Have a look at a list of countries ordered by standard of living. There's different ways of measuring that, but most shake out about the same.
Now take a look at the common factor among them. Strong social policies. No, not communist, nor entirely socialist, but a mix of socialist (*gasp*) policies and regulated capitalism. It's almost like using limited socialism in some areas and limited capitalism in others works better than either alone.
Maybe the answer to the problems in the US is more capitalism, less regulation and an 'I've got mine' attitude. But probably not.
Now, you're probably either a troll or a pot stirrer, so this isn't really aimed at you. I'm hoping that chipping away at the reflexive socialist=bad that crops up might make room for some reasoned discussion on actual change and not just another round of more-of-the-same.
it involves taking a thing with some degree of sentience, keeping it in a sensory-deprived state and conscious
Were that the case, I'd agree wholeheartedly, but TFA states
There was no evidence that the disembodied pig brains regained consciousness.
Later, TFA states
Sestan now says the organs produce a flat brain wave equivalent to a comatose state
although that statement is made in the context that they were looking to see if an ex-vivo brain could regain consciousness. Initially they thought they had found evidence of this, then put it down to artifacts in the equipment.
So, I'm not sure I'd give them a pass just because they failed to take a brain from an animal that has died and restore it to a kind of disembodied consciousness.
without the balls to hunt and torture something more dangerous than an animal.
Um, the only way I can get that sentence to parse makes calling someone else psychopathic kind of hypocritical.
It's a communication channel designed to work out what you want to hear and to show you more of that. Seasoned with outrage, because outrage is addictive.
Facebook isn't the cause, nor will any action on Facebook's part 'cure' this, but they'd make things a little less likely if they didn't feed people's biases for the eye-time. If they don't want to be responsible for monitoring and moderating content, then they needed to have made a much better case for being a common carrier. They've gone the other way and are reaping what they sowed.
The mainstream media show only positive aspects of immigration, but you're privy to special, secret knowledge that really they are disease ridden sexual predators who aren't even from the country they claim.
Hmm. Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?
Are you aware that places like Facebook are designed, specifically, to show you things you are likely to 'like'? That support your existing world views? That act as a kind of force magnifier for things like confirmation bias? That it's an echo chamber by design?
You are demonstrating, wonderfully, the problem with Facebook becoming such a significant deliverer of what most people think is 'news'.
I see. So when someone calls for violence for what they see as the invasion of their home and the dilution of their culture, we should weep that they have been driven to such an extreme when they are members of a largely peaceful religion?
But only for approved religions?
I thought the main argument against Islam was that it gave rise to a minority of extremists who called for violent opposition to their enemies. How is this different?
Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army staged a series of concerted attacks on the Burmese army
Which they claim was in self defence. And so it goes.
Unwilling to tolerate another Moslem jihad
Which was the jihad they tolerated that this would be 'another'? ARSA are pretty fluent in English and are quick to claim responsibility for some attacks - like the co-ordinated attacks on police forces a few years ago. The government has accused ARSA of other crimes, but ARSA denies them. Did some people claiming to be ARSA commit them? Is ARSA playing sill-buggers with infromation? Is the government. Frankly, I don't know and I doubt you're any better informed. But I'd hardly call what is going on a 'jihad' unless you're incapable of skepticism and keen on a specific narrative.
I also realize that jihad has a habit of sprouting where local Moslem majorities (or near so) coexist next to non-Moslems
It's a good thing that the local Moslem community is less than 4% of the population, then, isn't it?
Ma Ba Tha are nationalist and seem motivated by a concern over loss of social identity. Calling for the death of others is abhorrent, regardless of whether you're a Moslem extremist declaring jihad, a Buddhist monk whipping up a lynch mob on Facebook, or a Slashdot poster delivering his benediction on one and dismissing the other.
That's how we, human beings, behave when what we're hearing doesn't fit our vision of the world and that's normal.
No, that's a social construct.
We live in a society that tolerates that behaviour. Other times and other places had/have different standards of what was tolerated.
What's not normal is believing that political correctness should somehow be enforceable on the whole population
It is possible to cause culture and society to change. To cause the public to examine their beliefs and to come to act in a different way. Prohibition in the US was a result of determined campaigning to try to curb the effects of excessive alcohol consumption. It created a raft of negative effects, but did alter alcohol use. The civil rights movement, gay marriage etc. Each has been supported by some sector/s of society and opposed by others.
So the belief that social change is possible is perfectly 'normal'. If you don't like the trend or direction, that's completely different, but trying to invoke some kind of rule of nature or humanity is lazy. Progressives will push for change; conservatives will resist it - by definition
People use reddit because they value it for what it truly is - one of the few last places on the Internet where they can speak openly
And others use it because they can shitpost with a degree of impunity. Some folks just want to watch the world burn. Every organism can only support so many parasites, and some posters add nothing and are toxic and destructive to conversations. The degree to which you can and will tolerate that to allow for more 'robust' conversations is going to be different for every forum and moderator and will have to change as populations shift.
Any policy which has a disparate impact on marginalized communities is racist
Only is a very superficial and lazy sense. 'Racist' implies discrimination based on race. If the discrimination (and I'm using that in the literal and neutral sense of the word) is based on one criterion you would expect that the distribution of other criteria through the groups would be different.
You need to demonstrate or prove that the nominated criterion is being used as a proxy for something like race.
