      As a centrist (centre right, objectively) I view all kinds of extremism as bad, especially authoritarian extremism such as fascism or Stalinism. I'm also acutely aware that our society is more tolerant of the extreme right rather than the extreme left. This means the extreme right can surreptitiously gain more power than they would be permitted to in the open and before you know it, there are enough of them to start causing problems for the rest of society... basically like the did in Germany in the 1920's. I dont really want to live under an extremist government or have standover men at polling booths, The biggest risk of extremism in western society comes from the far right.

      However absolutely nothing is stopping you or anyone else from doing the same thing as the person in the article for symbols of the far left... the problem you've got is that there isn't really a big problem with the far left and well... most people who would bother with this have no idea what the left actually is so you'll get so many false positives that everyone will ignore you.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  13. What about the left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about far-left wing symbols of hate, violence, and oppression?

    Antifa flags, socialist fist, hammer & sickle

    After all, the Communists have killed far more innocents than the Nazis did.

    1. Re:What about the left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You got it wrong, communists never killed anyone. The ones you are referring too aren't real communists because of some stupid criteria I made up.

    2. Re:What about the left? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      aren't real communists

      Exactly this. The "no true Scotsman" argument. Except, we have a new modern version called Venezuela which raised the praises of Bernie Sanders when all was "good". "“These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Venezuela ”"

      Now, that doesn't represent socialism at all, because it has failed, and people are literally starving to death because of the policies of governance that caused people to stop producing because success is punished.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:What about the left? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh it was socialism alright. It was also complete oil export dependency and suicidal agricultural policy. Socialism isn't what ruined them.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:What about the left? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Antifa has literally never killed anyone and isn't communist.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:What about the left? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What about far-left wing symbols of hate, violence, and oppression?

      What about it?

      If you care go do something. Sto whining that someone else is trying to do something about a different bad thing.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:What about the left? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Never is. It is always something else.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:What about the left? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Correct - Antifa isn't communist, it's fascist. At least in its actions and stated goals...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re: What about the left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You salty you didn't get an obama phone? Ahhhh poor snowflake.

    9. Re: What about the left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about those nazis marching with flags, what are they?

    10. Re: What about the left? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Fascists as well. They just want different ends with different groups silenced/oppressed/killed.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  14. Needs a good Xenophobe filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It definitely needs to find a way to filter out ANYTHING that might be Xenophobic because that's always racist.

    Unless it's about Russia.

    Or unless it's about Boycott, Divest & Sanction which is the politically correct way to literally act like 1933-era Hitler but OK on the UC Berkeley campus so not a hate group.

    Or unless it's misgynistic AND xenophobic remarks about Melania Trump because reasons.

    Or unless it's antisemitism directed at Ivanka Trump because similar reasons.

    1. Re:Needs a good Xenophobe filter by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Or unless it's about Boycott, Divest & Sanction which is the politically correct way to literally act like 1933-era Hitler but OK on the UC Berkeley campus so not a hate group.

      Literally Hitler started building concentration camps in 1933. If you thing a bunch of noisy students is equivalent to mass genocide then something is very wrong with you.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Needs a good Xenophobe filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he began with noise a decade earlier.

    3. Re:Needs a good Xenophobe filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally Hitler started building concentration camps in 1933.

      Hitler was pounding away with a hammer and built multiple concentration camps himself?

      If you thing a bunch of noisy students is equivalent to mass genocide then something is very wrong with you.

      The building of safe spaces for the purposes of segregation isn't much different than what the Nazis were up to in 1933.

    4. Re:Needs a good Xenophobe filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the trans community has a problem with being associated with anything that directly challenges authority.

      If you're going to challenge authority, do it in a way that directly debates the policy involved and do not bring your own identity into it.

    5. Re:Needs a good Xenophobe filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we really want to go by timeline - They're acting like Hitler before he was elected Chancellor. When the equivalent happens for the Left they by all appearances seem ready to arrest and imprison the alt-right and put them into a couple of forced labor camps (1933). A year later after Neo-Hitler has performed an alt-right purge they will centralize the administration of their forced labor camps. After december the Neo-SS will take control of the camps. Only four camps will be in operation, 3 for men and 1 for gender traitors (women). Five years later the Right Think Gestapo will be given sole authority to incarcerate persons in a concentration camp. From By next year Neo-Hitler will need to expand the labor camps to accommodate their bloody conquest of MRAs. At this time the prisoners in forced labor camps will be used for Neo-SS commision construction projects. On September they will start WWIII - at this point the camps (concentration camps at this time) are solely using prisoners for forced labor and construction. As the war progressed, THEN they will begin executing prisoners en-masse.

      So technically Berkley leftists have a good 6 or so years left before they need to begin committing genocide and then you'll be right. Right now they're just using the politics of the Nazi party for lack of judicial power to enact criminal punishments for wrong think.

  15. Hate and far-right symbols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's sounds fine.

    The problem is when the definition of "hate" keeps expanding to encompass anything a particular group does not agree with, which seems to be a trend now a days. Twitter has become the on-line equivalent of the American university safe-space where nobody has the right to be offended by anything at all whatsoever.

    1. Re:Hate and far-right symbols by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The problem is when the definition of "hate" keeps expanding to encompass anything a particular group does not agree with

      Deplorable hatemonger nonsense. See definition here:

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. Public shaming is a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    though most of them are too dumb to feel shame. Shame requires cerebral processing, not cro-magnon man brainstem functions. They voted for a lifelong conman, after all.

    Nonetheless, if they post publicly, they deserve the public spotlight to be on them. There is no expectation of privacy in this context.

  17. what about leftist, centrist, northist, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The program is totally not politically motivated.

    1. Re:what about leftist, centrist, northist, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservative snowflakes will clog the prison gutters soon as they melt.

  18. This might trigger some Putinbots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I'm for it.

  19. Trans SJW wackjob by Train0987 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    https://www.self.com/story/tra...

    Can't find anything claiming he worked for the NSA, simply Army intelligence (which is anything but intelligent).

    1. Re:Trans SJW wackjob by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      ...and someone did some research...but...Nazis!

    2. Re:Trans SJW wackjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And....what's your point? That pointing out the hatred of you people are bad because she's trans?

    3. Re:Trans SJW wackjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all i heard was butt nazis

  20. Should be looking for Che Guevara by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Communism is both much deadlier and more socially-accepted than any other kind of hateful school of thought today.

    Anything "fighting evil" that ignores images of Che Guevara and like symbols is simply partisan b.s.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by ABEND · · Score: 1

      Hm, what about communism as a popular movement where those who believe in communism start, freely, working to the best of their abilities then, freely, sharing the profits of their work with those of less ability? Let's see that happen. Let's not see communism forced upon us.

      --
      In all seriousness:
    2. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hm, what about communism as a popular movement where those who believe in communism start, freely, working to the best of their abilities then, freely, sharing the profits of their work with those of less ability? Let's see that happen. Let's not see communism forced upon us.

      Interestingly, if you read the chapter Acts in the New Testament of the Bible, you'll find that perfectly described as the way early churches and congregations lived. In commune with one another. Out of mutual love and respect for each other and for those of society, and simply preached their own moral code to others - no force implied or used.

      Now days, those same people are attacked and labeled as haters by the left, who seek to cloak themselves in modern "communism" which demands force from the Government to coerce actions and beliefs amongst all...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      With what the NSA collected on Communist nations a deeper understanding of what Communism is should have been understood.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This always ends with communism being forced on "nesoznatelnyje elementy" -- irresponsible individuals.
      People been through this story for so many times already, with so many people suffering immensely. Communism should be outlawed. Like perpetual motion engines or such. Waste of human lives.

    5. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by hey! · · Score: 1

      Wait -- so some Buzzfeed editor's twitter feed is how you find out what is socially acceptable?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh so do as we say or burn in hell for all eternity. Yep, no government coercion there...

    7. Re:Should be looking for Che Guevara by mi · · Score: 2

      Wait -- so some Buzzfeed editor's twitter feed ...

      I offered two links, not one. And there are lots more. Communism is cool again — even if not everyone at Buzzfeed think so.

      Heck, most of the "Antifa" are not-so-crypto Communists...

      ... is how you find out what is socially acceptable?

      Make an experiment — walk through Greenwich Village in a Che Guevara T-shirt. Then change and walk back in a Trump one. Keep track of the number of middle-fingers and other expressions of hostility.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  21. Outsource it to Microsoft by omnichad · · Score: 2

    Just see who Tay follows on Twitter.

  22. Taking on IBM by makerfixer · · Score: 1

    The cataloging and inventory of undesirables used to be their job, I know even the Germans were amazed by their efficiency, now some startup wants to run them out of business.

  23. What about left-wind extremists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  24. That's a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Symbols like #kkk, #neonazi, #blacklivesmatter, #antifa, ..

  25. An MJ Blockchain approach would be better by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Obviously, given the funding sources for these extremist groups, you could also identify them thru people who, for personal gain, are against legalized MJ, and then correlate that with Blockchain ads. I find a lot of the fake FB and Twitter bots in those groups.

    Bitcoin and tulips both look pretty, and have about as much use.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  26. First job: identify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After you've found the people you want, you round them up. Inconspicuously at first - call them terrorists, or nazis, or commies, or whatever. They are undesirables right? Make sure they have criminal records. Later, when the population has accepted mass incarceration, you can more easily eliminate them.

    Yep we are nearly there aren't we. Only this time with AI to help us automate the process even more.

  27. Obsessive much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of a friend who sees Illuminati symbols in every triangle or one-eyed photo.

  28. Blaming one side of the political spectrum is nuts by Glock9mm · · Score: 1

    This business of blaming one side of politics for all "hate" is nonsense. Someone also needs to read up on the 1st amendment which doesn't only protect politically correct speech. That kind of speech doesn't need protecting. It's speech you disagree with that needs to be protected the most.

  29. I hate the US constitution too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do I sign up for my US gubment job?

  30. Done better in 2007 with CRM114 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A better neural net, faster, lighter, and more trainable was written back in 2007. It's called "crm114", adter the infamous piece of signal validation equipment broken in the plane dropping a hydrogen bomb in "Dr. Strangelove". It's in pure C, it's trainable on any axis or now multiple axes you want to use, and it's also the most effective spam filter in the world, and it's GPL software available at http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ .

    So why are these fools re-inventing the wheel? Oh, wait!!! They might have to publish their modifications to their clients, so they re-invent, and re-invent, and re-invent the wheel, and they make it bulkier and in Java and Rust an dPerl and Ruby and *ignore the algorithms and training*, which are the crux of any recognition system. And is crm114 progressing much? No, because it doesn't *need* to. It's already in use commercially in places you would not *believe*. Ask the author, Bill "Crash" Yerazunis, former American team lead on the American version of "JunkYard Wars", and holder of over 50 patents. The man is scary.

    1. Re:Done better in 2007 with CRM114 by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It's written in C? Clearly it's alt-right hater code! It has to be in Rust, otherwise it is clearly alt-right hater code!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  31. are there only two sides to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe everyone is shit. Have you considered that?

  32. The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Indeed. As it happens, I believe that (at least in America) the far right is much, much, much more dangerous than the far left, but that doesn't mean these pathetic hypocritical leftist witch hunts put a smile on my face. I mean, this is so stupid. We KNOW that the American leftists are not sufficiency energized by this tactic, hence why there was dip in the turnout of Ds last year, leading to Hillary's loss. Over a year later, and it's nothing but more self-sabotage, more of the War on Humor, etc.

    And yeah, the hypocrisy does really hurt. It bolsters the right wing media and disillusions the pro-rational, pro-truth left. (That's not even the same as "moderate". I don't believe in moderation for moderation's sake, just sanity for sanity's sake and truth for truth's sake.)

    Show of hands: are there any leftists in the audience who don't know, or still refuse to admit, that Black Lives Matter was/is a centrally planned movement run by a organization that openly quotes and openly idolizes the fugitive "domestic terrorist" and cop killer, Assata Shakur? Because it was, and they do. For a very long time, they had an attributed quote from her at the top of their website and you could find dozens of videos of BLM protesters chanting that same quote in unison at their rallies and protests. And the other major populist leftist movement of the past few years, that Women's March thing? Also centrally organized, and they openly celebrated Assata Shakur's birthday.

    The people on the left don't know this or want to hear any of this; they don't want think about it. But guess what? The right wing knows about it and they are using it (plus the War on Humor, plus a few of the actual lies printed by the "MSM", plus a thousand other groanworthy missteps by leftists who foolishly think they can beat the far right at its own game) to win over the hearts and minds of a new generation.

    I have zero fear of the "far left" directly doing massive damage to America; our left-wing politicians are way too moderate-ized (and also too unpopular) for that to ever happen. But these jokers are ruining it for everyone else, all the millions of us who despite what the Republicans stand for right now. They're ruining it for everyone, because they actually think that they can out-stupid and out-demagogue the right wing in America. And you can't; you just CAN'T god damn it.

    A left wing pro-PC / witch hunt mentality led directly to Trump and six months before that, it led directly to Brexit. How many clusterfucks is it going to take for people to wake up and realize that this has been a FAILED strategy and move on?

    1. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      How many clusterfucks is it going to take for people to wake up and realize that this has been a FAILED strategy and move on?

      Based on my experiences? All of them.

      It will take all the clusterfucks.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you're still going on about this? Why haven't you written a book instead? With orcs, and hobbits!

      A left wing pro-PC / witch hunt mentality led directly to Trump and six months before that, it led directly to Brexit. How many clusterfucks is it going to take for people to wake up and realize that this has been a FAILED strategy and move on?

      How long will it take you to give up your own concocted excuses? You've been believing this nonsense since we were at war with EastAsia. The right-wing is doing what it always does, nothing more. When will you wakeup and realize that they've acted of their own volition in embracing the Birther-in-Chief and all that he represents, which is nothing more than a continuation of the same faux-victim martyrdom complex that the right-wing reactionary dogma has been screaming about since they had Reagan as their standard-bearer. They even had freakouts over the US Department of Education. (Which they still blame over their own choices, and heck, they managed to attack Common Core as Obama's creation...)

      Yes, they were upset at the "PC-Police" back in the eighties too. And really, the seventies. It's been a running undercurrent in their mindset.

      Of course, it isn't like the party leadership is really genuine about believing it, but then neither is Trump. And look at how he really did. He barely outperformed Bush in 2004. If not for the GOP's voter disenfranchisement efforts, he'd have clearly lost, the way Bush would have in 2000 if not for their own manipulations.

      You should really get a better historical perspective. Try learning about the Know-Nothing Party. Or the resurgence of anti-immigrant tendencies in the late 1800s.

      Or learn the true and sordid history of the sovereign citizen anti-tax movement. Its violence is real, and the right-wing still cheers it on.

      Yet all your exhortations continue to give short-shrift to it, you pretend to be concerned about the left, but after months, you continue to fail to make a convincing show because all of your phony hand-wringing is directed at the left. You'd actually be better off to change your own approach. But what do we have? Nope, not happening.

      Don't worry, you'll be ignored, and the left will win because it turns out Republicans can't govern.

      PS, Theresa May doesn't want a Brexit either, she just wants something she can say was one and hope nobody notices.

      PPS, read the real story of Tippecanoe.

      PPPS, really, taking credit for no fatalities from plane crashes? Talk about inanity.

    3. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Yet all your exhortations continue to give short-shrift to it, you pretend to be concerned about the left, but after months, you continue to fail to make a convincing show because all of your phony hand-wringing is directed at the left.

      I lost interest in mindlessly bitching about the right in November of 2004. Not sure which universe you've come from or what cave you've been hiding in for the last 15 years, but dissecting the right's bullshit is CLEARLY not a strategy that actually delivers electoral results.

      Don't worry, you'll be ignored, and the left will win because it turns out Republicans can't govern.

      With a whipping boy like Trump still around? No. This is a horrible idea. EVENTUALLY it will work, sure, but the GOP establishment has tons of momentum and distractions left in it before the chickens come home to roost. Giving the GOP enough rope to hang themselves was Obama's standard operating procedure for 8 years and how did THAT shit work out for him?

      I'm not advocating masochism or meekness. Since you are quite the busy beaver little anon coward, if you care to, you could verify that I repeatedly spoke out in favor of an electoral college revolt against Trump. And there are a hundred other ways the democrats could toughen up, get people interested, fight back.

      An emphasis on political correctness (not anti-racist policies but anti-language stuff) makes the democrats weaker, not stronger. It is inherently divisive, corrodes the base and makes the overwhelming majority of fencesitters say "jesus fucking christ, are we STILL on this shit? Can we please talk about the economy or healthcare or something?" It's weak sauce. It's a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of Americans. And it's hitting the Republicans where they're strongest.

      Just close your god damned eyes and try to picture an electoral outcome where political fucking correctness (not fighting against overt discrimination, but language police and senseless identity politic divisiveness) wins elections. It will NEVER win an election in America; at best it's an irrelevancy in areas that were blue to begin with. It's a distraction. It's a parasite sucking up sound bite time that could better be spent on shit that people actually care about.

    4. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lost interest in mindlessly bitching about the right in November of 2004.

      Well, maybe you should try thoughtful complaints instead? Mindless bitching does seem to be your problem. A little time spent cogitating and ruminating might achieve better results for you.

      Just close your god damned eyes and try to picture an electoral outcome where political fucking correctness (not fighting against overt discrimination, but language police and senseless identity politic divisiveness) wins elections. It will NEVER win an election in America; at best it's an irrelevancy in areas that were blue to begin with. It's a distraction. It's a parasite sucking up sound bite time that could better be spent on shit that people actually care about.

      Actually, following through with the political dogma of the right's simmering outrage was what Trump used, not that it really helped him achieve his much-touted landslide(because you know, it didn't exist), but I'll grant it worked for his base. Well, not like they'd have done differently, he was just the candidate who got ahead, not different in principle from the others.

      However, if you'll note, while Trump used it to attack Hillary Clinton, it wasn't actually her agenda, she barely even tiptoed into the waters, then backed right out and reversed course. Because? I don't know, maybe she did listen to people like you.

      Maybe you should open your eyes, and stop living in your fantasy world? Try to see the world as it differs from your portrayal. There was no language police, except on the right(who don't want you saying undocumented immigrant or climate change, or a dozen other terms), and the senseless identity politic divisiveness was embraced by the same(or did you forget who was behind those rallies and what they wanted?). Sure, Trump screamed about Hillary doing that sort of thing all the time, but Trump screamed false imprecations about her on immigration, the deficit, and whatever else. Heck, he's STILL screaming about her being corrupt.

      And he even spent the last month courting the purported outrageous War on Christmas. Kinda telling when you have to attack the Peanuts gang.

      But you, you seemingly think, for whatever deluded reason, that somehow all of this was what Democrats and the Left are advocating with some sort of whole-hearted zealousness. IOW, buying the same excuses the right always has of being the aggrieved party. You've swallowed the pill, and rather than being the path to enlightenment, turns out it was one of Lewis Carrol's that send you off to the Land of Confusion. Or Hunter S. Thomson's. Trippy man!

      Since you are quite the busy beaver little anon coward, if you care to, you could verify that I repeatedly spoke out in favor of an electoral college revolt against Trump.

      You'd have done better to admit the Electoral College is one of the many broken, flawed, and systematically exploitative parts of America's broken system of governance. That'd actually show commitment on your part.

      Not sure which universe you've come from or what cave you've been hiding in for the last 15 years, but dissecting the right's bullshit is CLEARLY not a strategy that actually delivers electoral results.

      Don't worry about that, you aren't going to influence elections, you should focus on establishing your own quality of argumentation. So far, you've been failing. For months as I said. It's hilarious, but not as much as the editorials in the local right-wing rag. They're still convinced that Trump will do right for America because of his business enterprises.

      Giving the GOP enough rope to hang themselves was Obama's standard operating procedure for 8 years and how did THAT shit work out for him?

      What illness do you have that is causing you to come up with these ideas? Obama did more to excuse the GOP and take the blame on himself and the Democratic Party

    5. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is as much connection between the 'Left' and Democrats as between the pig and the butcher.

      Unless you equate Goldman Sachs with Central Committee.

    6. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The US political scale is way off. What you call the far left is just the centre ground in other countries. To us the Democrats are the moderate right.

      The hard right government in the UK recently published a report about how badly black people are treated by the justice system and vowed to do something about it. You know, the exact thing that BLM wants.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Actually, following through with the political dogma of the right's simmering outrage was what Trump used, not that it really helped him achieve his much-touted landslide

      Which was my very thesis to begin with: the right can manage manufactured outrage politics just fine. The left sucks at it. When the left tries, it just energizes the right because it lets them double down on charges of hypocrisy. But that's ok though; the American left has other weapons at its disposal that the right lacks.

