Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Apologizes After Flagging Declaration of Independence As Hate Speech (nymag.com)
To celebrate this week's holiday, The Vindicator, a small newspaper in Texas, posted sections of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." Yadda, yadda. You get the idea. But a section of the text containing the phrase "Indian Savages" set off Facebook's hate-speech flags. The post was then temporarily taken down by Facebook, Business Insider reports. From a report: He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. After The Vindicator ran a story on the censorship, Facebook corrected the mistake. "The post was removed by mistake and restored as soon as we looked into it. We process millions of reports each week, and sometimes we get things wrong," a Facebook spokesperson said. And honestly, as far as Facebook getting things wrong, this is an ideal "mistake."
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natureâ(TM)s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. â" Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, i
See that "Preview" button?
The people who wrote that document were a terrorist cell who later committed genocide against said savages you know.
Because of the clear leftward lean of Tech/social media companies, there will be a natural inclined to suspect every thing they decide to remove from their systems or block. This is a self created position that is the result of past actions that seemed pretty clearly anti-one-political-party.
I think people understand that this sort of thing is possible and can accept that mistakes happen, but that cant be accepted when the organizations like Facebook have burned up whatever good faith they had.
It is absolutely the case that the white colonists really f**ked over the natives, and that this f**kage is embedded in the founding documents of the United States and even the fascia of the U.S. Capitol building.
We don't have to stand behind it today. We shouldn't.
Bruce Perens.
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
Part of your anti-white washing of history conveniently ignores the genocidal brutality of the native population. White people were more effective, but certainly not any more brutal.
They do care...they care enough to bitch and moan constantly AFTER the election, they just can't be bothered to get off their couch and do something about it on election day.
The Declaration of Independence does contain hate speech against Native Americans. These are the same Native Americans that the SCOTUS has sided with regarding US violation of multiple treaties. Here's one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The language in that document regarding Native Americans was hateful, racist and unjust then, and it still is now.
Facebook's algorithm was right.
This doesn't mean Facebook hates the US, or freedom, or white people. This does mean that our past, present, and future are full of moral choices that define us.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
It's kinda funny how, what you see as a perfectly acceptable instance of filtering out "bad speech", I see as a perfect example of why filtering "bad speech" is wrong. It is the perfect demonstration that what constitutes "bad speech" is subjective, and what one person considers "bad speech" another will not.
Censors never expect their own speech may one day become censored.
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
And I am sure the reason that I see no Native Americans where I live (in an area of the country surrounded by Native American place names, Indian settlement/burial sites, and even living in a county with the name of a tribe) was because they all just got up one day and decided to take a little stroll out West.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement
How much technological advancement is needed in your mind to represent a nation, or a civilization? They clearly had a well formed system of art, societal structure, justice and political structure.
who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
Did they rape and murder more than Europeans did to each other? I'd be interesting to see your logic behind that. I'm sure they had wars- just as Europeans did. Certainly some tribes and the Aztecs had some questionable practices that were pretty brutal, but the same can't be said for all of them.
Part of your anti-white washing of history conveniently ignores the genocidal brutality of the native population. White people were more effective, but certainly not any more brutal.
I think that that is probably subjective, but that I would disagree. There is no evidence they were more brutal than the white people. People are people wherever you go. I also suspect that it varied dramatically based on tribe. Can you blame the Swedish for Belgium's brutal tactics in the Congo? Or the Irish for the holocaust in Germany? You can't blame all natives and their nations for what one or two tribes might have done.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It's kinda funny how, what you see as a perfectly acceptable instance of filtering out "bad speech", I see as a perfect example of why filtering "bad speech" is wrong.
I find it perfectly acceptable for a private institution like facebook. I don't personally use facebook, but if I did, I'd be quite happy with not having to wade through all the racist and intolerant crap you see some places. There are very few places where terms such as "Indian Savages" are used in an intelligent and useful way.
I would not find it in the least bit acceptable if the government ran censorship like that however and censored any text. A private company- yes, that's fine. The government... absolutely not.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Billionaires some times forget what happens to Kings in America.
Certainly some tribes and the Aztecs had some questionable practices that were pretty brutal
You heard it here, folks; carving the still beating hearts out of (lowballing) 4,000 people in 4 days in order to celebrate the building of a temple is a "questionable practice". Rather akin to jaywalking in many ways.