Advertising a position and asking that candidates have a university level of education may mean that members of a particular subset of the community have fewer qualifying candidates than the general population. That doesn't make the specification racist, sexist, ageist or anything else. If you consider that there's a problem with the educational distribution, such as an inequity in opportunity due to historic and systemic discrimination, then by all means advocate for changes in policy and/or programs to increase access and/or support. But calling the ad 'racist' and insisting that the criterion be relaxed or eliminated does nothing to help anyone - not the employer who needs someone with a minimum competence, nor those who don't have the qualifications due to lack of opportunity through to outright oppression.
You're saying you don't want to read their opinions? Not only is that racist, but it's ugly classism as well. They have just as much a right to representation as anyone.
Their ignorance is not equivalent to someone else's knowledge. The 'right to representation' that you reference only exists in terms of elected representatives and is limited to their vote. Their right to free speech guarantees only their right to say something and imposes no obligation on anyone else to listen.
I strongly agree with programs and policies to increase access and provide support for groups that have poorer outcomes for things like education, employment and social mobility, but how can you test that this is succeeding unless you maintain the standards that first alerted you to the fact that some subsets of the community weren't meeting them? Surely we want to provide support to allow all members of society to meet the standards that, at the moment, only some do - not lower the bar so that we can pretend that everyone is equal.
Removing or lowering the standard just masks the problem.
Comey seemed keen to let the world know that Trump is concerned about the 'pee tape'. It could be that Trump is acting like Putin's his friend because he's being blackmailed. Putin certainly has the means, motive and form - likewise Trump. I expect if that is the case, then once it's been milked for all it's worth, it will be revealed, just for the chaos that will ensue.
Bullying only works when you can prevent the victim from leaving. Like the schoolyard. It also tends to fall apart quickly once someone breaks away and/or demonstrates that the bully isn't as unbeatable as people think.
Syria might show that the US is no longer the superpower it once was, and with China starting to look like an alternative as a trading partner to the US, I expect that the ability for the US to compel countries to do as it bids is rapidly drawing to a close.
It might be time for the US to start developing relationships of co-operation - if there's anyone left who will trust them. Ex-bullies don't do so well once they leave school.
This 'I'm a bad guy, but that's necessary to stop even worse people over there' is much the same rhetoric used by every side to justify behaviour that is otherwise unjustifiable.
'Their' behaviour is never an excuse for one's own poor behaviour. There is no justification for being a 'bad guy'. The threat of something 'worse' is the excuse that tyrants use to oppress their people; that 'secret police' use to justify their excesses; for torturers to justify their barbarism.
And yes, I realise that it makes things harder. Police don't get to bust someone they 'know' is guilty without evidence. The FBI don't get backdoors into encryption to stop the 'darkness' that they can see but that Silicon Valley can't (to paraphrase Comey).
The US center is right of most of the rest of the world. Consequently, Slashdot moderation will appear to be left-leaning to US users and right-leaning to non-USians.
From observation, the last couple of years has seen an increase in Anonymous Cowards. Initially it seemed as though there were a fair few regulars commenting anonymously in contentious discussions to avoid negative moderation. As more regulars replied Anonymously, anonymous comments seemed to attract more replies. This seems to have increased the 'worth' of posting AC. These days I see more AC posts being replied to than I can recall (personal observation; no rigour; multiple biases likely). That seems to have meant that there's less 'need' to log in to post and a general increase in posts that seem designed to taunt 'the other side'.
Finding posts either pro or anti Hillary or Trump that need serious downmodding suggests that there's either fewer moderators or that the same increase in partisanship in the posts is being reflected in the moderation. It doesn't seem to be damping.
I agree that there's been a marked increase of anti-conservative posts. There's also been a marked increase in anti-liberal posts. In anti- everything posts. But yes, given that Slashdot probably has a demographic that's more left than the US it's likely that those who are more traditionally right will have seen this sooner.
I don't mean to dismiss or diminish the fact that you've been criticised or ridiculed for your beliefs, it's just that as another article points out, Social Media works to increase engagement, and anger and outrage are an easy trigger for same. We've had a decade or so of people being conditioned to be outraged, to be partisan, to put people into categories of 'us' and 'them' and to treat those with different opinions or beliefs as 'other'.
The basis of hate speech is offense which is a subjective thing.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge that 'hate speech' is more than just being offended. Being thrown out of a bar for shouting things the owner doesn't like is the same as Facebook banning you for posting offensive comments. Both are private parties refusing service for violation of terms of said service. While either may mention 'hate speech' as a reason, it's not the same as the government limiting the right to free speech through statue, legislation and common law.
You claim that 'hate speech' does no harm. Most modern democracies have laws that limit or prohibit things like racial vilification. There have been studies that show that this sort of language and treatement has long term detrimental effects on the minorities subjected to them. I've provided links to support this contention. I'd appreciate you providing some proof to support your assertion that 'hate speech' causes no harm.
Is Count Dankula's pug doing nazi solute "grossly offensive"? I think to most people, no. But to the prosecutor and judge, it is
I am aware that Count Dankula was banned by the private party who provided him with service; I am unaware of any charges being brought by a prosecutor before a judge. In this example you conflate the violation of terms of service and/or withdrawal of service by a private party with the sort of 'hate speech' which is covered by existing legislation. Are you arguing that 'hate speech' laws should not exist because you think that they will grow so that rather than being simply banned for TOS violations, people like Count Dankula will be charged? If so, you'll need to show that this isn't a slippery slope fallacy.
