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."

Comments

Facebook hates America

[Orgasmatron]

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

Re:Facebook hates America

[Oswald McWeany]

TLDR: Hey Britain, we're breaking up with you.

Re:Facebook hates America

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Good thing this doesn't happen anymore.

Re:Facebook hates America

[jnaujok]

I believe the comment made by one historian (Clay Jenkinson) was, "Thomas Jefferson was the only one of the Founding Fathers that could have written the Declaration with that grandiose style. If George Washington would have written the Declaration of Independence, it would have read, 'We Quit!'"

Re:Facebook hates America

[Anonymous Coward]

TLDR.... Hey, I'm no big fan of the US, but that last paragraph at least is worth a read. Too bad the last four words don't apply as much as they should.

Re: Facebook hates America

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they meant TSA

Re:Facebook hates America

[elrous0]

Hey Britain, we're breaking up with you.

It's not you, it's us. Hope we can still remain friends, but we're not gonna fuck anymore.

Re:Facebook hates America

[Crashmarik]

Don't walk away mad just walk away

Re:Facebook hates America

[ravenshrike]

I'm sorry, are we supposed to annex Canada now? I must have missed that memo.

Re:Facebook hates America

[reboot246]

I expect nothing less than pure hatred of this country by an asshole like Zuckerfuck. I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.

Re:Facebook hates America

[NicknameUnavailable]

It's not you, it's us. Hope we can still remain friends, but we're not gonna fuck anymore.

Fuck that. The British are still slime, it was them not us.

Re: Facebook hates America

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Letting through hate speech may make people angry, but it does not make people angry at facebook, or distrust facebook.

Censorship in a misguided attempt to control it makes people distrust facebook, especially when added onto other issues like records and data collection.

They think they're repairing their image when they're making it wors.

Re:Facebook hates America

[BlueStrat]

In one of the early drafts of the DoI Jefferson ranted at the King for promoting the slave trade and for preventing the Colonies from outlawing slavery. The King and many in the English aristocracy were heavily invested in or owned many of the more profitable and successful shipping/trading companies and great houses that provided the slaves to the American Colonies and to buyers throughout much of Europe and beyond. England set mandatory minimum quotas for how many slaves the Colonies must buy and at what price.

It was not that the US Founders did not try to abolish slavery, they were prevented by the Royal Colonial Courts established and controlled by authority of the King. Also keep in mind that slavery began in the American Colonies almost a century before any of the Founders were born. They were no friends of slavery, but they were only human and men born of their time, a time with certain practices having been the norm for a century before they were born.

Jefferson's rant against the King for promoting and protecting the slave trade was edited out because of the Southern States' strong objections because the both were dependent on slave labor at the time and because many in the South leaned heavily Tory, and so concessions were made, as their joining the North in the revolution against England was necessary & essential to success.

Strat

Re: Facebook hates America

[Tanon]

Funnily enough to, that didn't stop him owning hundreds of slaves and using them to work his plantations. Nice attempt at pro-US historical revisionism, but the US was in no way innocent in the history of slavery; the facts remain that the US was the ultimate destination for the vast majority of slaves and while English slave traders supplied them up till the turn of the 19th century -when the Abolition Act was passed - slavery was never legal in English common law and British people did not keep slaves, unlike their American counterparts, who legally owned slaves up until 1865.

Re: Facebook hates America

[BlueStrat]

Funnily enough to, that didn't stop him owning hundreds of slaves and using them to work his plantations.

Jefferson neither bought nor sold a single slave.

He wound up finding himself the inheritor of his wife's family's slaves and estate.

His choices were to either not take them and then they and their families would be split up and sold, or take them in and allow them as good a life as possible.

Freeing them was against the law and a hanging offense at that time.

But of course, you don't really give a single shit about historical accuracy and what actually happened, you just want to bathe in cynicism and hate.

Hateful, partisan, and ignorant is no way to go through life, son.

Strat

Re:Facebook hates America

[dcw3]

Funny maybe, but not factual...
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/d...

Re:Facebook hates America

[dcw3]

Tell that to all the American women who drool over Brit accents.

Re: Facebook hates America

[Agripa]

I think they meant TSA

I think they meant every law enforcement agency that uses civil assets forfeiture, which includes TSA.

Re: Facebook hates America

[someoneOtherThanMe]

Freeing them was against the law and a hanging offense at that time.

Not unlike, for example, declaring independence from the kingdom?

Re: Facebook hates America

[BlueStrat]

Freeing them was against the law and a hanging offense at that time.

Not unlike, for example, declaring independence from the kingdom?

Thw revolution was decades in the future for Jefferson at the time he became the unwilling inheritor of his in-laws' estate. We have this thing called "time" so things don't all happen at once.

Look at it this way; If Jefferson had held out for including abolishing slavery in the COTUS/DOI, then the Southern colonies would have sided with England causing the revolution to fail, and as one of the possible consequences there might still be legal slavery today in the British North American Colonies (current US) and in Europe. WW1 and WW2 may have turned out much differently as well, especially for Britain and Europe. The Russians and Chinese would be riding that invasion and annexation pony hard and long, too, without the presence of a sovereign and powerful USA.

Strat

If it were written today

[Oswald McWeany]

In context of the 21st century, I think if it were written today plenty of people WOULD have a problem with the sentence "Indian Savages". Obviously the declaration of Independence wasn't intended as a "hate piece" but by today's morality I can't blame Facebook for automatically filtering it out per algorithm.

I'm not a fan of Facebook or censorship (although I think a private entity like Facebook has a right to keep content non-objectionable ON THEIR SITE- but not off it) but I think there is nothing wrong with Facebook's algorithm in this case- it did what it was written to do- it caught unwanted language on it's system.

I'm pretty sure a lot of Mark Twain's work would rightly get blocked too.

Re: If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:If it were written today

[ceoyoyo]

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. Something that is today widely regarded as something between a mistake and genocide.

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.

Re: If it were written today

[Nidi62]

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.

Re: If it were written today

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:If it were written today

[Oswald McWeany]

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. Something that is today widely regarded as something between a mistake and genocide.

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.

Fair enough. I'll concede that at least part of it might therefore be considered hate-speech. That certainly wasn't the whole point of it, but was at least part of it.

Re:If it were written today

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

Indian savages were the bioweapons of their time; indiscriminate killing machines paid off by the crown to slaughter it's enemies. Got a settlement that's giving you trouble? Offer the Indians some beads, guns, and booze. No more settlement.

Of course it was a bioweapon that also had a mind of it's own and tended to blow up in your face, which was rather a large downside.

Re:If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

Except most of the tribes the colonies were describing were either members of the Iroquois and Algonquin nations, or Wabanaki confederacy - all of which had no history of the violence you describe. In fact, many Algonquin and Wabanaki related tribes fought alongside the colonists and formed treaties with them for their aid; treaties which the colonists quickly broke before returning to their campaign of genocide.

Re: If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

White people did all the evil necessary to corrupt the entire planet for all of time. White people == the bad, we get it.

Thats why I look so forward to moving to Somalia.

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

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.

Re: If it were written today

[Zero__Kelvin]

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."