      What illness do you have that is causing you to come up with these ideas? Obama did more to excuse the GOP and take the blame on himself and the Democratic Party. He was absolutely TERRIBLE at being anything but the scapegoat.

      That's what I just said, or rather, that's the exact and obvious implication of what I just said. How many hours, no, how many MONTHS of your life have you wasted away as a faceless AC, pounding out replies reflexively without even noticing when people agree with you? I hope you're being paid for it because clearly, you aren't getting anything of substance back out of it.

      Yes, that is exactly right. Obama tried the passive, nice guy approach as part of his "hey let's give enough the rope to the Republicans to let them hang themselves so they look stubborn and insane and I look reasonable and awesome" approach (most famously he did this with his Supreme Court nominee, but he also did it with the 2011 budget crisis and at other point.) And he was repeatedly steamrolled and ignored for his trouble. That is MY point; thank you for helping to flesh it out. And you just implicitly advocated for a continuation of this abysmally passive policy: "You're wrong / don't worry / we don't need to change! The Democrats will finally win now that the Republicans have all the power and will show themselves to be incompetent asshats". yeah, sure. Except they've managed to dodge responsibility for a very long time already and now they have Trump, whom they will not hesitate to throw all their sins on the instant he's out of office.

      why do you admit they so easy to outrage over it?

      Because leftist partisans, like right wing partisans, are not average people. The things that outrage them do not equally outrage average leftists. Average right-wingers ARE much more easily outraged, and they tend to be older and have more free time on their hands to ruminate in their echo chambers and work up a good frothing rabid rage over non-issues like, say, Benghazi.

      I'm not worried about proving myself to anyone. The voting numbers speak for themselves (hey look, Trump got more Latino votes than Romney! I guess you just needed to scream that he was a racist nazi 200 more times and THEN the Latinos would've voted against him, right?); the attitudes speak for themselves, opinion survey results speak for themselves.

      You have nothing whatsoever to support the continuation of this laughable, fratricidal masochism of the left. All you have is 1) misunderstanding me continually and 2) an laundry list of irrelevant talking points you keep trying to jam into everything.

      This isn't an argument any more than it's an argument that the world is round. I don't engage in protracted, point by point debates with flat-Earthers. This is just me reminding people like you that reality does exist, and that everyone with a microgram of objectivity has already seen that this is not a cause that has helped liberalism grow or win.

    8. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      That is only a tiny piece of BLM's stated agenda. Again, an important macro point thesis statement: the American left (or leftists talking in American forums, I suppose) can't get away with being sneaky, sloppy or tolerant of partisan nonsense like the American right can.

      I believe I already acknowledged that our left wing politicians were very moderate indeed, but the far left (the same far left you guys have, more or less) DOES exist over here and is politically active, and this is a huge liability in ways that it is not over there in part because the distance between it and our mainstream left is so much larger than the distance between it and your mainstream left.

      There's some other stuff going on here complicating things but yes, the horseshoe is unbalanced and no, nothing I said applies to the UK. Y'all got your own distinct issues.

    9. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I just said, or rather, that's the exact and obvious implication of what I just said.

      Let's review what you said:

      Giving the GOP enough rope to hang themselves was Obama's standard operating procedure for 8 years and how did THAT shit work out for him?

      Except, Obama did no such thing, instead giving the GOP enough rope to get out of the water they were flailing around in. You see, I am actually in disagreement with your stated cause. It wasn't a matter of failed accomplishment, it was a matter of never attempted.

      You really should make more of an effort to reply with a credible argument.

    10. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Then why the hell did he nominate a moderate like Merrick Garland and then refuse to raise hell after the Republicans refused to do their job? You characterize that as some sort of a proactive fight, do you?

      What of compromises offered to the Republicans in 2011 (and his refusal to push back with tactics like the trillion dollar coin threat after they began to seriously threaten to actually default on the debt)? What of unwillingness to be proactive and open about his support gay marriage (Biden had to drag him into it with his big mouth), his refusal (like Hillary) to consider used Trump's election to be used as a springboard for electoral college reform (or conceivably even a revolt), etc. I don't know what universe you come from but our Obama was not a fighter; he opted at all times to try for compromises and then quietly complain when the Republicans spat in his face. He was not proactive; he was reactive and image-oriented instead of results-oriented. His message: All we need to do is show we're better people than the Rs and we'll win!

      Again, this is isn't a theory; it's what he actually said. Go listen to his reaction to Trumps' nomination; he is clearly saying that nothing needs to be done, the Republicans are beyond the pale, the battle is already won, all we need to do is sit back, virtue signal to remind people that we're not asshat racists like he is, and reap the easy victory. And you can set those words next to the Pied Piper memo which shows, in clear black and white, an explicit Democratic policy based on encouraging Republican nutbags (such as Trump) in the primary because they would surely end up hanging themselves. The memo may have been Re: Hillary's campaign but it was part and parcel of the same D-establishment strategy that Obama subscribed to, as evidenced by those comments after Trump was nominated if nothing else.

    11. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, you still seem confused, apparently because you still don't want to consider the faults in what you said, so I'll repeat it:

      Giving the GOP enough rope to hang themselves was Obama's standard operating procedure for 8 years and how did THAT shit work out for him?

      See your claim? That it was Obama's standard operation procedure to give the GOP rope to hang themselves?

      Yet in reality(the one you live in), no such thing was done, and it turns out that all of your examples are of Obama not doing any such thing. It's like you don't realize how all your efforts are contradicting yourself. If what you had wanted to say was that Obama was terrible about holding Republicans accountable, that'd have been one thing, but in that case, your particular choice of idiom was poor and your failure to recognize that promptly is a further detriment to your communications.

    12. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Again, swinging wildly at nothing. The paper I linked clearly describes a strategy of giving someone extra rope so that they can hang themselves. I'm not going to explain common English idioms to you or do any more Googling for you showing how Obama's policies and attitudes and quotes were entirely in line with that paper produced by the Democratic Party establishment.

      Your refusal to admit to simple facts is quite Trumplike.

    13. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, you still seem unable to apprise your own error, seeming because you still don't want to examine the faults in what you said, so I'll repeat it:

      Giving the GOP enough rope to hang themselves was Obama's standard operating procedure for 8 years and how did THAT shit work out for him?

      Sorry but your own examples already showed that that was not Obama's behavior. And they weren't even a complete list of actions where Obama gave the GOP cover for their own actions.

      Or the Democratic Party, as such not doing so occurred in the Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan administrations. And even Nixon.

      You're just mistaken about the real events, and unable to reject your flawed misconceptions. I suggest taking the wool off of your eyes. Maybe get a new prescription.

    14. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Again, just Trumping your blessed little heart out. Go little Trumpeteer, go! Don't bother actually addressing the real black and white facts you were given or assert an alternate explanation/interpretation of Obama's behavior and statements or anything. This is definitely you winning the argument here, you just stubbornly saying "Nuh-uh!". This is a great and noble victory.

    15. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, still refraining from examining your own words, which I shall repeat, lest you think they've been forgotten:

      Giving the GOP enough rope to hang themselves was Obama's standard operating procedure for 8 years and how did THAT shit work out for him?

      Since in this thread alone, your own stated observations indicated that you knew that didn't happen, it was obviously an inaccurate factor in your assessment that necessarily leads to a mistaken postulation on your part.

      Perhaps you meant something else, but then it's really your choice of idiom that failed you, it would have been prudent to correct yourself after a thoughtful consideration that lead you to realization of your own error in expression.

      However, I think it's more likely your analysis is flawed, which is why you find it difficult to accept the problem as that takes substantially more strength of character.

    16. Re: The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Weirdly enough I haven't grown bored of this quite yet.

      I am sorry that you don't understand what it means to give someone rope to hang themselves. Maybe English isn't your first language. You see, it means to not only be passive but to even tacitly encourage someone forward, going with a strategy of letting your opponent damage themselves (in this case with a strong taking the high road implication.) Which is bedrock of everything I've said, going back to the original point about unhealthy obsessions with political correctness.

      Obama was passive, and you agreed with me. I explained WHY, and had written proof that this mind-rotting philosophy was present in the D party and observed that he said it in his own words if you listened to his verbal statements after Trump was nominated. You not only didn't responded to the argument, you haven't even bothered explaining the passiveness that you yourself agreed with.

      Obama did it for eight years, and it more or less backfired for eight years. In retrospect, it even turned out to be mistake for him to intentionally milk the birther thing, though at the time I thought it was brilliant of him. People don't need condescension, however well deserved; they need results.

      There only error here is that you seem to think that agreeing with half of my argument somehow invalidates the other half. Obama was passive and image-obsessed for 8 years. He and the Ds most clearly revealed the strategic thinking behind this passiveness in their reaction to Trump.

    17. Re:The Left can't out-stupid the Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The notion that actual neo-nazis as a political force are a credible threat is laughable - they've been in the US since after WWII and have made little impact on US culture, arguably they have lost a great deal of ground in the US what with the legalized gay rights, embracing of cultures and so on.

      'Alt-Right' is being used as a convenient re-labeling by well organized leftist groups to lump in political opponents, internet trolls, and 'party traitors' with highly distasteful and offensive groups such as neo-nazis through concerted accusations, dismissals and a healthy dose of media reinforcement to assist. This is much in the same way that 3rd wave feminists re-defined MRA from "men's right activists" to "obese sexist misogynistic male supremacists who live in their parents basement". Equal opportunity in paternity suits and criminal court rulings was apparently problematic. Men and Women are equal but Ladies first.

      The left is hell bent on imposing it's 'right think' on the US. it's weapon is putting people in neat little boxes that suit their new world view - using their numbers to attack people individually through doxxing, employer harassment, and media shaming - they declare a victory when a persons career is ruined by mob justice. They riot when a gay journalist comes to speak at Berkley because he doesn't "think like a gay man should". You either think like them or you're a Nazi - disagreement is hatred to them. Their dog whistling is the constant moral outrage on social media, accusations of sexism, and 'micro aggressions' such as "fart rape" and "man-spreading" (google it). Their recruitment offices are the college campuses, where they go as far as to enact their own armed vigilante police force if allowed.