Saying "You are a pedophile.". Clearly damages your reputation
Are you familiar with your own legislation? In several contexts that is acceptable and not libelous. In other contexts, even if it is defamatory malice must be shown to be convicted. These are subjective interpretations of the situation with reference to the law and guided by precedent. That's a very strange definition of objective, but even so, that's that same as for 'hate speech'. The standard is not 'being offended', with respect to governments limiting rights. It may well be for Facebook, but that's not what I'm arguing.
With respect to the Australian Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 it refers to "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people". This is similar to language in various defamation acts (1974, 2005) that refer to 'likely to cause harm'. In both cases, an interpretation is needed - constrained by the legislation and with respect to the precedent of common law.
Common law took trial and error to find certain boundaries of legalities.
So why not allow the same process to refine the law around 'hate speech'? We've shown that government, in the form of the legislature and courts are capable of handling the limitation of the right to free speech in the case of defamation, what make you think that they will do any differently with limiting that same right in the case of 'hate speech'? Why fear tyranny, here, when there's clear evidence that tyranny did not result, there?
It all seems to come down to your conflation of 'hate speech' with people being banned for saying something that violates a private companies TOS. One causes harm, the other doesn't (necessarily). One may attract charges and conviction of breach of law, the other sees a service withdrawn or a request to leave.
Social media does not change human nature
I've never argued otherwise. What I have argued is that social media (and other communication technology) has taken behaviour that was previously treated as though it were private and made it far,
It no longer is a fundamental unalienable right that you are born with.
I think that we are coming down to an argument about whether or not there exists such a thing as a 'natural right' or whether all rights are 'legal rights'. In short, I tend to fall more to the side that does not believe that natural rights exist; that all rights are 'legal' rights and it seems that you believe that there exists a distinction. We may need to simply observe that we disagree as I think that trying to examine this more fully is well outside the scope of this discussion.
You are misunderstanding those limitations that have historical common law precedent for good reasons as compared to subjective thought crime.
I'm not sure I see how. You assert that a subjective limitation on a right makes that right null. I argue that things like slander, libel, sedition etc. are examples of limitations that are subjective. You observe that these are defined by a history of common law. I agree. The courts provide interpretation on areas of silence or ambiguity with respect to statutory law and build a body of common law. However, I don't see how any amount of precedent can make something that is subjective, objective. It may provide a solid framework, it may provide a guide or help define something, but it is still a matter of interpretation. To that extent, the difference I see between 'hate speech' and the other examples is not one of subjective/objective, but that 'hate speech' is much newer, still poorly defined, often has overly broad legislation that attempts to address it (where it exist at all) and has had insufficient time to develop the sort of body of rulings and decisions that go into making common law.
It is an ever changing thing that can be expanded ad hoc whose meaning will be divorced from any layman subjected to the whims of government interpretations.
You mention common law when I raise the issue of what I see as existing subjective limitations on free speech. The courts are a part of the government in most modern democracies. The 'whims' of the government are distributed, constrained and limited. Power is distributed with some portions handled by the legislature, other parts by the courts. The law around something like 'libel' or 'hate speech' is just as subject to these 'whims'.
I put it to you that you argue 'government' as a tyrannical and singular entity that can change the definition of 'hate speech' on a "whim", yet you seem not to recognise that same 'government' in the courts that produce and interpret common law.
Any existing limitation on speech comes down to harm.
I agree wholeheartedly. The only limitations that we should allow on any right is because it causes harm - including the harm of limiting someone else's rights.
Hate speech doesn't have that kind of harm
May I suggest that you have a look at things like Words that wound : critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the First Amendment. I've only read extracts, but it attempts to define things like racist and hate speech in a way that is compatible with recognising the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Importantly (to this discussion) it compares the harm caused by things like defamation and fraud to racist verbal assault.
There have been studies that have shown that things like the gap in math ability in children based on gender has a significant cultural component - 'boys are better at maths'. Being immersed in racist statements have similar negative outcomes for those raised in that environment.
We've seen reports of Facebook being used to whip people into a murderous fury; of twitter being used to influence elections. Why is it so hard to believe that as social animals the more we hear a certain message, the more ubiquitous it becomes, the more frequent then the more li
I don't think either conservatism, nor progressiveness is 'right'. I think that society needs a tension and some kind of balance between them - a drive towards change that challenges what exists and demands that it be better and a tendency to hold on to what is valuable and useful and that realises that 'new' doesn't necessarily mean better.
But in all things, moderation. I favour a dynamic balance, one that allows periods of rapid change, and periods of greater stability. Resisting change for its own sake, or decrying stability simply because it isn't change falls into the trap of labelling and tribalism.
I argued the points as stated. There's so much that's being read into what I wrote that the reply borders on nonsensical.
The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny.
I'd argue that it is the uneven application of law that is the first, but then that's less catchy, isn't it?
In any case, you're asserting that limiting 'hate speech' is the denial of free speech - essentially arguing that any limitation or diminishment of the right is the loss of the right as a whole. You completely ignore that free speech has many existing limitations, even in the US, and that more broadly (almost?) all rights are limited when you wish to live with others who have rights.