Re: If it were written today

[q_e_t]

And WW2 was some sort of picnic?

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

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?

Re: If it were written today

[q_e_t]

P.S. cutting out hearts, and the brutal events WW2 - both deplorable.

Re: If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

P.P.S. jaywalking and carving out beating hearts, both deplorable.

Re: If it were written today

[Dragonslicer]

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.

Re: If it were written today

[Dragonslicer]

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.

More or less questionable than executing women because somebody said they were witches?

Re:If it were written today

[greenwow]

Exactly. What's why that document and the Constitution need to be thrown out. As the supreme justice Ginsberg said, she wouldn't use the Constitution as the basis for any sane form of government. She wants to stop using it.

Re:If it were written today

[Pentium100]

It's OK to have an automatic filter that rejects some posts (as long as the filter works mostly correctly and there are no negative consequences for a false positive). Though in this case they should have had famous public domain texts that are acceptable in the database so that parts of those texts could be posted without triggering the filter.

Re: If it were written today

[lgw]

And yet, many Indians were in fact savages. Savagery on both sides just makes both sides savages, it doesn't make the term "savage" any less appropriate.

Re:If it were written today

[sfcat]

But the native americans in those days WERE SAVAGES. Let's keep our language aligned with reality ok? Fuck peoples' feefees.

Political system and organization: check. Language, culture and arts: check. Social structure that looked out for all people: check

A couple of tribes (Iroquois, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs and a few others) had political systems, most didn't (their groups were just too small to need them). They all did have a spoken language (obviously) but only the southern empires (Mayan, Aztec and Incas) had a written form of language. The social structure part is present in many groups and isn't really part of any definition of civilization.

In fact, what we use as the "line in the sand" for what defines a civilization is writing. Which would mean only the southern empires would technically be civilizations and not any of the other tribes north of the Rio Grande. Also, as soon as Europeans landed (no matter their intentions) a chain of biological events began which led to the deaths of 90% of the native tribes. The truth is, there is much we don't know w.r.t. the exact nature of pre-Columbian native societies as they were shattered before Europeans showed up. Europeans only saw empty villages and groups that we a shadow of their former selves. But we do have some idea as to their level of technological sophistication (from their artifacts) but not that much else.

And the idea they were "perhaps ahead of European nations in many ways" is entirely false and tells me more about you than history. The Europeans of Columbus's time already had the global navigation, gunpowder (already improved from China's original invention), precision steel casting (cannon), and could make glass for lenses (spyglasses) already. The Italian Renaissance was just starting and while it hadn't really gotten going yet, it was already starting to yield new inventions. The most sophisticated native empires of the day had no large scale metal working and no wheel. Now this might have been due to the lack of a large domesticatable land animal like the horse or cow for doing manual labor, but it still was.

Re: If it were written today

[lgw]

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.

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

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.

Re:If it were written today

[lgw]

Stone age, no written language. Primitive, not "culturally different" or whatever PC delusion you'll spout next. Sure, "savage" also implies aggressive against the colonials, not simply primitive, but that was objectively true.

Re: If it were written today

[ceoyoyo]

Sure, because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 wasn't a thing, and the young United States of America didn't pursue westward expansion, manifest destiny, continentalism, or any of those other nasty bits. Jefferson himself didn't preside over the Louisiana purchase, opening up quite a bit of territory west of the Mississippi. Jefferson was extremely anti-slavery, not being himself a prominent slave owner, and he immediately freed all his slaves as soon as the declaration was signed.

The British weren't saints. Neither were the American colonists, nor the native Americans.

Re: If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

Savages indeed.

*Dons headdress and monocle*

Re: If it were written today

[Crashmarik]

Well if they are like where I live, they are too busy running casino gambling, bingo and cigarettes without taxes.

Re: If it were written today

[will_die]

No it is because we Native American just blend in and live our lives without concern and if you did not ask most of us we would not mention it.

Re:If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

you are confusing illegal and just not a very good thing to do.

it's not illegal to be a total ass hat, but it's probably not a good way to go through life.

same thing here - i don't think we need to stop Facebook with a bunch of men with guns (ie a law), but i do think it's an asshole thing to do.

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

Yep, communism wins. Also crusades are a shit example; they pale in comparison to the very similar Islamic rampages through Europe. Then there's Genghis Khan, who probably beats both of them combined when it comes to the body count.

Holocaust is a decent example though. Not because of "the numbers", though. We're talking about barbarity, and the total death toll is just one aspect of it.

Re: If it were written today

[HeckRuler]

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.

As much or more than mine. At least, to be on equal footing. If you lag behind my civilization, then your civilization is... lesser. But even a hive of of ants is still a "nation". Just one I don't mind crushing nonchalantly. If aliens come down and casually vaporize the moon or hand us magical eternal megawatt batteries, then hey, I for one welcome our new vaporizing overlords. ...And none of those examples are technology. Arts, social structure, justice, and politics.... aren't tech. Signs of civilization, sure. And each can be advanced or a backwards laughable clusterfuck (oh god our healthcare is so bad) but they're like different prongs of civilization. The Klingons have photon torpedoes and have to be respected, but their system of justice is a bat'leth to the head. The Great Sioux Nation was a serious piece of politicking by a 7 different tribes, but I wouldn't say much about any of their social structures. Also, don't call them Sioux.

I'm totally with you on the next two points though.

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

Sure, because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 wasn't a thing

Oh it was definitely a thing, it just has absolutely nothing to do with the Deceleration. Kinda like how the Microsoft EULA is also a thing which has nothing to do with the Deceleration. You can't just name random documents to try and support your position.

and the young United States of America didn't blah blah blah

Equally irrelevant.

The British weren't saints. Neither were the American colonists, nor the native Americans.

Who said they were? You seem to be arguing with yourself now. The fact that the Brits and the colonists did some bad shit has nothing to do with the meaning of this particular passage, or the broader question of whether "Indian savage" was an inappropriate phrase.

Re: If it were written today

[tsqr]

The concentration camps were manned and run by members of the SS, not your run of the mill Nazi conscript. And yes, you can blame all SS for what some SS did - they were all volunteers, and all fanatically dedicated to carrying out their Furher's wishes.

Re:If it were written today

[tsqr]

Town gas

Re: If it were written today

[TimMD909]

That only works for a bit. Once the native portion gets below 1/16th, the afflicted generally can't shut up about it.

Re:If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point again. I don't care what YOU want to see on Facebook. Your whims aren't everybody else's. You can personally filter out whatever you want, but you or Zuckerberg shouldn't be making that decision for everybody. I don't care if it's a private company, they're a communication platform.

Re: If it were written today

[joe_frisch]

If one group calls another "savage", that would seem to be a claim that the other group was *more* savage. I haven't seen anything to indicate that North America (the area we are discussing I assume), was more violent than Europe in the 16th to 18th century. (the timescale I assume we are discussing).

Europe was embroiled in almost constant wars with substantial death tolls. The "Spanish Inquisition" wasn't just a Monty Python joke. The Reconquista (expelling Moors from Spain) was pretty spectacularly vicious and deadly.