  33. I think by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    The media throws around the term " AI " a bit too much. They make it sound like we're bringing AI systems online on a daily basis to solve all of our problems.

    I doubt we're anywhere close to a true, sentient AI and won't be in our lifetime.

    Then again, this is the same media who calls everything an " assault rifle " regardless of what the weapon truly is.

    I guess " building an AI " sounds sexier than " Bob is writing code " :D

  34. DDR Witchhunt! Wir schaffen das! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am always wondering why? Emily Crose. Why? Why bother putting so much energy in something so negative? Is it the technical stuff? The joy of building an A.I.? And was there really, by the love of God, no another data set to entice you more? I rather hear about an A.I. that find Hate-looks and Far-Out-Behaviour in cat photos! Hateful creatures, cats. Still you want to pet and cuddle them after the viciously preformed genocide on the entire bird population in the garden. So why the hate against these groups? Not that they are cat like (they don't have fur and the don't purr, pfff...) Is it that what you want? To unconsciously view all those hate and negative vibes for a long period of time? Or is it that you get off on being a goody two shoes. And you get credit in your social bubble. But then again. Why?

    But then again. Why am I writing this.

    Could you people please get along. You all have the same fears, and you all are in this together. You can not escape prison planet "earth". Not until you are dead. All this hate, suspicion, fear thy neighborgs...!

    1. Re:DDR Witchhunt! Wir schaffen das! by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC Re "I am always wondering why?"
      The first step is to track free speech. Then find the origin of people who want to publish and who is visiting the sites.
      Once a NSA like database is created of the entire 4 hops of the site then the reports to the FBI, state/federal task forces and city police can be made.
      Two law enforcement officials will then do a field interview to ask why a person in the USA expected to have freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
      If the need to comment online is not stopped by the chilling chat down then interview the persons work colleagues and friends.
      Go full Soviet and a request a state medical review on why a person feels they have the freedom to comment on news, history, art, culture, politics?
      If the comments have not stopped go for a formal police interview and stop that freedom of speech.

      The USA is going full DDR with its need to watch comments and then track people enjoying their rights. Freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably to assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, freedom of the press and the tools to publish.
      Why the internet needs to hold back any and all such rights in the USA is getting interesting.

      Most people can understand how the DDR used Zersetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to stop people asking questions, publishing, protesting.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  35. Please Stop by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    >twitter
    >decorum

    just fuck off already

  36. "I disapprove of what you say, but..." by imperious_rex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The famous statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (incorrectly attributed to Voltaire) has always been the best summary of the principle and right of free speech. Given the sad state of civics education in the past three decades, we're seeing the result of this failure to learn this basic idea. When we put "feels" above principle, we get garbage like NEMESIS that ignores the far left crackpots and singles out the far right crackpots. People really need to listen to their elders' take on free speech and democracy and not be a sucker.

    1. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Updated version:-

      "I disapprove of what you say, but I defend your right to agree with me."

    2. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      The famous statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (incorrectly attributed to Voltaire) has always been the best summary of the principle and right of free speech.

      Note how he said "I will dedend the to the death your right to say it".

      Not "I will defend to the death your right to have a company provide a platform to you fror free".

      Nor "I will decfend to the death your right to never have any criticism"

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by deepwell · · Score: 1

      ...People really need to listen to their elders' take on free speech and democracy and not be a sucker.

      What I love about the sucker video is that its intent was to combat fascism, by explaining that fascists segregate a population into groups. Which is exactly what the identity politics is all about. Back then it was the Jews, Free Masons, Catholics and 'Negros' Today it's the Jews, Blacks, LGBT, and Rich people. History is doomed to repeat itself, it seems.

    4. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything i don't like is a hate crime and should be killed.
      Everything i do like is a human right and YOU should pay for it.

      The liberal tune.

    5. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should point out:

      Christians bakeries sell cakes to anyone but this one group. (illegal)

      Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube provide a free platform to anyone but this one group. (legal)

      I think social media could use some regulation.

    6. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by hey! · · Score: 1

      Right, but this is really about trying to infer what is being said when the speaker employs circumlocution.

      Isn't close examination of your words part of the whole marketplace of ideas thing?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about "I will defend to the death your right to say something, as long as it agrees with me, and itsn't too nasty. Unless it's nasty about the right people. Otherwise I will ruin your life, and agree that you should be penniless and destitute because you said something I don't like. It's only fair. I'm the extremely vocal minority after all!"

    8. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by Terwin · · Score: 1

      I should point out:

      Christians bakeries sell cakes to anyone but this one group. (illegal)

      Except the bakery in question was willing to sell them any cake in the store or any cake in the catalog, the only thing they refused to do was to create a new 'gay wedding' cake design for them.

      'refused to sell them a cake' was the sensationalist headline the couple was trying to create(after visiting most of the christian bakeries in the area), and even then it was only vaguely relevant to the only actual refusal they received.

      If forcing someone to create and perform a creative work against their belief and against their will was ok, then any racist bastard could force [famous black musician] to write and perform a 'Blacks deserve to be slaves' anthem.

      (where create = write song/design cake and perform = perform song/bake cake)

    9. Re:"I disapprove of what you say, but..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are the owner or executive of a company and you espouse "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", then allowing your companies influence to censor their speech on your platform is a gross violation of that principle. You failed to defend their right to say it and death as a consequence wasn't even a real possibility there. Truly cowardly.

      When I was growing up, freedom of speech wasn't just a right to protection from government censorship. It was a belief that people have a fundamental human right to express themselves without fear of consequence. That people who denied such a right were abusive tyrants and had no place in a modern society. The UN even made a declaration of human rights, Article 19 is "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

      It's frankly shocking how evidently no member of the UN is working to uphold (many have already begun enforcing the violation of this right, hi Germany!) Other than the US that is - but even then in only a limited capacity and frequently wavering. At least we started protecting it from the founding of our nation.

      Freedom of speech entails having the courage to stand strong even in the face of dangerous opinions, and possessing a moral compass which will direct us justly. Today we can't boast of having either.

  37. Sounds like an attempt to build a straw-man group. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    "Crose's motivation is to expose white nationalists who use more or less obscure, mundane, or abstract symbols -- or so-called dog whistles -- in their posts, such as the Black Sun and certain Pepe the frog memes. "

    The Black Sun - fine you can call that one - I had to look that one up. Just about anything Pepe the frog is a post meant to troll people like this ex-NSA hacker.

    In order to be a proper victim there has to be a group that's in power and victimizing you, and if one doesn't truly exist, or isn't as organized as you would like you have to take the extra step and create one. The group that is making fun of people fighting to be top-victim is obviously the best choice. We can ignore the fact that group isn't actually all-white, or even all male because if you say "certain Pepe the Frog" meme's and exempt any that are from minorities or females while declaring any from a white male racist you built a nice little sifting box.

    How victim are you?

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  38. Another communist from Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With mental health issues.

  39. Communists always think they are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even when they kill tens of millions.

    1. Re: Communists always think they are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 million is more than 6 million, so itâ(TM)s better I guess

  40. Bullshit by sexconker · · Score: 1

    The real goal is to educate people

    Whenever a liberal talks about "educating" someone, they're really talking about indoctrinating them.

    1. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u8LnlzQyVJg

  41. Automated SJW brownshirt by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    So awesome. Grooming deplorables off the public network will make everything so nice. Should be a big help when hiring as well. Maybe voter registration some day. Yay.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  42. More signalling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... clamp down on hateful rhetoric online..

    The obsession with the far-right is entirely in the mind of the Slashdot submitter, not the ex-army employee: The developer even admits that black sun, swastika and Pepe the frog images have non-racist usage.

    ... use more or less obscure, mundane, or abstract symbols ...

    What the Slashdot submitter meant, besides a click-bait headline that causes SJW signalling, is the rabid left doesn't use logos or graphical devices (images) to create an identity. Thus, this will excuse violent feminists, anti-fascists mobs, and other hate speech where the proponents don't call themselves Nazis.

    1. Re:More signalling by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      What the Slashdot submitter meant, besides a click-bait headline that causes SJW signalling, is the rabid left doesn't use logos or graphical devices (images) to create an identity.

      Then the submitter is axiomatically incorrect.

  43. What about extreme left-wing hate and threats? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Twitter is absolutely flooded with death threats from Muslims.

    Load of "kill all cops" and "kill and white people" tweets.

    Hateful messages against whites is commonplace.

    That left-wing stuff all seems to be just fine with twitter.

    Even the most moderate conservatives get censored, suspended, or have the accounts pulled all the time.

    1. Re:What about extreme left-wing hate and threats? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Twitter is absolutely flooded with death threats from Muslims.

      That left-wing stuff all seems to be just fine with twitter.

      If you think death threats from religious fundamentilsts are left wing then you know so little about the political wings that you should probably refrain from using the term.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:What about extreme left-wing hate and threats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's left wing to ignore Muslim death threats because they are the religion of peace (TM) and even pouting out said death threats is racist and we can't have racism.

    3. Re:What about extreme left-wing hate and threats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion is neither left wing nor right wing. If you think otherwise, you aren't using the terms in any sense the US audience will understand.
      As it happens, the Islamic fundies are mostly radicals, not conservatives. They aren't even reactionary, since what they want has never existed here. Remember it goes moderate->progressive->radical on the Left.

      But the real reason is that the Leftists in the West are protecting the Islamic fundies (and their death threats) because a) the Right dislikes them, and b) they're poor Little Brown Brothers who don't know any better, so we need to Tolerate Their Culture.

  44. Great precedent by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they will open source their work, so that other like-minded individuals can use their program to ferret out communists, or Sufis, or Jews, or whoever else they want to round up.

  45. Nazi - actually left wing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi stands for National Socialists. By our definition that is left wing, have the government run everything political movement.
    Maybe he will also look into the Islamic extremists or the BLM or AntiFa rioters.
    Naa that is not his agenda.

  46. The Nazies would have loved it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first step toward controlling thought is to identify BadThink.

    1. Re: The Nazies would have loved it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ungoodthink.

  47. Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this detect rap lyrics which advocate the rape and murder of whites?

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. You must trust me, I'm a progressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love it when the liberals try to hide their crazy behind "science". And they think no one ever sees through their deceptions. One more attack on free speech by powerless fluffies, screaming against the sky.

  50. Read: Ex-NSA trying to capitalise on AI trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By picking low hanging fruits like image recognition.