And it's ALWAYS coming from the Left
Oh FFS, I'm not from the US. Please leave me out of your peculiar tribalistic membership drama. Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative - they are all labels and, frankly, are a tool the plutocrats use to keep useful idiots engaged. Take your dogma and stuff it. If you want to debate the point, I'm more than happy. If all you have is invective aimed at someone you imaging to be something you've invented, then you're living in a kind of hell I want nothing to do with.
Hmm, one line, swearing and only reading what they want to see. Seems like I've attracted someone's attention.
destroying personal liberty
Exaggeration, then attacking the exaggeration. Strawman.
Most (all?) rights admit some limitation when those that claim them wish to live with others who also have rights. The right to free speech has many limitations that seek to eliminate the harm to others that certain types of speech can cause. Whether you believe 'hate speech' is well defined, or not (I don't); whether you think bans and attempts to eliminate it are possible, useful or well implemented (only with difficulty, of limited utility and being applied in an uneven fashion that has more to do with being seen to do something than utility) has _nothing_ to do with;
a) a private company banning users for breach of terms (no matter that those terms are poorly defined) is not censorship (wrt the 1st amendment) even though it is used by the public
b) is not the destruction of the right to free speech; it is another limitation of a similar kind to other limitations
I look forward to you skimming this and responding with an single line insult. I expect you think it's an edgy way of proving a point about free speech or something.
*sigh* The original post was contextual - it referred to the situation of people described as 'conservative' experiencing a greater than average number of bans and/or moderation with respect to the wider discussion of 'hate speech'.
In that context, and with the specific meaning of 'conservative' that I was clear to show I was using, then it would not be unusual for a conservative (person resisting change) to experience greater attention with respect to moderation for a behaviour that has only recently come to be described.
With respect to the example you describe; Given that historically women's rights are relatively recent, and that there is still considerable argument over whether they experience equal rights, then seeking to reduce those rights is a return to a previous state, a turning back of the clock and is more typically considered conservative. The push to increase rights or to have them applied equally is seen as progressive.
In as much as you state 'current status quo of women's rights' you are ignoring this context and it is from this that you get the apparent disjoint between the typical definition of conservative.
Strictly, with no other context, with the example you have given, then someone resisting the change to reduce women's rights would be conservative and those seeking change would be... something else - nominally progressive, but that too has a lot of secondary meaning.
'conservative' has a strict definition, which I was clear to define in the original post. It's attracted other definitions from use in the US and is attached to those who identify as 'Conservative'. There is a degree of overlap of those definitions that, IMHO, applied to the original situation described and which I originally addressed by highlighting that the element of 'Conservatives' that was likely to see more banning for hate speech was related to their conservatism.
conservative - noun 1. a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values.
Not my definition, and I was clear that this was the meaning I was using in the first line of the original reply I made. That you produced an example that needs another definition to be paradoxical or contradictory is simply spoiling. You've added nothing to the discussion here, and if you're the same AC who's been leaving invective filled one line responses to my posts then you have a pattern of missing half of what I wrote and reading into the rest something you seem to want to find.
I sincerely hope that your life and or mental state improves to the point where swearing at strangers is no longer something that you need or enjoy. This is pitiable.
And I included several examples that aren't so readily defined, objectively - libel/slander. There are others, but the point of providing a couple of examples is to cover a range, not define an exhaustive list. In your haste to insult, you seem to have missed these. Perhaps they were more difficult to answer.
I state, again, that there already exist limitations on speech that cover a range of definitions and types (depending on state, country and history). Hate speech is new. It's poorly defined. The response to try to limit it is overreaching and untimely. None of which mean that the principle of recognising that some speech is harmful and seeking to limit that speech is novel nor signifies the loss of the base right.
Thank you for the time you took to reply. I hope that your life improves to the point where you no longer need to insult strangers that disagree with you.
How does this definition lead to an expectation of conservatives being moderated ? If you are saying more people are more likely in general to disagree with status-quo-ism - I don't see any evidence for that.
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.
In the context I was originally replying to the poster mentioned that their conservative friends were being moderated/banned. This was, in turn, with respect to the wider discussion around 'hate speech'.
'Hate speech' is new. It's a response to the changed impact of previously relatively innocuous behaviour as a result of the rise in communication technology. In as much as both the changes and the response to them are new, then those that are more likely to resist change (conservative by my original definition) will be increasingly subject to bans.
That is, to the extent that moderation of hate speech is new; that it is still poorly defined and bans and moderation are unevenly applied those of a conservative bent are more likely to resist or reject the definition and resent the change. And, consequently, attract a greater amount of attention from those trying to moderate.
I'll confess to taking the original poster's description of their friends as being 'conservative' and using a 'resisting change' definition, although in my defence, I made that clear in my first sentence.
If anyone (general public) can join the website then it should be classified as "public space"
Why 'should' it? The courts have ruled, repeatedly, that private property is private even when open to the public. Protestors have been asked to leave public malls because the mall is privately owned. You want the constitution to apply to the right to speech, but want the rights of private property to be weakened. Interesting position.
Banning "hate speech" is censorship.
Yes. It is. Where do you stand on libel, slander, false advertising, false listing of ingredients in food, perjury, etc.?
Slashdot Mirror
Have a look at a list of countries ordered by standard of living. There's different ways of measuring that, but most shake out about the same.
Now take a look at the common factor among them. Strong social policies. No, not communist, nor entirely socialist, but a mix of socialist (*gasp*) policies and regulated capitalism. It's almost like using limited socialism in some areas and limited capitalism in others works better than either alone.