There are not a lot of records from the pre-columbian period in north America, so its not clear what level of conflict existed. I haven't seen anything to suggest that violence was more widespread than in Europe.

Europe did have a substantial technological lead over north america at that time - though until probably 1600-1700 they were technologically inferior to China by most measures. North America seemed to be in a downturn after the collapse of the Cahokian and similar cultures and the Pueblo cultures (eg. Anasazi). It may have just been a downturn similar to Europe 800 years earlier.

Re: If it were written today

[DanDD]

c6gunner - you just described the United States foreign policy in the Middle East - Irag, Libya, etc. How's that working out? The ongoing civil war in Libya is causing oil disruptions - it might even push gas prices up above $4.00 this summer. That might dent your pocket book due to your rebel flag adorned pickup truck that gets 8 miles per gallon. How sad.

And how the f**k did your ignorant, racist, historical lie get modded up? You must be a clever little sock puppet.

European invaders were the real bioweapons and knowingly used smallpox to wipe out Native Americans.

Any reasonable person can't really blame the Native Americans for trying to defend their home and way of life against lying, savage barbarians with no respect for any way of life other than their own.

Fortunately there are still a few Native Americans left alive. They aren't exactly prospering, but at least their story is being told

Re: If it were written today

[DanDD]

c6gunner, surely you've attended enough bible studies and Sunday schools to know that Moses and his people, along with most everyone else in their day, engaged in human sacrifice. You knew that, right? It just took an additional 3000 years to 'culturally enlighten' the new world to stop killing people to appease their gods.

Let me re-phrase that for you: It took your ancestors an additional 3000 years from the time that Moses initiated an end to human sacrifice to figure out how to navigate and transport themselves to the other side of the planet, and then kill everyone that was acting like their ancestors.

You fucking ape. Read a book, learn to think.

Re: If it were written today

[q_e_t]

jaywalking and carving out beating hearts

Hardly equivalent. Erasing an entire village and inhabitants in revenge for someone being shot and carving out beating hearts is another matter.

Re: If it were written today

[DanDD]

Humans killing humans is deplorable. Except for this guy. He earned a just death. Using force to take something from others will get you that these days.

I like the idea of arming women. All women. Especially any women that would otherwise be forced to endure you.

Re: If it were written today

[Zero__Kelvin]

Nice example to exemplify my point... Thanks!

Re: If it were written today

[Uberbah]

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.

Racist dumbfuckery. Not every native tribe were heart-cutting Aztecs. So fuck off with this bullshit rationalization for colonialism.

Re: If it were written today

[Uberbah]

So if another country cures cancer, develops teleportation and extends human life to 500 years....it's totally fine if they commit genocide against your country?

Re: If it were written today

[DanDD]

c6gunner, Don't forget the Taiping Rebellion, where the Chinese had to fight off the deranged escapades of delusional Christian converts. As many as 100 million died between 1850 and 1864.

Both sides were equal in terms of resources and technology, but in this case the Christians lost, and were demonstrably the most barbaric. The Christians still might be losing this little 'conflict' ... time will tell.

I like how you cherry-pick little bits of history. Let me guess, you are the product of the US public school system, or home schooled by fundamentalists, perhaps?

Re: If it were written today

[q_e_t]

Apart from:

• Printing, and printing with movable type (China)
• The wheelbarrow (China)
• The seed drill (China)
• Pasta (China)
• Algebra (Africa)
• Irrigation (Asia)
• The wheel (Asia)
• Clocks (China)
• The crossbow (China)
• Firearms (China)
• The mortar (Asia)
• The alphabet (possibly Africa, possibly Asia)
• Stone buildings (Asia)
• Accounting (Asia)

Re: If it were written today

[q_e_t]

Same for Africans. They were both savage and disorganized and ripe for the pickings by more organized eastern powers.

I suggest you read about various great African civilisations, such as Nubia, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, etc.

Re: If it were written today

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

But our modern masters tell us to think in terms of DNA when assigning traits to groups.

Wait, that's been happening for thousands of years. Maybe it's about the power hunger of those at the top.

Naaaah. The're the good guys nowadays who have finally got it right.

Re: If it were written today

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"We stopped them!" he said. "We saved a hundred thousand lives!", as billions died needless early deaths at age 80 because nobody invented life saving technology.

Re:If it were written today

[dunkelfalke]

The Columbus time cannons weren't made of steel - there was no process to make steel in the amounts required. They were made from cast bronze or welded iron.

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

Don't forget the Taiping Rebellion, where the Chinese had to fight off the deranged escapades of delusional Christian converts. As many as 100 million died between 1850 and 1864.

Your own source gives contradictory numbers about total dead, but it seems to lean more towards a figure like 20-30 million rather than your 100. It also points out that the majority of those were due to famine and disease rather than "barbarity" as you would have us believe.

The more important issue, though, is that you've mischaracterized the entire conflict. This is explained by your own source:

"The Taiping Rebellion began in the southern province of Guangxi when local officials launched a campaign of religious persecution against a millenarian sect known as the God Worshipping Society led by Hong Xiuquan, who believed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ. ...

Hostilities began on January 1, 1851, when the Qing Green Standard Army launched an attack against the God Worshipping Society at the town of Jintian, Guangxi"

In other words, the established imperial dynasty first targeted the Christians for persecution and then engaged in open warfare against them. Which you have somehow managed to spin into the exact opposite. Nice try there, but no.

Both sides were equal in terms of resources and technology, but in this case the Christians lost, and were demonstrably the most barbaric.

Nothing in your source supports this claim. On the contrary, passages like this suggest the opposite:

"Reportedly in the province of Guangdong, it is written that 1,000,000 were executed because after the collapse of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Qing Dynasty launched waves of massacres against the Hakkas, killing up to 30,000 each day during the height of the massacres."

I'm not going to pretend to know enough about the conflict in order to have an informed opinion about which side was more brutal ... but I'm certainly not going to take your word on it given how badly you managed to spin the nature of the conflict thusfar.

I like how you cherry-pick little bits of history

Thanks. I like how you flat out lie about major chunks of history.

Let me guess, you are the product of the US public school system, or home schooled by fundamentalists, perhaps?

You've managed 3 incorrect guesses in one sentence. I'm not american, I definitely wasn't home schooled, and I'm pretty sure that "fundamentalist atheist" isn't a thing. While I dislike all forms of organised religion (and magical thinking in general), I dispise your sort of dishonest attacks on religion even more. Only a fool would make up reasons for attacking religion when there are so many legitimate reasons to criticise it.

I do however find a great deal of amusement in seeing how often my education, nationality, and religion are questioned by smug ignoramuses. Thanks for that.

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

Fortunately there are still a few Native Americans left alive. They aren't exactly prospering, but at least their story is being told

That's pretty funny. The native american population in North America today is probably about the same today as it was at the time of contact. When you said "a few" you forgot to add the word "million".

The rest of your comment is equally neglectful.

Re:If it were written today

[Kjella]

I'm not saying Facebook is necessarily wrong, but it is concerning that the public debate has pretty much moved from the public town square to the private mall floor where mall cops are effectively the gatekeepers and anyone can be restricted or evicted on a whim because it's private property. Particularly since government and commercial interests are threatening the mall owners if they let behavior they don't like go unchecked like piracy, hate speech, harassment and so on.