  51. No Mirrors Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like they really hate hate groups. Hopefully the system quickly bans itself.

  52. Wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's also use it on the left as they will do the same things.

  53. A female Reddit mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will end well.

    Jai hind! Raj Karega Khalsa!

  54. Re:Awesoompln-me by chapstercni · · Score: 0

    Aren't they?

  55. Reminder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The transgender movement is centrally organized by a group which openly seeks to overthrow the government of the USA (No.554) and is on a grant from Soros's Open Society Foundations to suppress public opposition to al-Qaeda (No.327795).

    There's a lot of bullshit on 8chan/4chan but sometimes really important information comes through. It's an eye-opener when you look into it yourself and the information checks out. It's another eye-opener when nobody in the media is willing to report on it, not the R or the D or the independent media on either wing. It makes one wonder how many of these right-wing conspiracy theories that no one takes seriously might have some truth to them.

  56. Re:Sounds like an attempt to build a straw-man gro by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Now frog related publications, comments are banned and tracked in the USA too?
    What next songs about satellites?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  57. No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, conservatives have seen fit to re-brand feminism by pointing to its extreme elements. Is a small government type an anarchist? No but an anarchist would advocate for smaller government. Is someone concerned about illegal immigration a racist? No but a racist certainly would be. Likewise a feminist is not a man hater just because they advocate for treating women equally.

    It makes me crazy to hear female conservative commentators make statements like "I'm not a feminist but..." and then state they're in favor of equality of the sexes or in other words, lay out a completely main stream feminist agenda. They're literally participating in the negative re-branding of feminism while saying they're all for it.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's part of an effort to make nationalism more mainstream, by pretending that it already is the mainstream centrist view and everything else is extreme in comparison.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by malkavian · · Score: 4, Informative

      I used to listen to Radio 4 in the UK (that's a pretty "middle of the road" station).. At the hours I was in the car listening to it, Women's hour was often on; it was interesting to hear what the subjects were that women were focusing on, and sometimes came up with things that were worth pondering a lot from the male perspective..
      I gave it up when day in, day out, they were getting further and further into 3rd wave/intersectional feminism.. Now this is a "mainstream" station, not an extreme or "out there" kind of place. I gave it up and just listen to the music stations now.
      I'm finding 3rd wave being more and more "normal feminism".. If you're first or second wave feminist, it's not called "feminist" by a huge section these days, just "normal".. After the war of sex in feminism that led to 3rd wave, there's no agreement on what it means to be feminist, so you say what it means, and anyone who disagrees is an oppressor. I've had loads of 'mainstream' women tell me it's perfectly valid to put me down and be as abusive as they like, as I have "male privilege", and it's their enshrined right to do this.

    3. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many people claiming to want equality actually don't want equality at all, they want inequality which favors them.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nationalism has always been mainstream. It's this recent bout of globalism that is the outlier, it's being pushed by greedy corporations, and they are using the Left as their useful idiots to promote it and attack their opponents.

    5. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nationalism is normal, healthy, and rational.
      It's only fairly recent that the political left has decided loving your home, family, and society is bad.

    6. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Redundant

      The bulk of feminist philosophy is not in dispute. The third wave stuff is 10% of the total, and it's not even particularly controversial for most people. All it's really saying is that a white guy and a black guy have different issues with different solutions, because gender isn't the only thing to consider.

      That's literally all intersectionality is.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      Virtually no one will come out against equality between the sexes, if that's all that it took to be a feminist then the word would be useless. Whatever the word may mean, it's more specific than that.

      I think what the parent is complaining about is what I call "internet feminism," which is very much like "internet political commentator" or "internet expert on [foo]": it's a sort of perversion of an otherwise rational person into... something else. I think Penny Arcade had a strip about this. The trouble is that as people spend more and more time yelling at each other on the internet, that internet personality starts to bleed over into their regular personality...

    8. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Basically. Like all things nationalism can go to far, but a greater regard for your tribe than a tribe on the other side of the world is healthy and natural.

    9. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it leads to massive generalisations about people's experiences and different cultures as if white men are all part of this gigantic hive mind where a Slovakian factory worker is exactly the same as an Australian billionaire merely because they have the same physical characteristics. I'm a leftist. I voted for Corbyn twice however I don't want to be a part of a movement that hates me because of my appearance.

    10. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, that's the very thing that intersectionality avoids doing! Being white intersects with being male and being Slovakian and being a factory worker. The whole point of it is to consider those other factors and differing experiences.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so god damn stupid.

      It's literally racism and sexism codified.

      It's identical to, "black people are more likely to be criminals", "Jews are more greedy", and "Women aren't able to invent things as well."

      The only difference is that you're weaponizing it against some other skin color or sex.

      Feminists aren't interested in solving oppression.. They just want to be the next oppressor.

    12. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise a feminist is not a man hater just because they advocate for treating women equally.

      You're begging the question here: you're making an unspoken assumption that feminists advocate for treating women equally. In practice, the people I meet seem to fall into three categories:

        * Feminists who support sexual discrimination.
        * Feminists who oppose sexual discrimination.
        * Non-feminists who oppose sexual discrimination.

      The only people who support sexual discrimination - e.g. preferential treatment in job applications, in the courts, in art, in science, in technology, in politics, on public transport, etc. - are a subset of feminists. And it's a large subset: probably a majority.

    13. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      No that's what it's supposed to do. What actually happens is it divides people along racial and gender lines. I've seen comments sneering at white homeless men because how could they fail with all that privilege or white men are doing all right because some are billionaires. In the meantime amazingly privileged white males make up the majority of suicides in the US and UK. What's wrong with treating people like individuals instead of as a collection of characteristics?

    14. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Mainstream news invites the fringes of oppinion in all the time. If its a radio show about feminism then the extreme elements are just going to pop up from time to time. Meanwhile you'e abandoned your subjects "worth pondering" because you heard some things you didnt like.

      As for your anecdotal story, that's just you associating with shity women. In another era they'd just have found some other reason to be a jerk to you.

        I have plenty of female friends and associates and have personally never experienced anything remotely close to what you describe.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    15. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of conservative movements and in some cases nonpartisan or apolitical movements that the left just decided to jump on that are generalized by their extreme elements. Off the top of my head, the men's rights movement comes to mind as an example of a (mostly) conservative movement and gamergate comes to mind as an (originally) nonpartisan one. This isn't a problem unique to feminists and to be honest the irony of so-called feminists whining about it in one breath and doing the exact same thing to movements they don't like in another is utterly delicious. Take it from someone who was a part of gamergate: people who have decided to hate you aren't going to change their mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary you provide that your movement is almost universally peaceful and well-intentioned. However, distancing yourself from the radical elements in your group and making a point of calling them out will go a long way toward improving the culture of your movement and that will in turn help to convince casual observers who bother to educate themselves that you're, if not in the right, at least not an asshole.

    16. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You consider random internet trolls be more definitive than the mainstream movement?

      Unfortunately you are not alone, and there is little anyone can do about the trolling.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re: No, it's a blatant re-branding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You consider random internet trolls be more definitive than the mainstream movement?

      Drink! AmiMojo pulling a No True Feminist!

    18. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Let's say a conservative on the internet or anywhere else espouses clearly racist ideals. Does that make conservatives racist? No, of course not. Plenty of idiots espouse plenty of idiotic ideals on the internet and sure, they should be confronted, but that doesn't mean we need to change the meaning of a word.

      I'll leave you with the literal definition of feminism: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

      There's nothing bad there.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    19. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      If a person, conservative or otherwise, espouses clearly racist ideals on the internet, does that make even that one person racist? The point that I was making in my second paragraph is that I think the answer is: not necessarily.

      Your link has two definitions. The first is the milktoast definition that you give above, the second rings truer but I'd consider carefully whether there's nothing bad there, as you claim. Promoting one group over others is an explicitly anti-egalitarian stance. The argument is usually made that women are disadvantaged and so promoting them increases equality, and while this may be true in some contexts... that isn't how advocacy works. There's no one counting equality points, ready to turn off feminism once it has filled it's quota.

      There's also a matter of discrimination: it isn't specifically related to egalitarianism but if we take it as a rule of thumb that reducing discrimination generally has a positive effect on equality (call it "good vibes" or something), then advocacy through promoting one group to the exclusion of others is discriminatory and counter to that goal.

      Anyway, this has gone long for a response to a single sentence. Maybe I'm in internet loudmouth. (I'm not in real life)

    20. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      By your reasoning one could never support anything because then one would be "Promoting one group over others" and would therefore be "explicitly anti-egalitarian". That is of course complete rubbish.

      "2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

      There is absolutely nothing "explicitly anti-egalitarian" about that definition.

      How would the first definition ever even be achieved without the second? Without "organized activity" on behalf of any social movement women wouldn't been be able to vote and there certainly wouldn't have been a civil rights movement.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    21. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      By your reasoning one could never support anything

      ... What? How? I think you may not have thought this through, not every cause champions one group to the exclusion of others. How about, just throwing something out there, a soup kitchen? Very few soup kitchens say that they'll only give soup to members of group A, perhaps quoting some statistics which show that members of group B are less likely to be hungry. A real soup kitchen might end up serving group A more often for this statistical reason, but they're not leaving hungry B's out in the cold.

      So this soup kitchen promotes equality, because it serves group A more often and thus reduces the imbalance of hunger. And it accomplishes this in a non-discriminatory manner, because it also serves group B when members of group B need it.

      This is just an example off the top of my head, but... come on. I'm sure you could have come up with an example like this for yourself if you had tried.

    22. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      From my prior post

      ""2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

      There is absolutely nothing "explicitly anti-egalitarian" about that definition."

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    23. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      Okay, maybe it's my turn to link the dictionary then. I explained above, in this post, why I think those ideas are contradictory. I didn't go into great detail, since it all made sense to me, but I will go over anything that you don't follow or disagree with.

    24. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I really don't see how you can read that definition and see "2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" as non-egalitarian. Narrowly pursuing the goal of improving women's rights does not have to come at the loss of any one else's any more than those who narrowly pursued the civil rights movement were.

      No one can pursue any individual agenda (civil rights, gay rights, women's rights) without falling neatly into "organized activity on behalf of _________ rights and interests." Sure a person can pursue any social movement at the expense of others but it is absolutely not a requirement.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    25. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      How would you respond to this: "Net neutrality advocates are dumb. No we don't want ISPs slowing down some traffic, that would be censorship and anti-competitive and wrong. But those idiots keep complaining about fast lanes. Going fast is good! Fast lanes are just fine." ?