Maybe the answer to the problems in the US is more capitalism, less regulation and an 'I've got mine' attitude. But probably not.
Now, you're probably either a troll or a pot stirrer, so this isn't really aimed at you. I'm hoping that chipping away at the reflexive socialist=bad that crops up might make room for some reasoned discussion on actual change and not just another round of more-of-the-same.
it involves taking a thing with some degree of sentience, keeping it in a sensory-deprived state and conscious
Were that the case, I'd agree wholeheartedly, but TFA states
There was no evidence that the disembodied pig brains regained consciousness.
Later, TFA states
Sestan now says the organs produce a flat brain wave equivalent to a comatose state
although that statement is made in the context that they were looking to see if an ex-vivo brain could regain consciousness. Initially they thought they had found evidence of this, then put it down to artifacts in the equipment.
So, I'm not sure I'd give them a pass just because they failed to take a brain from an animal that has died and restore it to a kind of disembodied consciousness.
without the balls to hunt and torture something more dangerous than an animal.
Um, the only way I can get that sentence to parse makes calling someone else psychopathic kind of hypocritical.
It's a communication channel designed to work out what you want to hear and to show you more of that. Seasoned with outrage, because outrage is addictive.
Facebook isn't the cause, nor will any action on Facebook's part 'cure' this, but they'd make things a little less likely if they didn't feed people's biases for the eye-time. If they don't want to be responsible for monitoring and moderating content, then they needed to have made a much better case for being a common carrier. They've gone the other way and are reaping what they sowed.
If I understand you correctly;
The mainstream media show only positive aspects of immigration, but you're privy to special, secret knowledge that really they are disease ridden sexual predators who aren't even from the country they claim.
Hmm. Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?
Are you aware that places like Facebook are designed, specifically, to show you things you are likely to 'like'? That support your existing world views? That act as a kind of force magnifier for things like confirmation bias? That it's an echo chamber by design?
You are demonstrating, wonderfully, the problem with Facebook becoming such a significant deliverer of what most people think is 'news'.
- a Buddhist! -
I see. So when someone calls for violence for what they see as the invasion of their home and the dilution of their culture, we should weep that they have been driven to such an extreme when they are members of a largely peaceful religion?
But only for approved religions?
I thought the main argument against Islam was that it gave rise to a minority of extremists who called for violent opposition to their enemies. How is this different?
Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army staged a series of concerted attacks on the Burmese army
Which they claim was in self defence. And so it goes.
Unwilling to tolerate another Moslem jihad
Which was the jihad they tolerated that this would be 'another'? ARSA are pretty fluent in English and are quick to claim responsibility for some attacks - like the co-ordinated attacks on police forces a few years ago. The government has accused ARSA of other crimes, but ARSA denies them. Did some people claiming to be ARSA commit them? Is ARSA playing sill-buggers with infromation? Is the government. Frankly, I don't know and I doubt you're any better informed. But I'd hardly call what is going on a 'jihad' unless you're incapable of skepticism and keen on a specific narrative.
I also realize that jihad has a habit of sprouting where local Moslem majorities (or near so) coexist next to non-Moslems
It's a good thing that the local Moslem community is less than 4% of the population, then, isn't it?
Ma Ba Tha are nationalist and seem motivated by a concern over loss of social identity. Calling for the death of others is abhorrent, regardless of whether you're a Moslem extremist declaring jihad, a Buddhist monk whipping up a lynch mob on Facebook, or a Slashdot poster delivering his benediction on one and dismissing the other.
L
... and I suppose the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is both democratic and a republic?
Troll away.
That's how we, human beings, behave when what we're hearing doesn't fit our vision of the world and that's normal.
No, that's a social construct.
We live in a society that tolerates that behaviour. Other times and other places had/have different standards of what was tolerated.
What's not normal is believing that political correctness should somehow be enforceable on the whole population
It is possible to cause culture and society to change. To cause the public to examine their beliefs and to come to act in a different way. Prohibition in the US was a result of determined campaigning to try to curb the effects of excessive alcohol consumption. It created a raft of negative effects, but did alter alcohol use. The civil rights movement, gay marriage etc. Each has been supported by some sector/s of society and opposed by others.
So the belief that social change is possible is perfectly 'normal'. If you don't like the trend or direction, that's completely different, but trying to invoke some kind of rule of nature or humanity is lazy. Progressives will push for change; conservatives will resist it - by definition
People use reddit because they value it for what it truly is - one of the few last places on the Internet where they can speak openly
And others use it because they can shitpost with a degree of impunity. Some folks just want to watch the world burn. Every organism can only support so many parasites, and some posters add nothing and are toxic and destructive to conversations. The degree to which you can and will tolerate that to allow for more 'robust' conversations is going to be different for every forum and moderator and will have to change as populations shift.
Any policy which has a disparate impact on marginalized communities is racist
Only is a very superficial and lazy sense. 'Racist' implies discrimination based on race. If the discrimination (and I'm using that in the literal and neutral sense of the word) is based on one criterion you would expect that the distribution of other criteria through the groups would be different.
You need to demonstrate or prove that the nominated criterion is being used as a proxy for something like race.