Despite being a "site" Facebook is primarily a communication medium, like if anyone said they'd want the post office to read your mail, the phone company to listen to your phone calls or the ISP to read your email we'd probably consider that a violation of privacy. But Facebook, somehow it's okay how they're the man in the middle in every debate and conversation. Which means that someone quotes the declaration of independence and boom, in come the censors saying you can't do that.

Yes, it does shield users from a lot of the nasty and toxic people out there. But it can also be used as a means to whitewash the debate to only include "acceptable" viewpoints or to promote/bury posts based on an agenda. Take for example the problem with fake news, of course a lot of articles are bogus but once you try policing it you have to set yourself up as the arbitrator of truth. Advocacy is fine, there's no shame in picking a side and arguing for it but not pretending to be neutral ground while tilting the table.

Re: If it were written today

[azcoyote]

This is an astoundingly stupid argument. I agree with Oswald that it's preposterous to accuse the natives and exonerate white people. But we get into a ditch if our argument is based upon weighing out who is really more savage. When it comes down to it, white Europeans have no right to argue moral superiority if they utilize brutal violence at all. It doesn't matter if technically the Aztecs were statistically more violent, because the Europeans were in no way free of violence. The principal difference of so-called civilization is that violence becomes officially authorized by declarations of war. But in every war we rape, torture, and butcher people, even if some of us do not cut out hearts. Some persons commit graver sins than others, but it's no use claiming that any particular race or tribe is inherently worse because none of us occupy a high ground from which we can fairly survey the terrain. We are all guilty, and we need to come to terms with that. If we delude ourselves into thinking that the guilt of any natives does justifies what the Europeans did to them (a situation from which we continue to profit on a daily basis), then our own guilt is enough to deserve destruction all the same.

Re: If it were written today

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we are not all guilty. The legitimate question is who initiated the violence -- he who stops the violence can have the moral high ground. Also one can and has to understand what are the principles one is fighting for: does one fight for tyranny or individual liberty, which makes the difference between a putsch and a revolution.
The hard part is that most of the wars in last century have been unprincipled wars between slave countries -- and few of them have been disprincipled altruistic attempts to bring democracy in reluctant slave countries.

Re: If it were written today

[dcw3]

"It's almost as if "Native Americans" isn't actually a single homogeneous group."

Kinda like the white settlers, huh?

Re: If it were written today

[DanDD]

Thanks. I like how you flat out lie about major chunks of history.

What exactly did I lie about in my two sentence summary of a lengthy wiki page? You don't like that I summarized the Taiping Christians as more barbaric than the Qing Dynasty? Or you don't like the numbers that I pulled directly from the article?

From the article I cited:

it also ranks as one of the bloodiest wars in human history, the bloodiest civil war, and the largest conflict of the 19th century, with estimates of the war dead ranging from 20–70 million to as high as 100 million, with millions more displaced.

Which I summarized as:

As many as 100 million died between 1850 and 1864.

Where's the lie?

Apparently, other Christians in that day would agree with my brief assessment of the Taiping Christians:

In 1837 Hong Xiuquan, a Hakka from a poor mountain village, once again failed the imperial examination, frustrating his ambition to become a scholar-official in the civil service.[20][21] He returned home, fell sick and was bedridden for several days, during which he experienced mystical visions.[22][23][24] In 1843, after carefully reading a pamphlet he had received years before from a Protestant Christian missionary, Hong declared that he now understood that his vision meant that he was the younger brother of Jesus and that he had been sent to rid China of the "devils", including the corrupt Qing government and Confucian teachings.[25][26] In 1847 Hong went to Guangzhou, where he studied the Bible with Issachar Jacox Roberts, an American Baptist missionary.[27] Roberts refused to baptize him and later stated that Hong's followers were "bent on making their burlesque religious pretensions serve their political purpose."

Dude, look - you justify the human and cultural destruction of indigenous peoples because Manifest Destiny - or whatever bullshit they call it from where you are from.

In another post, you trivialize the near genocide of Native Americans with this:

That's pretty funny. The native american population in North America today is probably about the same [wikipedia.org] today as it was at the time of contact. When you said "a few" you forgot to add the word "million".

Which was in response to my statement:

Fortunately there are still a few Native Americans left alive. They aren't exactly prospering, but at least their story is being told.

My morbid curiosity has driven most of this conversation, and you have confirmed my worse fear of you. You would justify the holocaust and trivialize the savagery against the Jews because

the population of Israel is now almost 9 million, far greater than the 6 million 'allegedly' killed in WWII, and those Jews living today are so much better off.

You said that, but instead of Jews you said it about Native Americans. And you call me a smug ignoramus? Wow. Just wow.

The United States is far from perfect. Despite the US Constitution declaring that all people are equal, we've had our civil war over slavery. And today, while Native Americans have the same freedom of speech that everyone else has, they have been so economically and culturally disadvantaged that they are still effectively 'contained' on reservations. Fortunately, this evil is changing, even if only one person at a time.

It is also fortunate that indigenous people here, along with everyone else, are free to own firearms, and for good reasons that you've made all too clear.

Re: If it were written today

[shutdown -p now]

It's worth noting that not all primitive societies are warlike. The problem is that those that aren't, generally don't tend to stick around for long, because of stuff like this.

Re: If it were written today

[c6gunner]

the population of Israel is now almost 9 million, far greater than the 6 million 'allegedly' killed in WWII, and those Jews living today are so much better off.

You said that, but instead of Jews you said it about Native Americans. And you call me a smug ignoramus? Wow. Just wow.

Wow, just wow, is right. I was briefly tempted to respond to the rest of your comment despite the fact that it's just a repeat of the same kind of lies and misdirections which I exposed in my previous response. After reading this particular bit of libel, though? You've thrown away any shred of credibility and decency which I may have been willing to attribute to you. Feel free to continue ranting and raving about whatever nonsense you like; I'm done with you.

Re: If it were written today

[DanDD]

Libel? Says the racist bigot who freely admits to not being from the US, yet feels compelled to spout his racist agenda using the plight of Native Americans that he cannot possibly understand.

I'm not done with you and your ilk, not by a long shot.

Re:If it were written today

[Agripa]

I think there is nothing wrong with Facebook's algorithm in this case- it did what it was written to do- it caught unwanted language on it's system.

I'm pretty sure a lot of Mark Twain's work would rightly get blocked too.

Facebook executed legislative, judicial, and executive powers to produce prior restraint in a way which was at least a violation of the 1st and 5st Amendments so the government did not need to. Want to bet that they are not also violating the 2nd and 4th?

Re:If it were written today

[Agripa]

I find it perfectly acceptable for a private institution like facebook.

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.

If enough private companies do it, then the government will not have to.

Re:If it were written today

[dcw3]

They all did have a spoken language (obviously) but only the southern empires (Mayan, Aztec and Incas) had a written form of language.

No, the Incas didn't have written language, only the others.