There is no evidence they were more brutal than the white people.
Even if that were true, the Deceleration isn't comparing them to all white people in all of human history. There's loads of evidence that natives (even the kindler, gentler North American variety) were far more brutal than the British colonists / budding revolutionaries who wrote the thing.
So I guess nobody told you, but "savage" was an accurate description of Native Americans circa the 1700s. I agree many would be upset, but it would be in the "contemporary tradition" of people getting upset at facts that clash with their carefully constructed facade of "alternative facts."
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Wasn't it? That particular part of the US declaration of independence relates to the settler's desire not to be restricted in waging war with native Americans.
Nonsense. Far from imposing restrictions on waging war, the British crown had a history of encouraging Indian attacks against the colonials. THAT is what this passage is complaining about. It's pretty damn clear: "has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages". As in "has actively worked to have indians slaughter our frontier colonists".
Historical documents, no matter how lofty and idealistic, are often filled with nasty little details that reflect more of the realities of the day than we'd like to remember.
Yeah, especially when you misinterpret them due to some misguided desire to find nasty little details.
Interestingly enough the very next paragraph which Jefferson wrote for the Deceleration was originally a condemnation of the British for failing to stop the slave trade. It was struck out of the final draft because the southern colonies objected, but, in the context of this discussion, it seems rather unlikely that in one breath Jefferson would be complaining "you won't let us kill the injuns" while in the next he's saying "you won't stop enslaving Africans", don't you think?
Makes sense. Kinda how the phrase "white supremacist" clearly implies that all white people are supremacists. Or how "Islamic militant" is obviously a deceleration that all Muslims are violent terrorists.
Oh wait ...
How much technological advancement is needed in your mind to represent a nation, or a civilization? They clearly had a well formed system of art, societal structure, justice and political structure.
Clearly not enough. Most of them were wiped out by disease. Whatever was left had no real organization over any useful scale.
Same for Africans. They were both savage and disorganized and ripe for the pickings by more organized eastern powers. Most of the African slave trade from Africa was enabled by rival tribes picking one off the other with no effective governance. It wasn't whites coming in and forcing people on to boats... Africans were mostly doing it to other Africans.
Even today in many areas of Africa not much has changed. It's full of savages with murder rates that make the U.S. look like Disney land with piss poor banana governance, rampant corruption and genocide.
Same with Indian reservations where crime rates today are still at least double the national average.
Central problem with your line of argument is that it is rooted in elitism. Elitism is useless, counterproductive and dangerous. Going down that road leads to unavoidable statistics that can't be explained away by bias and will get anyone who cites them labeled a racist despite the fact they are factually correct.
The issue is not whether one tribe is objectively better or less savage than another. The issue is only what you can constructively do today to improve society. If you try and rewrite history and sugar coat characters you will lose on a factual basis and you will have accomplished nothing positive for your wasted effort.
Did they rape and murder more than Europeans did to each other?
YES in fact in the AGGREGATE they did. They STILL are. This either means that Indians as a GROUP suck ass and should be avoided or that they need more help. You decide.
I think that that is probably subjective, but that I would disagree. There is no evidence they were more brutal than the white people.
Yes there is, you simply have your head in the sand and can't be bothered to seek out data which refutes your blissful ignorance. Again this line of argument is pointless and harmful. Going there at all makes you a "racist". Judging others is not a constructive means of improving society.
I also suspect that it varied dramatically based on tribe. Can you blame the Swedish for Belgium's brutal tactics in the Congo? Or the Irish for the holocaust in Germany? You can't blame all natives and their nations for what one or two tribes might have done.
Not all Nazi's wanted to exterminate Jews either. Some I assume were nice people.
Nobody is saying all Indians are savages. By construction only the subset of Indians who are savages are being referenced in the declaration of independence. It said "Indian savages" not "all Indians are savages".
TLDR:
1. Get off your high horse
2. Stop using relativistic barbarism as a measuring stick for passing judgment because doing so makes you racist.
All of humanity is dumb as bricks, violent, tribal and prone to barbarism. Calling people out for it or judging people for it accomplishes very little that ever leads to anything resembling progress. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
the genocidal brutality of the native population.