      Egalitarianism is specifically about people, so I can't call net neutrality egalitarian, but the idea is the same: equality is good and it is the opposite of promoting one group (of internet traffic) while excluding others. There's very little difference between promoting group A exclusively, and inhibiting everything that isn't in group A.

      So you bring up civil rights and the civil rights movement, and there's an interesting feminist angle there. Civil rights, of course, are for everyone - not black people exclusively. But the civil rights movement, at least in the United States, was pretty much exclusively about civil rights for black people. There were a couple of women, civil rights activists, who felt disenfranchised and ultimately quit the civil rights movement for this reason. But not before writing a fairly famous memo (here) which is considered one of the founding documents of second wave feminism.

      In other words, a couple of women quit an exclusionary movement for being excluded, only to inspire their own exclusionary movement. I wish I could say it was surprising that they would just perpetuate the same problem, but this is a common reaction to being mistreated.

      So this is a criticism of the civil rights movement, but there's a question of whether they could have achieved what they did if their focus had been broader. And if you compare to the Black Lives Matter movement, going on right now, well... there are some positive and negative things to be said about that comparison, but this is now meandering. (I wrote two more paragraphs here before I realized that this was a dumb tangent.)

      I'm not sure what you mean by "individual" agenda, but it is the agenda that is the problem. So... yes? I gave you an example above (the soup kitchen) of a way to pursue an agenda (mitigating hunger, particularly the greater hunger of group A) without excluding anyone. It's just a matter of identifying a problem and helping with that, rather than identifying a group of people and helping them.

    26. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty much done with you after this as you seem to just want to perceive that pursuing something means diminishing something else.

      If an issue like civil rights for minorities is failing to meet the standards of egalitarianism then it should be pursued. If individuals fail to meet the standards of egalitarianism in pursuit of the movement for civil rights that does not mean that the movement is not moving towards proper egalitarianism. It only means it is imperfect, like all things. Also...

      HOW THE FUCK ELSE WOULD AN ISSUE LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS BE RESOLVED IF PEOPLE DIDN'T PURSUE IT.

      You've completely failed to answer this question multiple times. Please, before you respond in any other way to me, explain to me how the American civil rights movement that ended segregation should have gone. I ask because to me it literally represents the beauty of our republic in which inadequacies were brought to bare and our great country rallied behind the purity of our country's vision and sought to resolve them as best they could. Was the movement pure? of course not, your example is spot on. Is our country better off for it? Absolutely yes it is.

      Honestly it's like you're from some other planet to me. Pursuing the equity of a minority group is the very definition of pursuing the goal of egalitarianism. Can there be negative side effects from this? Of course there can but that does not mean it isn't further the cause of proper equity.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    27. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      HOW THE FUCK ELSE WOULD AN ISSUE LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS BE RESOLVED IF PEOPLE DIDN'T PURSUE IT.

      You've asked this question three times now and I've given you multiple examples of ways in which you could pursue it and ways in which is has been persued poorly with negative consequences. I gave you the hypothetical soup kitchen example, which can be broadly adapted to many situations, in which the problem is addressed without discrimination and in which inequality decreases as a result. This is not purely hypothetical, incidentally, soup kitchens are a real thing and this happens every day. The only hypothetical part is applying this method to other problems. I've given you the real-world civil rights example, which was discriminatory enough to not only cause these women to quit but to found their own movement in response. I've given you the network neutrality model, which... apparently you disagree with? You seem to think that promoting something does not mean diminishing something else? You're okay with fast lanes, or you just think that's different... somehow?

      Don't answer that, I don't care. If you're just going to ignore me and keep asking the same question over and over again, as though I hadn't responded, then yes: I guess we are done.

      For the record, I criticized the civil rights movement. I didn't say that it was bad, or that it was all bad anyway. Obviously there are a lot of positive changes which can be attributed to that effort. The real question is: Could the civil rights movement have been better? ... Maybe. As I have already said, there's a question of whether they could have achieved what they did if their focus had been broader. Sometimes changes have to be incremental. So that's an argument in favor of it exactly as it was, in which it ignored the civil rights of women and everyone else. On the other hand, if we look at the Black Lives Matter movement - almost all of the very significant pushback is stemming from their decision to focus solely on the racial aspect, and not on the more general topic of the militarization of our police force. If they had been more inclusive from the start I do think that they could have achieved more than they are achieving, both in their narrow goal of addressing the treatment of black people by our legal system and in the broader goal of addressing the treatment of everyone by our legal system. (This is an application of the soup kitchen example, which you apparently never read.)

      But, seeing as we're not talking anymore anyway: what the hell? How is it that I have to explain in such detail that explicitly discriminatory behavior is anti-egalitarian?

      A: "We're here to help people."
      B: "Great. I'm a person in need of help."
      A: "Ha ha, no. You're a B. Fuck you."

      This is exactly the opposite of what egalitarianism is supposed to be. Sure it can potentially have positive results, two wrongs do sometimes make a right. I said that way up at the top: "The argument is usually made that women are disadvantaged and so promoting them increases equality, and while this may be true in some contexts..." So what? That changes nothing.

      Whatever. You know I put a fair amount of work into writing this shit, only to have you ignore it. I'm glad we're done. Trying to have any kind of discussion on the internet is a huge waste of time.

    28. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "A: "We're here to help people."
      B: "Great. I'm a person in need of help."
      A: "Ha ha, no. You're a B. Fuck you.""

      But it's not that at all. All you want to see is exclusion. To put it in the language you just used, what the scenario really is that If category B enjoys a score of 10 in terms of civil rights and category A enjoys only a 6 then helping category B get to 10 is the very definition of egalitarianism. If category A comes up comes up and asks for help in terms of civil rights then yes, they would be rejected. They don't need the help

      Now if a category C person along, who also gets a 6 in civil rights, then they are referred to groups for C. Now that I'm thinking about it this is probably where you see the exclusion but really it's just focusing on doing one thing really well as opposed to spreading yourself too thin. Major corporations do this type of thing all the time to improve focus on core agendas.

      Your soup kitchen analogy is terrible by the way which is why I ignored it. Their category of specialization is feed the poor, not everyone. This is why you don't find soup kitchens in upscale neighborhoods. If everyone came to them they wouldn't be able to afford to operate.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    29. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      If I make an analogy that you don't like or don't understand, you don't just pretend I didn't say anything and keep asking the same question over and over again as though I had never given a response. That is not a conversation, that's just being an asshole.

      Also, this is not accurate: "Now if a category C person along, who also gets a 6 in civil rights, then they are referred to groups for C. Now that I'm thinking about it this is probably where you see the exclusion" a third category isn't necessary. The point is that I'm differentiating between groups and individuals, egalitarianism isn't all about groups. The exclusion that I'm talking about is happening at the individual level.

      This is the problem right here: "If category A comes up comes up and asks for help in terms of civil rights then yes, they would be rejected. They don't need the help" - If someone is in group A, and group A is, on average, better off than group B, this does not mean that this particular member of group A does not need help. It only means that they are less likely to be in need of help. Rejecting them based only on the group that they are in is outright bigotry.

      The soup kitchen helps with a specific problem, hunger, rather than helping a specific group of people. The soup kitchen does not help those who are not hungry, which is why you don't find soup kitchen in upscale neighborhoods, it only helps those who need it but it does so regardless of what group they are in. Because a larger portion of group B are hungry, the soup kitchen helps members of B more often than members of A. Thus in doing so not only does the soup kitchen help everyone who needs it without discrimination, it also reduces inequality between groups A and B. So it is egalitarian at the individual level and at the group level.

      This was the point in structuring your help around dealing with problems rather than helping groups.

    30. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry for you that you want to see exclusion in a group devoted to raising up an individual group who has suffered discrimination. In pushing a category of people towards proper equity all you want to see is discrimination rather than progress.

      You're either an alien or some one who is so committed to denying the virtue of civil rights groups that you've poked your own eyes out.

      Where would America be without the very specific effort to get women the vote? Where would America be without the civil rights revolution that brought social equity to blacks? America is quite obviously a far more egalitarian society because of these movements

      How about you explain how those movements are bad to me?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    31. Re:No, it's a blatant re-branding. by pots · · Score: 1

      I've already given an explanation for one of those things, and the other can be extrapolated fairly easily. Second-guessing the past is always a dubious prospect anyway. Maybe it's time for you to offer something: you say that I "want" to see exclusion, when obviously, from my perspective, all that I see is what's there. There's no "want." That claim doesn't make any sense, it's clearly just a passive-aggressive insult. Exclusion exists, and so I see it. The question is - why don't you see it? I've spelled it out as clearly as I can, from my perspective it's undeniably there. You have given no reason to deny it's existence, and you've had plenty of opportunity to do so here, so it seems to be undeniable for you as well. Yet you continue to focus only on the positives and apparently remain completely blind to the negatives. Maybe you don't "want" to see them?

      How about an explanation: why are you incapable of seeing this discrimination, or recognizing that it is bad? Actually, I'm getting the impression that you're struggling with abstraction, so before you answer let's try some of the more concrete examples:

      The National Organization for Women is a large group which operates through many member chapters. The organization does a lot of things, and I'm sure that the chapters operate in a semi-autonomous manner (that's usually the case with organizations like this), so I'm going to focus on a single action by a single chapter. Specifically, this is a scholarship offered by one member chapter of NOW. It directly benefits the people who get it, and directly harms no one. It exclusively helps women who identify as feminists. This is very clearly "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests," so I am identifying this as a feminist action, per the definition that you linked above.

      The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is likewise a large group which operates through many member chapters. The organization likewise does many things, yadda yadda. This is (or was) a scholarship offered by one member chapter of the KKK. It directly benefits the people who get it, and directly harms no one. It exclusively helps white people who are christian.

      Planned Parenthood is also a large organization, but its individual locations are less autonomous than with the other two. This organization likewise does many things, one of those things is services related to the screening and treatment of breast cancer. Women suffer breast cancer at a rate two orders of magnitude higher than men do, but some men do get breast cancer. For this reason these services help vastly more women than men, but help is available to anyone who needs it, without exclusion. This is organized activity, but it is in the interest of anyone who has breast cancer, not specifically women. So I am identifying this as a non-feminist action.