Re:If it were written today

[DanDD]

I've read that Incan quipu could be used to record aspects of the spoken Quechuan language, and great numerical details, although it will take me hours to find that reference. What I remember reading was a disagreement between Conquistador missionaries and Incan administrators over details of some past occurrence, who paid what tax, who grew what crop, or some such minutia. The Spaniards were surprised at the speed and accuracy that the quipu were used to recall such details.

Also, there are recorded stories of Spaniards being told that life stories and great lessons were recorded in quipu.

If there are any peer reviewed publications that claim the Incan's had no functional writing system, I'd love to see them.

Re:If it were written today

[dcw3]

I relied on my memory of a Nat Geo tour I took last year to Machu Picchu last year, and double checked here before posting above...

The Incas never developed a written language. However, their system of record keeping called Quipu is unique in human history. ... The Inca did not invent Quipu; it was used by earlier Andean cultures. Quipus have been found all over the Andes, and the earliest examples are over 5,000 years old.

Re: If it were written today

[Uberbah]

You wish. Whining about Aztecs is just whataboutery, which means you lost the argument, klansman. Try less racist dumbfuckery next time.

Re: If it were written today

[Uberbah]

Nice dumbfuckery. Protip: acting as if people disagreeing with you proves your point doesn't actually work.

Re:If it were written today

[mapkinase]

>"Indian Savages"

The only incorrect identification of native population of United States in this phrase is "Indian".

Re:If it were written today

[Oswald McWeany]

A couple of tribes (Iroquois, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs and a few others) had political systems, most didn't (their groups were just too small to need them).

Most of the smaller tribes belonged to confederations of larger groups that had complex political relationships.

Re: If it were written today

[HeckRuler]

Well no, I wouldn't be fine with that. Hence the part where I'm welcoming the new overlords with supplications. So hopefully the genocide doesn't include me as I'd no longer be part of that country.

Oh man, I know it's been a while, but did you not grasp what the news reporter was doing on that episode of Simpsons? He presumed an alien race coming to conquer Earth and he SWITCHED SIDES. He was rooting for the ants and was generally throwing the rest of Earth under the bus. "Race traitor" would be the term. "Conquered sycophant" maybe.

Re:If it were written today

[oldmac31310]

But if they had intended it to mean Indians from India, sadly, there would be plenty of people on /. who would have no problem with the use of the words.

Re: If it were written today

[sysrammer]

lol on that!

malice indistinguishable from incompetence

[anthony_greer]

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.

Re:malice indistinguishable from incompetence

[AmiMoJo]

Don't let the fact that they said it was a mistake get in the way if a good rant, eh...

It's just the result of them using algorithms because there is too much material for humans to review. It's a non story.

Re:malice indistinguishable from incompetence

[pgmrdlm]

Trying to CENSOR anyone's speech is crap. And I don't care what political party. Your moronic AntiFa physically attack anyone they disagree with. How about you? Your liberal colleges can not even deal with differing views without calling them hateful and protesting to not allow what they disagree with. What are you afraid of? Can't handle hearing an opposing argument because you are afraid you might actually learn something that your personal information sources did not let you see/hear/learn? The problem with liberals is they do not try to broaden their information or opinions by listening to others. Not all, trust me. But your comment shows you are one of them that can't handle opposing opinions.

Party like it's 1776...

[cre1mer]

I read somewhere that two-thirds of colonial citizens didn't care who won the Revolutionary War. Fast forward 242 years, two-third of American citizens don't care who wins the presidential election. Some things never change.

Re:Party like it's 1776...

[nwaack]

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.

Re:Party like it's 1776...

[Oswald McWeany]

I read somewhere that two-thirds of colonial citizens didn't care who won the Revolutionary War. Fast forward 242 years, two-third of American citizens don't care who wins the presidential election. Some things never change.

Well, the benefits for independence weren't as strong for the average person back then as might be expected. Sure, it is everyone's rights to self-determination but some of the grievances like "high taxes" might not have been completely fair- I think I read once that Britain paid more to defend the American colonies than they received in taxes. (obviously Britain also got a benefit of using the colonies to ship raw materials home that was used to improve the home economy too).

It is almost certainly a good thing for everyone that America won her independence, but I'm sure for many common folk back in the day the benefits for independence might have seemed few.

It isn't too dissimilar to the middle ages when nations regularly swapped territory and conquered land off each other. Nationalism wasn't a big thing back then. The peons in each country couldn't care less which nation of lords were subjugating them. An English, French, or Austria noble would take advantage of them just the same. The only ones who really cared were those in power that gained or lost land.

We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[Bruce Perens]

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.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[JackieBrown]

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.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[Ichijo]

Nice try but no.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[Oswald McWeany]

Anzac regions... South America.... also have pushed out native populations. Africa and the Middle East long history of enslaving each other and fighting each other. Same with Asia. Europe has more than it's fair share of bloody hands.

Yes, every country is guilty of at least some atrocity.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[rhazz]

Canada certainly does. The current government is being active about it too.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[Bruce Perens]

Do other countries have such guilt for existing as the U.S. seems to have?

Only the ones that sincerely try to deal with their past wrongs. This in general means democracies. If you think we have problems in this regard, consider South Africa.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[markdavis]

>"We don't have to stand behind it today. We shouldn't."

Indeed. I wouldn't ever deny the horrible things that happened in history. But I won't ignore the great and wonderful things either. What happened to the Native Americans was way beyond unfortunate- something that inevitably seems to happen whenever ANY more technologically advanced culture on the move encounters another. History is full of it, all over the world. Going back far enough, I am sure my European ancestors were slaves or slave owners, thieves and saints, nobility and commoners, murderers and heroes, good and immoral, poor and rich, bright and dim.

And, yet, a wonderful country WAS born, and set forth ideals far beyond what they could accomplish at the time. I remember the past, but also choose to look forward, knowing *we* (none of us) are responsible for what happened before we were born. Trying to hide or embellish where we have been doesn't help, but neither does demanding reparations.

I choose to believe in the ability of our country to overcome adversity. It is the freedom that was born from the Declaration of Independence and cemented in the Constitution's Bill of Rights that enabled us to become one of the best countries on earth. I would hate to see that all go away in the name of safety, convenience, or not offending anyone.

Re: We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[c6gunner]

They have property rights same as everyone else. Don't be a spaz. The fact that reservations are designed to be a Communist Utopia is irrelevant to the individual rights of the natives themselves.

Those who prefer a true capitalist community tend to move off the rez and live elsewhere. Those who prefer the "traditional native society" tend to stay there. We don't have some berlin-wall type structure keeping them from finding a better life on the other side; they have the freedom to choose.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[niaxilin]

Do other countries have such guilt for existing as the U.S. seems to have?

Yes. Germany is a great example of this. After the horrors they inflicted during WWII, they were (rightfully) too timid to fly the German flag until even a few years ago. People that commit atrocities should feel shame. It should not cripple them, but should remind them to do better next time.
There is a term for people who don't feel guilt: Sociopath.

Re: We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[c6gunner]

Right, I forgot, poor people can't make choices. They're just mindless automatons following a predefined program. Thank you so much for reminding me that I shouldn't think of them as human beings.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[aussersterne]

There is a big difference between "I don't support the racist bits" and "erase all of that from history."

