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?
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.
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
Do other countries have such guilt for existing as the U.S. seems to have?
Most countries and borders that exist today are there because of war and taking from natives.
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
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
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 ...
"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.