Advertising a position and asking that candidates have a university level of education may mean that members of a particular subset of the community have fewer qualifying candidates than the general population. That doesn't make the specification racist, sexist, ageist or anything else. If you consider that there's a problem with the educational distribution, such as an inequity in opportunity due to historic and systemic discrimination, then by all means advocate for changes in policy and/or programs to increase access and/or support. But calling the ad 'racist' and insisting that the criterion be relaxed or eliminated does nothing to help anyone - not the employer who needs someone with a minimum competence, nor those who don't have the qualifications due to lack of opportunity through to outright oppression.
You're saying you don't want to read their opinions? Not only is that racist, but it's ugly classism as well. They have just as much a right to representation as anyone.
Their ignorance is not equivalent to someone else's knowledge. The 'right to representation' that you reference only exists in terms of elected representatives and is limited to their vote. Their right to free speech guarantees only their right to say something and imposes no obligation on anyone else to listen.
I strongly agree with programs and policies to increase access and provide support for groups that have poorer outcomes for things like education, employment and social mobility, but how can you test that this is succeeding unless you maintain the standards that first alerted you to the fact that some subsets of the community weren't meeting them? Surely we want to provide support to allow all members of society to meet the standards that, at the moment, only some do - not lower the bar so that we can pretend that everyone is equal.
Removing or lowering the standard just masks the problem.
Mu
Comey seemed keen to let the world know that Trump is concerned about the 'pee tape'. It could be that Trump is acting like Putin's his friend because he's being blackmailed. Putin certainly has the means, motive and form - likewise Trump. I expect if that is the case, then once it's been milked for all it's worth, it will be revealed, just for the chaos that will ensue.
Strange times
Bullying only works when you can prevent the victim from leaving. Like the schoolyard. It also tends to fall apart quickly once someone breaks away and/or demonstrates that the bully isn't as unbeatable as people think.
Syria might show that the US is no longer the superpower it once was, and with China starting to look like an alternative as a trading partner to the US, I expect that the ability for the US to compel countries to do as it bids is rapidly drawing to a close.
It might be time for the US to start developing relationships of co-operation - if there's anyone left who will trust them. Ex-bullies don't do so well once they leave school.
This 'I'm a bad guy, but that's necessary to stop even worse people over there' is much the same rhetoric used by every side to justify behaviour that is otherwise unjustifiable.
'Their' behaviour is never an excuse for one's own poor behaviour. There is no justification for being a 'bad guy'. The threat of something 'worse' is the excuse that tyrants use to oppress their people; that 'secret police' use to justify their excesses; for torturers to justify their barbarism.
And yes, I realise that it makes things harder. Police don't get to bust someone they 'know' is guilty without evidence. The FBI don't get backdoors into encryption to stop the 'darkness' that they can see but that Silicon Valley can't (to paraphrase Comey).
Slashdot attracts an international audience.
The US center is right of most of the rest of the world. Consequently, Slashdot moderation will appear to be left-leaning to US users and right-leaning to non-USians.
From observation, the last couple of years has seen an increase in Anonymous Cowards. Initially it seemed as though there were a fair few regulars commenting anonymously in contentious discussions to avoid negative moderation. As more regulars replied Anonymously, anonymous comments seemed to attract more replies. This seems to have increased the 'worth' of posting AC. These days I see more AC posts being replied to than I can recall (personal observation; no rigour; multiple biases likely). That seems to have meant that there's less 'need' to log in to post and a general increase in posts that seem designed to taunt 'the other side'.
Finding posts either pro or anti Hillary or Trump that need serious downmodding suggests that there's either fewer moderators or that the same increase in partisanship in the posts is being reflected in the moderation. It doesn't seem to be damping.
I agree that there's been a marked increase of anti-conservative posts. There's also been a marked increase in anti-liberal posts. In anti- everything posts. But yes, given that Slashdot probably has a demographic that's more left than the US it's likely that those who are more traditionally right will have seen this sooner.
I don't mean to dismiss or diminish the fact that you've been criticised or ridiculed for your beliefs, it's just that as another article points out, Social Media works to increase engagement, and anger and outrage are an easy trigger for same. We've had a decade or so of people being conditioned to be outraged, to be partisan, to put people into categories of 'us' and 'them' and to treat those with different opinions or beliefs as 'other'.
The basis of hate speech is offense which is a subjective thing.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge that 'hate speech' is more than just being offended. Being thrown out of a bar for shouting things the owner doesn't like is the same as Facebook banning you for posting offensive comments. Both are private parties refusing service for violation of terms of said service. While either may mention 'hate speech' as a reason, it's not the same as the government limiting the right to free speech through statue, legislation and common law.
You claim that 'hate speech' does no harm. Most modern democracies have laws that limit or prohibit things like racial vilification. There have been studies that show that this sort of language and treatement has long term detrimental effects on the minorities subjected to them. I've provided links to support this contention. I'd appreciate you providing some proof to support your assertion that 'hate speech' causes no harm.
Is Count Dankula's pug doing nazi solute "grossly offensive"? I think to most people, no. But to the prosecutor and judge, it is
I am aware that Count Dankula was banned by the private party who provided him with service; I am unaware of any charges being brought by a prosecutor before a judge. In this example you conflate the violation of terms of service and/or withdrawal of service by a private party with the sort of 'hate speech' which is covered by existing legislation. Are you arguing that 'hate speech' laws should not exist because you think that they will grow so that rather than being simply banned for TOS violations, people like Count Dankula will be charged? If so, you'll need to show that this isn't a slippery slope fallacy.