The former is perfectly justifiable. The latter deserves the guillotine.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[DanDD]

We won. Fuck off. You know what? The next group that wins won't give a shit either. No nation has ever been built on self pity. I stand behind victory and building great things. You go ahead and stand behind being a victim. It may make you feel better for yourself, but it really does cut into long term survival rates. The universe doesn't give a fuck about what you feel.

Are you sure?

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[DanDD]

And because there are canine teeth in your head you think it's in your best interest to act like a dog, to justify your own savagery?

Your self-congratulatory back-patting may cause you to pull something. Be careful.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[DanDD]

Bruce, this article and it's entire thread remind me of a Johnny Cash song, recorded live: "Folsom Prison Blues".

When I was just a baby
My Mama told me, "Son
Always be a good boy
Don't ever play with guns, "
But I shot a man in Reno
Just to watch him die...

At that point in the recording the audience of prison inmates cheers wildly.

I feel like I'm in the middle of that crowd.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[Bruce Perens]

I didn't do that stuff, and I don't have any "original sin" that somebody in someone eles's religion is supposed to have died for, either. I'll commit my own sins and be responsible for them. This doesn't mean I should be accepting of stupid stuff done by others, mostly before I was born.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[DanDD]

I agree with you 100%. I was just pointing out that we seem to be in the minority, and it makes me a bit uncomfortable. Like we're surrounded by... genocidal savages.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[Bruce Perens]

You mean genocidal savages with assault rifles.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[dcw3]

My memories of living there in the 80s would indicate that "a few years ago" = more than three decades.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[JackieBrown]

There is a term for people who don't feel guilt: Sociopath.

That term does not apply to not feeling guilt for "crimes" that people committed in my country long before my family moved to this country.

I guess you really feel that a child should want to be punished for the sins of their fathers (or in this case great-great grandfathers) - and if they don't they must be sociopaths.

Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions

[sysrammer]

No, dammit. It was already done. Indians were persuaded to "own" plots of their reservation in Oklahoma. Speculators moved in and proceeded to chop, slice and dice. Please don't help in the destructions of the first nations. Thank you.

Dang

[cascadingstylesheet]

There goes my plan to serialize G.K. Chesterton on Facebook ...

Savages?

[Trailer Trash]

I thought they were all programmers.

It is hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

It was written with full awareness that it would start a war.
If hate speech is forbidden then can there be such a thing as a just war?

Facebook was right

[DanDD]

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.

Re:Facebook was right

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hate speech" wasn't invented as a concept until the late 20th century, so regarding a two-centuries old text by the standards of political correctness makes about as much sense as criticizing its spelling and capitalization by current standards.

Re:Facebook was right

[Oswald McWeany]

"Hate speech" wasn't invented as a concept until the late 20th century, so regarding a two-centuries old text by the standards of political correctness makes about as much sense as criticizing its spelling and capitalization by current standards.

Doesn't mean that we as an evolved modern society can't recognize the faults in it. We can acknowledge that in those days they didn't consider it immoral, but that living in a more enlightened time that we do.

Slave owners probably didn't think they were bad people or that they were doing wrong. In their time it was acceptable. We today can recognize it was wrong

Re:Facebook was right

[iggymanz]

Not hate speech, some tribe were brutal savages that committed atrocities, even to other tribes.

Your link to Souix issue has nothing to do with that fact.

Re:Facebook was right

[DanDD]

Competition for scarce resources does that to humans. All humans.

Sometimes these resources are land, water, cattle, or fertile women. Here are some examples from your past:

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

Exterminating a native population because you don't want to deal with them is savage.

What do you see when you look in the mirror?

Re:Facebook was right

[DanDD]

... wasn't invented until the late 20th century? Are you sure about that?

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Come out from the shadows, Anonymous Coward. Show yourself.

Re:Facebook was right

[DanDD]

My link to the SCOTUS ruling in favor of the Sioux has everything to do with the now established legal fact that Native Americans have been treated unjustly by the United States of America, and that this is evidenced in the very language of the Declaration of Independence, properly identified by Facebook's algorithm.

Conflicts between the Utes and Navajo, for example, were no different than conflicts between the Germans and the French, or the Mongolians and the Chinese.

Thank you for helping point out that savagery is savagery, and that such failings are a universal failure of humanity.

Universal, but hopefully not inevitable. Dear God(s), please let it not be inevitable.

Re:Facebook was right

[iggymanz]

Some indeed have been treated unjustly, horribly.

I correctly differentiate between the various tribes and nations, some had very evil cultures.

Some tribes deserved worse than they got, they were evil savages.

Re:Facebook was right

[DanDD]

And none of the surviving descendants of those tribes that you just unilaterally and sanctimoniously judged are guilty of anything today. They don't need to have the racism and bigotry that defined your ancestors thrown in their face at every turn. That's called hate speech today. And I doubt their ancestors were any less evil than yours. They were simply different.

History should never be censored or re-written. However, Facebook is not a historical archive or public education service. They are free to censor as they see fit, and their appropriate labeling of hate speech is both interesting and laudable.

Re:Facebook was right

[Uberbah]

Not hate speech, some tribe were brutal savages that committed atrocities, even to other tribes. Your link to Souix issue has nothing to do with that fact.

Whataboutery to justify racist imperialism FTL.

Re:Facebook was right

[Uberbah]

"Hate speech" wasn't invented as a concept until the late 20th century

Irrelevant. Domestic violence wasn't a term 1,000 years ago, but you were still a piece of shit if you beat up your spouse.

so regarding a two-centuries old text by the standards of political correctness makes about as much sense as criticizing its spelling and capitalization by current standards

The 'founders' were racist imperialist assholes even for their day, so also irrelevant.

Re:Facebook was right

[iggymanz]

I see a person who now lives where some savages used to, who lives in a civilization with laws, courts, written language and borders.

Re:Facebook was right

[DanDD]

I invite you to openly express this sentiment at the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico - a city that's been inhabited longer that most European cities, save for those that descended from Roman and Greek settlements.

The Tiwa people of Taos used an interesting writing system similar to Quipu of the Incan Empire to coordinate a successful attack on the Spaniards, and ultimately repel them. They've had cities, laws, writing, and have been quite civilized long before the arrival of the European barbarians.

But please, go tell them of their savagery. You might actually have an educational and civilized conversation.

Re:Facebook was right

[dcw3]

I'm not the AC, but having lived through half of the last century, I'd tend to agree with him. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary? My google searches didn't.

Re:Facebook was right

[DanDD]

I must concede that "hate speech" is a modern term. However, my offhanded reply above vaguely asserts that the death of dialect, rhetoric, and philosophy as a foundation for social structure and education was the birth of hate speech. i.e. - the conversion of classical sophism into sophistry.

Re:Facebook was right

[dcw3]

Possibly, though I doubt anyone got your references (I didn't, even after reading the links previously) until you just explained them.

Re:Facebook was right

[DanDD]

Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify.

But wait, there's more!

[PopeRatzo]

How many of you remember when NPR tweeted out the Declaration of Independence line by line and a bunch of Trump supporters got mad because they thought it was about Trump? It happened last year, and it happened again this year.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/julia...