      By now I'm sure that you can figure out my opinions on these three examples: these scholarships by this chapter of NOW and this chapter of the KKK are focused on promoting their respective groups. It is my opinion that they are detrimental in this way, even though they directly harm no one. The indirect harm of discrimination is significant, and discriminating against anyone who doesn't fall within your preferred group is anti-egalitarian. Meanwhile, like the soup kitchen, Planned Parenthood is addressing a problem rather than a group. Just like the chapter of NOW, Planned Parenthood's action mostly benefits women. Unlike the chapter of NOW, Planned Parenthood's action doesn't exclusively benefit women - it is available to anyone who needs it.

      I included the KKK here because most people agree that they are a discriminatory organization. I'm hoping that this will make the point unmissably obvious, but we will see.

      So: I would like you to explain to me

  58. Complete Strawman by skam240 · · Score: 1

    The definition of a strawman. Please mod down.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Complete Strawman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a summation of the whole progressive movement. Funny how you only identify it as a strawman when you see it in the mirror.

  59. Or another way of seeing it by skam240 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes "

    How about another way of seeing it? How about gay people don't want to be denied basic commercial services provided to everyone else? If a baker can tell a gay couple they won't make them a cake they can tell a black couple the same.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Or another way of seeing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean I wouldn't expect anyone to force a gay or jewish baker to make a cake for a Neo-Nazi celebration.

    2. Re:Or another way of seeing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't denied basic commercial services. They were denied a custom cake made to their specifications celebrating something the cake maker considered morally wrong. Should a vegan cake maker be required to make a "i love delicious meat!" cake? Should a jewish baker be forced to make a "happy holocaust!" cake?

      The couple in question received their custom cake from another baker. They weren't denied the service, they just were denied it at that specific shop. They weren't even denied a cake, just a custom cake.

    3. Re:Or another way of seeing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't denied basic commercial services.

      They were denied basic commercial services. This is a stipulated fact in the decision. Masterpiece Cakeshops admitted they denied Mullins and Craig a wedding cake.

      They were denied a custom cake made to their specifications celebrating something the cake maker considered morally wrong.

      They were never even given an opportunity to list their specifications, they were denied any right to any wedding cake at all. Read the stipulation of facts.

      In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising
      Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake. The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make
      wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.

      Sorry, but being willing to do other things does not make him any less unwilling to do the one thing.

      Should a vegan cake maker be required to make a "i love delicious meat!" cake?

      Let's turn that around, should an employee in a commercial bakery be allowed to declare that they wouldn't make a cake with such a message without the possibility of being fired? There's nothing offensive about loving delicious meat. Why can't an employee be required to do that?

      Now can you make a case for a law protecting said employee? Do Vegans need such protections?

      Should a jewish baker be forced to make a "happy holocaust!" cake?

      Now you do have an offensive message, at least by celebrating the murderous genocide of millions of people.

      Can you not distinguish between that and a same-sex couple wanting a cake for their wedding? Or is that Phillip's problem? Well, then I guess operating his bakery in Colorado will be a problem since that state expressly provides:

      It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse,withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of . . . sexual orientation . . .the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation . . . .5

      Since that bakery did provide wedding cakes to others, they obviously chose to discriminate based on the sexuality of this couple. He tried to wriggle around that with a facetious declaration that it was his opposition to same-sex marriage, but that was even more discrediting.

      The couple in question received their custom cake from another baker. They weren't denied the service, they just were denied it at that specific shop. They weren't even denied a cake, just a custom cake.

      They were denied a wedding cake based on their sexuality. This is an incontrovertible fact. Colorado does not offer an exception in its laws, you offer wedding cakes to people, you can't deny it based on sexuality or any of the other characteristics listed in the statute. You could, however, declare you won't offer wedding cakes to anyone, then you aren't discriminating against people solely based on their sexuality.

    4. Re:Or another way of seeing it by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      "But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes "

      How about another way of seeing it? How about gay people don't want to be denied basic commercial services provided to everyone else? If a baker can tell a gay couple they won't make them a cake they can tell a black couple the same.

      A whole bunch of bakeries have been found for you to go and protest and wage lawfare on! I'll be waiting with baited breath while you stir up the left wing mobs to run these folks out of business.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    5. Re:Or another way of seeing it by skam240 · · Score: 1

      How about I let gay folks sue them along with say, the civil liberty union and let the courts settle these issues on an individual basis? No need to make the fuss you seem to want. Like with any criminal behavior, when the crime is actually commited, the legal system can be brought in and resolves the issue.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    6. Re:Or another way of seeing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person has the right to work for, or not work for, anyone they choose, for any reason they feel, at any time.

      A person who cannot make such a choice is properly referred to as a "slave".

      Would there be an equivalent outcry from the Left if a liberal baker refused to make a customer a "Heil Hitler" cake?

    7. Re:Or another way of seeing it by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      How about I let gay folks sue them along with say, the civil liberty union and let the courts settle these issues on an individual basis? No need to make the fuss you seem to want. Like with any criminal behavior, when the crime is actually commited, the legal system can be brought in and resolves the issue.

      That's a bunch of rubbish. The two noteworthy bakery cases out there are plain instances of agitators seeking out Christian bakeries to ruin.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    8. Re: Or another way of seeing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop trying to claim black and gay are the same thing.

      Blacks are born black and obviously black at a glance.

      Gays are not obviously gay until some sjw asshole abuses the power of the state to kill off any small business because sjw asshole hates Christians.

      Asshole.

    9. Re:Or another way of seeing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in the spirit of hyperbole, do you feel that a Jewish or gay-owned bakery must now custom-design and work closely with an avowed Nazi or fundamentalist throwing-gays-off-roofs-is-Allah's-will Muslim?
      How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go, to force people you disagree with to bend to your will in all things?

    10. Re:Or another way of seeing it by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Well if these Christian bakeries followed the law of the land then they wouldn't be ruined. It's really terribly simple.

      If a gay person walks up to a Nazi skin head and says "I'm gay" and then gets the shit beaten out of him it's the Nazi skin head who will be punished. There is nothing wrong with a gay person asking for a "gay" wedding cake any more than just announcing their sexual preference. If one had a problem with gay folks that's ones own problem and shouldn't be put on the gay people in question.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    11. Re:Or another way of seeing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would. I mean, the baker would be under no obligation to make a swasti-cake, just as the christian bakers are under no obligation to make a cake with dongs for pillars. Just the fact of being a Nazi shouldn't lock them out of the business-the gay person and the Nazi are both entitled to cake for money. Now, the Nazis are more likely to avoid the buisiness for Jew-cooties reasons, or by being direct assholes that would get anyone kicked out of any business. That's their problem.

  60. How to disabuse them of the notion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.

    Yes, there are lots of people who actually believe that.

    Those people have never been confronted as follows:

    Have them view this video, then ask them if there's any way they can say, with a straight face, that the video's subject is not a racist.

  61. What an ignoble pursuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Waste of time, effort, etc.

  62. Hate and Far-Right Symbols by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    What about Far Left symbols?

  63. Dog Whistles by sycodon · · Score: 0

    Imaginary verbal, written, or drawn communication that only Liberals can hear, read, or see and that are proof a racist message when the message itself would not be called racist by your average, rational person.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  64. Point by Point. by skam240 · · Score: 2

    "1. American immigration laws should be enforced."
    Sure but some common sense compassion is just what's right here.

    "2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens."
    How about the first link I found on the subject that even sites its research. https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
    So basically, white folks do far less time than black for selling drugs on average. Sure, it's not police exclusive but it is most certainly tied to the same core problem.That's a single example on the issue.

    "3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy."
    Sure but on the other end forbidding immigration to some of the most vulnerable peoples of the world is criminal (in a moral context). Just because a person is Muslim doesnt mean they should be treated differently when they seek aid from mass violence. Proper screening? Of course. Banning? These are fucking human beings suffering here.

    "4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age."
    So children in poor families should go malnourished thus greatly diminishing their future competitiveness and thus increasing the likelihood they will be unproductive as adults? What a truly amazing idea that is.

    There's nothing truly racist happening here but minority communities who are disproportionately poor will suffer far more with such a policy than others.

    "5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime."
    Please see gun violence and homicide rates for any first world country of comparable wealth. You're creating the purist of fictions on this claim. Our mass gun ownership is making us far less safe than in comparable countries.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Point by Point. by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Do you think that the ONLY difference between the US and those other first world countries is gun ownership? Do you think that there's no other possible reason that there could be a difference in violence?

    2. Re:Point by Point. by skam240 · · Score: 2

      Sure, Americans could just be culturally hyper violent compared to the rest of the the first world. From my own personal experiences traveling in the US and abroad i doubt that though. Furthermore if you look at overall crime statistics you'll see that US citizens isnt really more prone to criminal behavior.

      If you read any European news it becomes quickly apparent that they have far more knife violence then us. But guns are so much easier to kill some one with so why arent these people using guns? It's because they can't find any to buy legally or even illegally as all illegally sold guns come from a legal source at some point. Some European countries like the UK even provide a knife violence rate much like our own gun violence rate because knife violence is such a significant issue for them

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re:Point by Point. by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      What about poverty rates and economic inequality? Social safety nets? Social divisions? Any chance any of those have any effect? The Swiss issue assault rifles to a large chunk of their populace and have (or had the last time I checked) lower homicide rates than Britain. At the same time Obama's election ushered in an era of unprecedented firearm sales in the US, but homicide rates continued dropping until 2015.

    4. Re:Point by Point. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "What about poverty rates and economic inequality? Social safety nets? Social divisions? "

      All of these is why one uses first world nations in comparisons.

      As for the Swiss, they are very clearly an outlier. A small country with an even smaller population? That's a very common place to find outliers in data sets in social studies.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    5. Re:Point by Point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just some thoughts, and the result of mild curiosity about census figures related to the topic:
      2. The sentencing of a criminal is handed down by a court, not by police. It plays no factor in the evidence of how Police deal with citizenry.

      5. Many countries like Britain and Japan didn't have as significant a gun culture as the US did at inception, a country that began with a military force largely consisting of militias - the reason why there is a right to bear arms in the first place.
      Limiting the sale of firearms would take a long time to impact the number of firearms in civilians hands, there are enough firearms out there to arm most/all of the adult population of the US - both men and women between ages 15-64 - at minimum. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Ages
      Bear in mind this is assuming truthful reports on gun ownership of at least 1 firearm. This doesn't include illegal possession estimates or retail stock available for purchase. It would be safe to assume that any imminent ban on firearm sales would lead to a purchasing spree of firearms before any such ban went into effect.