Saying "You are a pedophile.". Clearly damages your reputation
Are you familiar with your own legislation? In several contexts that is acceptable and not libelous. In other contexts, even if it is defamatory malice must be shown to be convicted. These are subjective interpretations of the situation with reference to the law and guided by precedent. That's a very strange definition of objective, but even so, that's that same as for 'hate speech'. The standard is not 'being offended', with respect to governments limiting rights. It may well be for Facebook, but that's not what I'm arguing.
With respect to the Australian Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 it refers to "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people". This is similar to language in various defamation acts (1974, 2005) that refer to 'likely to cause harm'. In both cases, an interpretation is needed - constrained by the legislation and with respect to the precedent of common law.
Common law took trial and error to find certain boundaries of legalities.
So why not allow the same process to refine the law around 'hate speech'? We've shown that government, in the form of the legislature and courts are capable of handling the limitation of the right to free speech in the case of defamation, what make you think that they will do any differently with limiting that same right in the case of 'hate speech'? Why fear tyranny, here, when there's clear evidence that tyranny did not result, there?
It all seems to come down to your conflation of 'hate speech' with people being banned for saying something that violates a private companies TOS. One causes harm, the other doesn't (necessarily). One may attract charges and conviction of breach of law, the other sees a service withdrawn or a request to leave.
Social media does not change human nature
I've never argued otherwise. What I have argued is that social media (and other communication technology) has taken behaviour that was previously treated as though it were private and made it far,
It no longer is a fundamental unalienable right that you are born with.
I think that we are coming down to an argument about whether or not there exists such a thing as a 'natural right' or whether all rights are 'legal rights'.
In short, I tend to fall more to the side that does not believe that natural rights exist; that all rights are 'legal' rights and it seems that you believe that there exists a distinction. We may need to simply observe that we disagree as I think that trying to examine this more fully is well outside the scope of this discussion.
You are misunderstanding those limitations that have historical common law precedent for good reasons as compared to subjective thought crime.
I'm not sure I see how. You assert that a subjective limitation on a right makes that right null.
I argue that things like slander, libel, sedition etc. are examples of limitations that are subjective.
You observe that these are defined by a history of common law. I agree. The courts provide interpretation on areas of silence or ambiguity with respect to statutory law and build a body of common law. However, I don't see how any amount of precedent can make something that is subjective, objective. It may provide a solid framework, it may provide a guide or help define something, but it is still a matter of interpretation. To that extent, the difference I see between 'hate speech' and the other examples is not one of subjective/objective, but that 'hate speech' is much newer, still poorly defined, often has overly broad legislation that attempts to address it (where it exist at all) and has had insufficient time to develop the sort of body of rulings and decisions that go into making common law.
It is an ever changing thing that can be expanded ad hoc whose meaning will be divorced from any layman subjected to the whims of government interpretations.
You mention common law when I raise the issue of what I see as existing subjective limitations on free speech. The courts are a part of the government in most modern democracies. The 'whims' of the government are distributed, constrained and limited. Power is distributed with some portions handled by the legislature, other parts by the courts. The law around something like 'libel' or 'hate speech' is just as subject to these 'whims'.
I put it to you that you argue 'government' as a tyrannical and singular entity that can change the definition of 'hate speech' on a "whim", yet you seem not to recognise that same 'government' in the courts that produce and interpret common law.
Any existing limitation on speech comes down to harm.
I agree wholeheartedly. The only limitations that we should allow on any right is because it causes harm - including the harm of limiting someone else's rights.
Hate speech doesn't have that kind of harm
May I suggest that you have a look at things like Words that wound : critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the First Amendment. I've only read extracts, but it attempts to define things like racist and hate speech in a way that is compatible with recognising the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Importantly (to this discussion) it compares the harm caused by things like defamation and fraud to racist verbal assault.
There have been studies that have shown that things like the gap in math ability in children based on gender has a significant cultural component - 'boys are better at maths'. Being immersed in racist statements have similar negative outcomes for those raised in that environment.
We've seen reports of Facebook being used to whip people into a murderous fury; of twitter being used to influence elections. Why is it so hard to believe that as social animals the more we hear a certain message, the more ubiquitous it becomes, the more frequent then the more li
I agree.
I don't think either conservatism, nor progressiveness is 'right'. I think that society needs a tension and some kind of balance between them - a drive towards change that challenges what exists and demands that it be better and a tendency to hold on to what is valuable and useful and that realises that 'new' doesn't necessarily mean better.
But in all things, moderation. I favour a dynamic balance, one that allows periods of rapid change, and periods of greater stability. Resisting change for its own sake, or decrying stability simply because it isn't change falls into the trap of labelling and tribalism.
Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful reply.
I argued the points as stated. There's so much that's being read into what I wrote that the reply borders on nonsensical.
The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny.
I'd argue that it is the uneven application of law that is the first, but then that's less catchy, isn't it?
In any case, you're asserting that limiting 'hate speech' is the denial of free speech - essentially arguing that any limitation or diminishment of the right is the loss of the right as a whole. You completely ignore that free speech has many existing limitations, even in the US, and that more broadly (almost?) all rights are limited when you wish to live with others who have rights.
And it's ALWAYS coming from the Left
Oh FFS, I'm not from the US. Please leave me out of your peculiar tribalistic membership drama. Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative - they are all labels and, frankly, are a tool the plutocrats use to keep useful idiots engaged. Take your dogma and stuff it. If you want to debate the point, I'm more than happy. If all you have is invective aimed at someone you imaging to be something you've invented, then you're living in a kind of hell I want nothing to do with.