Re:But wait, there's more!

[PopeRatzo]

And you believed it. Woosh.

Ah, the classic, "I'm not really stupid, I was just joking!" defense.

Always a winner.

Re:But wait, there's more!

[sysrammer]

Here's a fun part...

"A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

i am waiting...

[FudRucker]

waiting for the US Govt to apologize to the England, because the US Government has become bigger taxers, more corrupt, more kleptocratic & fascistic than England was,

were sorry about 1776 & 1812, we just wanted to own our own piece of the pie, but we screwed it up and freedom is just a mirage in the desert

Re:i am waiting...

[dcw3]

were sorry about 1776 & 1812,...

Sorry, not sorry.

Not going well at all...

[QuietLagoon]

It certainly looks as if Facebook's attempted pivot from being a seller of personal data to a responsible netizen is not going well at all. It almost seems as if the whole Facebook company were not set up to do anything but exploit the personal information of people.

Taken in context of the times

[shayd2]

Actually, these dead white guys did fear and hate "Indian Savages"

They continued over the next 150 years to commit genocide

Re:Taken in context of the times

[Pinky's Brain]

If the majority of colonists had wanted to commit genocide there wouldn't have been any full blood Indian left.

Yes, apparently I am 12

[93 Escort Wagon]

I reached this one section and immediately thought of Beevis and Butthead:

”He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people”

Hehe. Hehe. “Manly Firmness” hehe. Hehe.

Um... they're not wrong

[rsilvergun]

it's been decades since I read the Declaration of Independence in full and never gave a second thought to the phrase "Indian Savages" but yeah, that there's hate speech. It's a phrase specifically targeted to a race intended to imply all members of that race were in some way immoral and/or evil. If that's not hate speech I don't know what is.

Just because the Dec of Independence (and by extension America) has a lot of good parts doesn't mean we should pretend the bad didn't exist.

Re: Um... they're not wrong

[Bing Tsher E]

It isn't a phrase that necessarily calls all indians savages. It calls out the particular indians who were coaxed into savagery by the Britons.

Re: Um... they're not wrong

[c6gunner]

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 ...

H1B Made the Code

[LifesABeach]

Billionaires some times forget what happens to Kings in America.

Re:H1B Made the Code

[dcw3]

Billionaires some times forget what happens to Kings in America.

Steven, Martin Luther, Billie Jean, B.B, Larry or Benny? They all seemed to do well, except for the one who got shot.

Shadow of Greatness

[sdinfoserv]

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.
Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
-an American president, 1995
As so clearly demonstrated FB’s automated “flagging”, the United States no longer enjoy any forms of freedom of speech. No longer are we allowed to freely discuss ideas. Deeming and idea “hate speech” is really just the knee jerk response of the weak minded, lack of critical thinking skilled zombies the majority of the United States has become.

Re:Shadow of Greatness

[iggymanz]

You're very confused. Facebook is a company and can erase anything they want on their systems. Freedom of speech only has to do with government.

Re:Shadow of Greatness

[sdinfoserv]

Posting things on face book deemed "hate speech" can has has gotten people arrested.

Re:Shadow of Greatness

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Shadow of Greatness

[eaglesrule]

"corporations shouldn't be regulated. Let the free market decide!"

Yeah, we found out how well that worked out. Let's try it again, but with the predominant methods people use for modern communication. It'll be different this time!

Re:Shadow of Greatness

[iggymanz]

I do believe corporations should be regulated, but the content on the website is correctly their choice. Especially since they can be liable for it. Can't have it both ways, if you think Facebook should be punished for hosting KKK or anti-gay hate-group rantings or inciting to violence, then they get to delete what they want.

Re:Shadow of Greatness

[iggymanz]

Yes, and since they can be liable for content, they have the right to delete anything out of an abundance of caution.

Re:Shadow of Greatness

[eaglesrule]

That's right; can't have it both ways. Either these massive platforms act as common carriers and allow speech that is considered legal under the law, or become liable for illegal speech hosted on their platform. Right now they get to be selective in their enforcement of censorship, and deplatform as they see fit.

The whims of a few ivory towers in Silicon Valley shouldn't be allowed to effect speech at a national level.

Re:Shadow of Greatness

[iggymanz]

websites are not "common carriers", what nonsense is that. They are file servers with owners, that have right to delete or not allow files on their storage since they are paying the bill for it, by whatever criteria they want to imagine.

Re: Filters should not replace human review.

[Zero__Kelvin]

That's weird. I would have expected it would be because you do things like randomly repeating words in a way that makes the sentence nonsensical :-)

It was hate speech

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the reasons why the US broke off from the UK was that the UK was actually treating their treaties with the locals non-white people seriously.

Meanwhile many of the people who lived in the USA wanted to just kill them and take their land.

The USA broke off from the UK, and proceeded to kill the locals -- engaged in systemic genocide -- and take their land.

The document contains *more* than just hate speech, and the independence of the USA from the monarchy was more than just an excuse to engage in genocide, but both are actually there.

Re: Filters should not replace human review.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probally because it was the eliteism that set in. Back in the day, this was a huge problem with certain Usenet groups, and while it may have started out as a way to filter out junk/spam posts, it became very clear that it was more about running a clique* and keeping people outside their little circles, than having any kind of constructive discussion. I bet the "Eternal September" didn't help things either. Instead of wasting time trying to impress these 'elitists', I said fuck it, and moved on to better pastures

Zero Tolerance + Instant Action = False Positives

[eepok]

Don't be surprised. Don't be outraged. It's very simple. If you want ZERO tolerance for specific words and you want immediate action, then you're going to get false positives. Zero tolerance is implemented to prevent tragedies.

"No, you may not bring your loaded pistol on this plane."
"You have murdered 300 people, you're going to prison for life. The State may just kill you."

But there are things that seem extreme to people with no rational worldly context. Words, of all things, do not need zero tolerance measures. If someone were to post/say/yell "Indian Savages" in any venue, no tragic circumstances would occur. Same with the N*word. No tragic circumstances would occur. At worst, some people get angry and/or offended. In those cases, simply responding to peoples' reports of a bad post is sufficient.

And now we hear from the ANTIFA of Slashdot

[pgmrdlm]

Hiding behind AC alias just like the AntiFa hide behind their masks.

Re: And now we hear from the ANTIFA of Slashdot

[pgmrdlm]

wow, nothing like showing how much of a racist you are. You are also a bigot for lumping all conservatives as hate filled people. I addressed one portion of the liberals, the AntiFa... The radical section. And you assumed(make an ass out of you) that I was addressing all liberals.I am sure you call any black(male/female) that is conservative either an Uncle Tom or an Aunt Jamima. You mother fucker, are a bigot. You mother fucker are an asshole. And you mother fucker are a piece of shit. The only good bigot bitch is a dead one, and I don't care what color/religion/sex/or political party. Mother fucker, I hope you become a good bigot soon.

Fuck that.

[aussersterne]

"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.

Large number of Indians were killed by disease

[mveloso]

When the settlers came, they killed off a huge amount of indians via disease. You can read Squanto's account of America after his return; a land that was full of people was basically a ghost town.