      That aside, access to firearms has been easy for hundreds of years - restricting firearm sales and ownership now would likely have little to no effect on violent crimes committed with firearms for the rest of our lifetime and a good while after as criminals make use of the absurd supply of firearms available in the US. It's unlikely that the US would be gun free within any reasonable time frame.

      You would likely need both a prohibition on firearms and a vastly larger police force to make any significant impact on firearms in the US. A prohibition naturally means that there will be an increase in illegal gun trafficking and gang related crimes if we take a moment to remember what happened the last time there was a prohibition.

    6. Re:Point by Point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be noted that I do not own any firearms, not do I endorse firearm ownership. I'm also not blind to the fact that gun ownership is fairly common where I live, living in a state where open carry is legal and concealed carry doesn't require special dispensation. It's not unheard of for people to show up to political rallies with assault rifles out here. Firing blindly into the air was only recently outlawed (Shannon's Law).

  65. Lack of brilliance by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    No, nothing can go wrong. Targeting hate and far right? We see more hatred and violence from the left, now and historically.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  66. Bring out the pitchforks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring out the pitchforks someone posted a picture of a frog.

  67. Hindu swastikas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that's amazingly racist for someone so full of social justice.

  68. guilty if we say you are by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Tranny anti-freedom activist ex-Stasi agent builds magic box that declares people to be witches even when no external sign of witchcraft is visible to normal people. No chance for abuse here, no, none at all...

  69. Finally! by Shemmie · · Score: 1

    A tool that can identify Pepe, the flag of Kekistan, cartons of milk, and the "Okay" emoji.

    All of these have been deemed "white supremacist dog whistles" in the last couple of years. I'll let you in on a tip; each time, you're being trolled. Hard. And the clever thing is, by having a meltdown over something as benign as "they're drinking milk!", you're desensitising a lot of people to words like 'racism', 'nazi', 'white supremacy', by tossing them around so freely.

    These were words used to carry an awful lot of impact. Now, you can be a racist for doing the "okay" hand signal, while sipping milk.

    This revolutionary NSA hacker with her AI (is it just some sort of idiotic neural network trained to spot Pepe / look at Richard Spencer's Twitter feed and track new memes?) is going to be a massive success.

    It'll be up there with the advances in AI used to power Twitter blocklists.

    1. Re:Finally! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      not to mention the swastika that has been the symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism for centuries (in both right-handed and left-handed spiral forms).

      we're going to find a lot of airport prayer rooms and temples, must be dens of racism!

  70. Take it down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This AI must be stopped. Let's build an AI.

  71. Here come the right wing snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ho boy, queue the butthurt right-wing snowflakes who will no doubt come in to deflect and project, as usual.

    *grabs popcorn*

  72. That didn't last long, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Interestingly, if you read the chapter Acts in the New Testament of the Bible, you'll find that perfectly described as the way early churches and congregations lived. In commune with one another. Out of mutual love and respect for each other and for those of society, and simply preached their own moral code to others - no force implied or used.

    That only lasted a short time and then we see things like: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."
    " (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Also, there was the whole thing with Ananias & Sapphira in Acts 5.

  73. Vigilante? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, another self-centered vigilante. Maybe vigilantes should be the next group to be targeted for harassment...

  74. Show me a modern TV channel with one of those by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The message I got when you said this was a "strawman from the bottom of the YouTube comment barrel" was that this opinion isn't mainstream. Then you were shown an MTV video they made just to tell us this. I'd say this is a much more prominent opinion than you represented it as and not something you can marginalize as an extreme minority like you can for your other examples.

    This is MTV telling us that black people can't be racist. It's funny how they hate racial privileges so much that they create a new one? How does that make sense?

  75. Emily Crose is a mentally ill tranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All trannies are nutjobs and mentally ill. Emily Crose is a batshit insane tranny.

  76. ‘#merrychristmas’ make hate symbol l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liberal law center ranks ‘#merrychristmas’ as top Twitter ‘hate’ speech on Christmas day

    https://knightstemplarinternational.com/2018/01/liberal-law-center-ranks-merrychristmas-top-twitter-hate-speech-christmas-day/

    Free speech is hate speech, for those who hate free speech.

  77. Same in Europa ... by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

    Often so called anti-fascists end up being fascist and intolerant themselves due to a lack of true empathy. The only empathy they can feel is exclusively for those they choose. Usually people they see as victims of injustice. They cannot see the other side of the story and are unable to see nuances. I personally blame this on egocentric and possibly narcissistic disorders. You see them on both sides of the political spectrum.

    --
    Bach says it all.
  78. Yankee doodle. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    What happens when the symbolism gets co-opted by the targets? This has happened before, and the most recent case I can think of is Jewish forum posters choosing to put (((Echo Brackets))) on their handles.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  79. Thank goodness the radical far left is safe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people attacking, degrading and censoring me have been radical liberals and new wave feminists.

    These are people I'd normally agree with except their agenda is being used for hate and power grabbing.

    Brave new world.

  80. Will it look for (((these))) as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (((Chosenites))) tend to be "hugged" with multiple parentheses...

  81. MAN IN THE MIRROR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a CHANGE!!!!!!
    If you work for US INTEL AGENCIES, take a much longer look, apologize for nearly 100 years of criminal activity, and promise the American people youâ(TM)ll never again make them pawns in your worldwide game of power and money...

  82. Hard mode: by qe2e! · · Score: 1

    It's a corporations video describing how they make steel tubes. The subtlety is extraordinary (except for the part where they say "final solution heat bath". That's just lingual gymnastics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  83. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ex-Army Grunt Is Building a Filter To Find Conservative Symbols on Twitter and Facebook

    There. The same statement minus the leftist hyperbole. You're welcome.

  84. Why stop there? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    "Ex-NSA Hacker Is Building an AI To Find Hate and Far-Right Symbols on Twitter and Facebook"

    Why not include far-left "dog whistle" symbols, too?

    Or do you just need to look for things like "This is CNN" or "Copyright 2018 New York Times" and such?

    (The preceding paragraph was hyperbole for effect, and possibly humor.)

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  85. and Far-Left, of cause. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause all extremism is bad, hmmkay.

  86. "arbitrary biological factors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like your gender....

  87. ah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BDS is not just a group of noisy college students.

    BDS is an organized international movement tied to the Muslim Brotherhood which fools stupid ignorant college students into supporting it. BDS is actually persuing the Islamo-supremacist goal of destroying Israel and shovinng the Jewish people into the Med, because apparently 57 Muslim nations are not enough. They want to use international sanctions to choke-off the only Jewish nation on Earth just as Hitler wanted to use his uboots to choke-off England. They make no secret of this. They're not supporting coexistence, this is war by other means as they try to help the Muslims re-take the land they lost in 1967 when they all ganged-up to attack Israel an try to finish what Hitler started.

    This is all about Jew hatred, given a patina of legitimacy that trick idiots into thinking its better that Holocaust denial which is another camoflage for Jew hatred.

    For those who are totally ignorant of History: The Muslim Brotherhood actually aligned itself with Adolf Hitler and provided soldiers to serve NAZI Germany; they are the one part of Hitler's war machine that the allies simply ignored after the war and presumed would fade back into the woodwork. There are actual (non-doctored) photos of Hitler with the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in Berlin, and this evil alliance is part of the root of the serbo-croatian fighting, since some of those Muslim NAZI troops were involved in massacres in that region during WWII.

    No civilized human being would align with BDS, just as no civilzed human being would be a NAZI.

  88. And if you read it ALL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    instead of some "talking points" from a critic of Christianity, you would notice a major flaw in your own thinking:

    A group of Christians who know each other and share a common set of values and beliefs may indeed voluntarily enter into a family-like arrangement (which superficially resembles socialism) this is fundamentally different from a bunch of strangers with dissimilar beliefs and values being forced by external mobs of rampaging revolutionaries, or by government, into socialism.

    People who choose to live communally can choose to stop doing so at any time, and while they live that way they are living as they wish to. People who are forced to live communally by government and to satisfy the goals of government will eventually realize they are held in that condition at gunpoint and are not free to leave it - this is anti-freedom and the opposite of the Biblical model.

    1. Re:And if you read it ALL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it's different, guns sounds a lot better than burning in hell for all eternity. Especially if you're one of those belivy types.

  89. Basic American principle being trashed by the Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All American kids used to be taught the little saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

    The message was that speech might annoy or offend but does NOT physically harm and thus must be tolerated. This is a fundamental principle of freedom and a free society and small-d democracy is not possible without this bedrock idea. If a child heard somebody taunting them and physically punched back, that child who did the punching would be in trouble. Teachers, school principles, parents, etc would instruct the child that no matter what little obnoxious Johnny might have SAID, or how it was said, there was no justification for throwing a physical punch in return. This was consistent with the pseudo-Voltaire quote and with the American principle of free speech.

    The concept of "hate speech" is the evil twin of all of this. The presumption that anything I disagree with or do not want to hear can be construed as "hateful" is one of the worst diseases to ever afflict civilization - and the Left exposes this hyper-lie everytime they point at something they dislike as "hateful" but reject it when people who dislike what THEY say and label THAT as "hateful". This quasi-atandards are one-way, and thus not universal standards at all but are just tools of the mentally jack-booted.

    The modern American left, however, has been working to re-invent education and the very concept of free speech in order to blot-out all competing speech and therefore blot-out all competing IDEAS. This is vile, and fundamentally anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and anti-American.

  90. Next stop, bullying and harassment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next stop, bullying and harassment, pay inequality, child porn viewers etc. Should be interesting to see how far back the data aggregation will go and who will be acting on the data. My guess, 25 years and there will be a lot of crap under the rocks. I see the pros and the cons of it. I must admit it is a little unnerving.

  91. Exclude the Ghetto towns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will find that fly over country doesn't have this problem. It is mostly on the coasts and localized to ghettos, south central LA, Oakland, Chicago, Detroit, Washington, Baltimore. We should build walls around them, Escape from NY style.

  92. Why stop there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not target all racists? There is plenty of racist propaganda online and it flows in all directions.

  93. GET FAR LEFT SYMBOLS TOO !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whew. This article states its going after the far left socialist symbol as well. The swastika. NAtional ZocIalist Party. Simples.....