Different regions had different perspectives on war. Some of the pre-US tribes had a semi-civilized diplomatic system before they engaged in any sort of organized violence, but no method to even identify stray cross-tribe killings. Some tribes held an oddly simple revenge model, where any offense was met by a raid, with no actual concern for how much death or damage was done. There is a region where until a few decades ago, all offenses or suspected offenses were punished by death (it was the second generation of missionaries that was able to contact them alive). Some regions saw any inter-tribal offense as grounds to kill the other tribe entirely (until some pale-skinned boat-riders with a wierd language offered booze and guns in exchange for enslaving other tribes).
Not all tribal cultures were genocidal, but most human cultures have a history of brutality (otherwise they would've been conquered by another culture).
It's almost as if "Native Americans" isn't actually a single homogeneous group.
"rightly"
There is no reason to block Mark Twain.
Listen here, I"m no right-winger, but facts are FACTS:
1) People were racist in the past
2) a lot of people
3) and they tortured and they maimed and they killed and they raped
4) and they wrote fiction, nonfiction, history, and philosophy about it
This is our inheritance as human beings. Any notion of "rightly blocking" racism, violence, sexism, etc. is nothing more or less than book burning.
If a politician today says something racist, by all means don't vote for them.
But if Mark Twain or Thomas Jefferson says something racist, and you decide that this means that we have to erase Mark Twain or Thomas Jefferson from history, all I have to say is: human history belongs to all of us, and it's both unpleasant and educational. So a big fuck you to the book burners.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
How much technological advancement is needed in your mind to represent a nation, or a civilization?
Beyond stone age would be a good start.
Did they rape and murder more than Europeans did to each other?
Yes, they did. Don't idealize - murder rates are much higher in primitive societies, and tribal warfare has far higher casualty rates per capita than modern warfare*. The 20th century set every record for scale -- Mao murdered more than anyone in history -- but for percentage murdered, tribal living is the worst.
*With the possible exception of old-school naval boarding actions, which were right up there with tribal warfare for appalling casualty rates, for pretty much the same reason: when matched forces go all-in until one side is incapable of continuing the fight, 50% casualties on the winning side is common.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
More or less questionable than executing women because somebody said they were witches?
The institutionalised slaughter of tens of hundreds of thousands of people over hundreds of years, vs the execution of a few dozen women in an isolated area during a moral panic?
I dunno, man, they're so close that I can barely tell them apart. It's like trying to decide what's worse: the transatlantic slave trade, or that one guy who locked his daughter in the basement. An impossible task, to be sure.
You're very confused. The first amendment to the constitution of the USA only limits the US government. Freedom of Speech is an ideal that came out of the age of Enlightenment and is older than our government. It's not just something for other people to worry about. It's not somebody else's problem. If you would oppose tyranny, you must support some basic rights, regardless of who is exercising those rights. Even if, and maybe especially if, you don't like what they have to say. You can despise them for saying it, you can call them names in return, but censoring them or bringing violence against them are the tools of tyrants and oppression.
Facebook is a company. They can legally erase anything they want on their systems, but they should not.
Fake news is not an imaginary thing.
When only 7% of journalists are Republicans in a country as evenly divided as ours, there is NO WAY the news is unbiased or biased in favor of the right.
When those almost totally left wing reporters then provide coverage of a Republican president that is more than 90% negative even as the economy is booming and consumer confidence is at an 18 year high it's a sign that something is off-balance in the newsrooms.
When those same left wing journalists (who insist they are "main stream" and unbiased) make error after error after error against that Republican president but somehow amazingly not in his favor, after spending 8 years performing virtual analingus on Obama, it's a sign of a problem.
You can whine and complain all you want that people to your political right believe that much of the "mainstream" news is actually just fake propaganda, but they have more ammunition for their beliefs than you have for yours.
Get back to me when the "journalists" currently panicking that ONE former Fox news reporter is a State Dept spokesperson and ONE former Fox News producer is about to take the White House communications director job decide to retroactively panic at the HUNDREDS of Google people who went back-and-forth between White House jobs under Obama and their Google jobs, or the numerous ties between Obama admin people and ALL the non-Fox news networks. Try looking up all those Obama-era media connections... if you have an honest bone in your body you'll be shocked.
Racist dumbfuckery. Not every native tribe were heart-cutting Aztecs. So fuck off with this bullshit rationalization for colonialism.