It's crazy, but disease probably wiped out an order of magnitude more people than the US did.

When context matters

[oldgraybeard]

how would I design and account for this in code? Without being 100% sure of the source. Does everything have source metadata for context? As is the real world how could anyone trust any provided context metadata anyway?
I am no fan of Facebook and I do not have an account. But maybe Facebook is trying to fight a losing battle here! I think most humans would make this mistake since it would appear to be a no brainier in the PC correct, overly sensitive, I'm a victim society we have in America.

When one first looks events like these always look bad. The real fix maybe to toughen up or take it in stride.

Just my 2 cents ;)

1984 +34

[McFortner]

"Hate speech" is just a symptom of Newspeak. If you Control speech, you control thought, for good or ill. The Constitution guarantees the Freedom of Speech, not Freedom from Being Offended. While deplorable, we can't control how others think. It's the act against someone, not the speech, that should be criminalized.

Re:1984 +34

[A. I. Agent]

In Britain, inciting violence was illegal long before "hate speech" laws were put in effect. The effect of "hate speech" laws is to stop speech that causes offense in the mind of the listener, instead of looking at the intent of the speaker. As a result, people like Count Dankula face prison time for telling rude jokes, simply because someone finds them offensive. Rowan Atkinson, of Blackadder and Mr. Bean fame, spoke out against the excesses of these laws years ago, but legislators have not responded.

Imagine that Don Lemon of CNN reported something disturbing and true about Trump and his supporters, leading liberals to hate Trump and his voters even more than they currently do. According to the logic of "hate speech" laws, Don Lemon would be guilty of a criminal act, because truth is no defense when you are charged with "hate speech." The fact that he had said something to cause hatred is all it would take to find him guilty.

"Hate speech" laws have no place in a free society, but they are ideal for a totalitarian one.

If that's not enough, it gets even worse. Rape gangs in Rotherham, England went unpunished for years because police were afraid they would be accused of racism (now a crime under "hate speech" laws) because most of the perpetrators were non-white.

um

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:um

[sysrammer]

Yeah. When Reagan let the Fairness Doctrine lapse, the floodgates were opened. It no longer paid to be even-handed or to consider other points of view.

Hate speech

[VeryFluffyBunny]

...the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Sounds like hate speech to me.

Re:Hate speech

[will_die]

Start from the top, the whole thing is hate speech.

Re:Hate speech

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Yep. The whole premise of manifest destiny is purely a justification for genocide and colonisation.

I mean it as much a criticism of the European countries who instigated it across the entire American continent as I do against the former British colony.

Noble Savage was a literary movement

[Beeftopia]

From Encyclopedia Britannica: "Noble savage, in literature, an idealized concept of uncivilized man, who symbolizes the innate goodness of one not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization.

The glorification of the noble savage is a dominant theme in the Romantic writings of the 18th and 19th centuries, especially in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. For example, Émile, ou, De l’education, 4 vol. (1762), is a long treatise on the corrupting influence of traditional education; the autobiographical Confessions (written 1765–70) reaffirms the basic tenet of man’s innate goodness; and Dreams of a Solitary Walker (1776–78) contains descriptions of nature and man’s natural response to it."

It wasn't necessarily an offensive term back then; the early European Americans did compete with them for resources and land.

More links here.

Well it is "fighting words" that started a war

[drnb]

Well the Declaration of Independence was "fighting words" that started a war. The 1/3 of the population that wished to remain loyal British subjects likely did consider it "hate speech", plus a few folks on the other side of the Atlantic, and oh yeah them Canadians too.

But yeah. a phrase or two in there likely triggered a filter and/or facebook employee.

Removing the US declaration of independence

[AHuxley]

If freedom of speech surrounding US history makes the ban list.
That must be a massive list of the rest of the internet thats on a never link, never find, never mention, never deep link, never show, repot and ban.
A SJW created white list that only uses words and terms they approve of, the rest of the internet and US history is banned?

Problem with your storyline: Dems ARE right wing

[Uberbah]

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.

Democrats are farther to the right of Republicans as often as they aren't (see Russiagate for a current example) and hate the real left more than Republicans do.

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.

Obama was a right-wing freakshow, who went well to the right of his Republican predecessors on most issues. Ignore the PR and look at what Democrats actually do for once in your teabagging life.

Different version of Facebook apology

[gordguide]

When I first read this story the "apology" from Facebook read a little differently.

  "It looks like we made a mistake and removed something you posted on Facebook that didn't go against our Community Standards. We want to apologize and let you know that we've restored your content and removed any blocks on your account related to this incorrect action."

The reason I mention it, is when I read it, the words stood out to me .. namely "didn't go against our Community Standards".

It most certainly DOES go against their "Community Standards". Now, it should get an exception because it's History, and Newsworthy and probably a few other reasons. But no, not because it doesn't go against their Community Standards, because as those Standards are written, it clearly does.

Re:Problem with your storyline: Dems ARE right win

[vandamme]

The gist of your rant is: right wing = bad, Dems = bad, ergo Dems = right wing.

Faulty math, and faulty politics.

Clearly anti-choice hate speech

[vandamme]

"...among these are life...."

But "curated"news will be fine

[eric_harris_76]

Am I the only one who wonders what FB's "curated" news will be like?

"I've got a bad feeling about this."

Re:Problem with your storyline: Dems ARE right win

[Uberbah]

Too lazy to come up with something better than a half-assed straw man?

When system works but you don't like the answer

[fygment]

So _some_ things that are historic and have content at odds with today's morality should be allowed to stay.

Other things that are historic and have content at odds with today's morality should be removed.

Fact: by today's standards of morality, most of the founding fathers would be found to be sexist and racist.

Do you not see the inherent problem with this?

Re: ... individual rights of whom?

[fygment]

"... which is built on recognizing individual rights ..." ... but _whose_ individual rights? At the time of writing, the 'who' was a very restricted subset of the population. It did not at the time include First Nations or slaves nor some would say, women. The document was in many respects inherently discriminatory especially if viewed through the lense of the moral belief system of the time. But if we view it through the lense of today's morality we can interpret it to our collective benefit. Maybe that is it's true value, it's flexibility to interpretation ... the ultimate political document.

Any colonialist or imperialist country should, yes

[Uberbah]

Most countries and borders that exist today are there because of war and taking from natives.

Not for hundreds or even thousands of years, they haven't. Sure, the Austro-Hungarian Empire has come and gone but it did so without the wholesale slaughter or displacement of the people who lived there. Any more remedial history questions?

Re:Any colonialist or imperialist country should,

[JackieBrown]

It looks like your remedial learning of history stopped thousands of years ago.

And how long go do you think the US-Indian wars were? Maybe not quite hundreds but definitely over a century.

Re:"Deceleration"?

[sysrammer]

Why do you spell "declaration" as "deceleration"? It's really got me curious...

Simple physics. Deceleration is conservative, and acceleration is liberal.

Re:Zero Tolerance + Instant Action = False Positiv

[sysrammer]

I know a few places where if you stood and yelled The Word We Must Not Say, you'd be introduced to a tragic circumstance.

Re: Filters should not replace human review.

[sysrammer]

Good call :)