Hmm, one line, swearing and only reading what they want to see. Seems like I've attracted someone's attention.
destroying personal liberty
Exaggeration, then attacking the exaggeration. Strawman.
Most (all?) rights admit some limitation when those that claim them wish to live with others who also have rights.
The right to free speech has many limitations that seek to eliminate the harm to others that certain types of speech can cause.
Whether you believe 'hate speech' is well defined, or not (I don't); whether you think bans and attempts to eliminate it are possible, useful or well implemented (only with difficulty, of limited utility and being applied in an uneven fashion that has more to do with being seen to do something than utility) has _nothing_ to do with;
a) a private company banning users for breach of terms (no matter that those terms are poorly defined) is not censorship (wrt the 1st amendment) even though it is used by the public
b) is not the destruction of the right to free speech; it is another limitation of a similar kind to other limitations
I look forward to you skimming this and responding with an single line insult.
I expect you think it's an edgy way of proving a point about free speech or something.
Nicely expressed. Thank you
*sigh*
The original post was contextual - it referred to the situation of people described as 'conservative' experiencing a greater than average number of bans and/or moderation with respect to the wider discussion of 'hate speech'.
In that context, and with the specific meaning of 'conservative' that I was clear to show I was using, then it would not be unusual for a conservative (person resisting change) to experience greater attention with respect to moderation for a behaviour that has only recently come to be described.
With respect to the example you describe;
Given that historically women's rights are relatively recent, and that there is still considerable argument over whether they experience equal rights, then seeking to reduce those rights is a return to a previous state, a turning back of the clock and is more typically considered conservative. The push to increase rights or to have them applied equally is seen as progressive.
In as much as you state 'current status quo of women's rights' you are ignoring this context and it is from this that you get the apparent disjoint between the typical definition of conservative.
Strictly, with no other context, with the example you have given, then someone resisting the change to reduce women's rights would be conservative and those seeking change would be ... something else - nominally progressive, but that too has a lot of secondary meaning.
'conservative' has a strict definition, which I was clear to define in the original post. It's attracted other definitions from use in the US and is attached to those who identify as 'Conservative'. There is a degree of overlap of those definitions that, IMHO, applied to the original situation described and which I originally addressed by highlighting that the element of 'Conservatives' that was likely to see more banning for hate speech was related to their conservatism.
Am I clear? Any further pedantry I can help with?
conservative - noun 1. a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values.
Not my definition, and I was clear that this was the meaning I was using in the first line of the original reply I made.
That you produced an example that needs another definition to be paradoxical or contradictory is simply spoiling.
You've added nothing to the discussion here, and if you're the same AC who's been leaving invective filled one line responses to my posts then you have a pattern of missing half of what I wrote and reading into the rest something you seem to want to find.
I sincerely hope that your life and or mental state improves to the point where swearing at strangers is no longer something that you need or enjoy. This is pitiable.
And I included several examples that aren't so readily defined, objectively - libel/slander. There are others, but the point of providing a couple of examples is to cover a range, not define an exhaustive list. In your haste to insult, you seem to have missed these. Perhaps they were more difficult to answer.
I state, again, that there already exist limitations on speech that cover a range of definitions and types (depending on state, country and history). Hate speech is new. It's poorly defined. The response to try to limit it is overreaching and untimely. None of which mean that the principle of recognising that some speech is harmful and seeking to limit that speech is novel nor signifies the loss of the base right.
Thank you for the time you took to reply. I hope that your life improves to the point where you no longer need to insult strangers that disagree with you.
How does this definition lead to an expectation of conservatives being moderated ? If you are saying more people are more likely in general to disagree with status-quo-ism - I don't see any evidence for that.
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.
In the context I was originally replying to the poster mentioned that their conservative friends were being moderated/banned. This was, in turn, with respect to the wider discussion around 'hate speech'.
'Hate speech' is new. It's a response to the changed impact of previously relatively innocuous behaviour as a result of the rise in communication technology.
In as much as both the changes and the response to them are new, then those that are more likely to resist change (conservative by my original definition) will be increasingly subject to bans.
That is, to the extent that moderation of hate speech is new; that it is still poorly defined and bans and moderation are unevenly applied those of a conservative bent are more likely to resist or reject the definition and resent the change. And, consequently, attract a greater amount of attention from those trying to moderate.
I'll confess to taking the original poster's description of their friends as being 'conservative' and using a 'resisting change' definition, although in my defence, I made that clear in my first sentence.
If anyone (general public) can join the website then it should be classified as "public space"
Why 'should' it? The courts have ruled, repeatedly, that private property is private even when open to the public. Protestors have been asked to leave public malls because the mall is privately owned. You want the constitution to apply to the right to speech, but want the rights of private property to be weakened. Interesting position.
Banning "hate speech" is censorship.
Yes. It is. Where do you stand on libel, slander, false advertising, false listing of ingredients in food, perjury, etc.?
And why the fuck not?
No room to ramp emotional tone. Peaked too early. Dull. -1 to Fun.
Technology is our servitor, not the other way around
Poor attempt at diversion. -1 to Troll.
You trans-Humanist piece of worthless filth.
Too great an exaggeration of conservative behaviour, fail Poe's Law. -2 to Troll.
Dull. Try again.