You mean stereotypes like white supremacist nationalists who constitute a significant political movement on the Right... Hmm... That does sound like the Dems to me. But I get it, you need to make your own views more tolerable by asserting some other group is just as nasty.,
And here comes the anti-BLM rhetoric again. Apparently standing up against police brutality against African Americans now constitutes a hate crime to the Alt-right.
And yet there's the alt-right, an essentially white supremacist movement that bases its entire oeuvre on the notion that the poor white man is beset on all sides by Muslims, Mexicans, and men with Jewish-sounding names...
And once again, the MightyMartian rule of pseudo-skepticism, "If I can raise an objection to a scientific theory, no matter how idiotic and fallacious the objection, I can claim the theory is disproven."
First of all, what does a decaying orbit have to do with anything, and why would you imagine there's just one satellite up there monitoring terrestrial temperatures?
It got translated that way because the Alt-right is dominated by white supremacists who want to normalize their bigotry by insisting that other groups are also bigoted.
If such a group was actually promoting hatred, to be sure.
But since BLM doesn't actually promote hatred against whites, but rather demands justice for AFrican Americans, your attempt to foist the alt-right claim that being a black who protests against abuse makes you a racist fails with me.
But really, once again, Twitter is a private company. If it wants to allow your theoretical white-hater group to keep posting, but not allow the white supremacists in the alt-right post, that's their business, and your response can be not to use twitter.
There's disagreeing with someone, and there's what's been going on of late, dissemination of racism and bigotry, the use of services like Twitter to harass other people.
And once again, BLM isn't racist. Protesting against violence against AFrican Americans is not an act of hate. But I get it, you don't want to hear from none of them colored folk.
Since the United States government is not silencing anyone, the GP's statement was itself a strawman. I'm merely pointing out that one of the most developed and democratic nations on the planet has laws on the books (laws largely imposed by the occupied Allied Powers, I might add) banning some of the kind of speech that Twitter has been tolerating.
Censorship is used by lots of autocratic governments, but it is in fact also present to some degree in most liberal democracies. The First Amendment makes the US somewhat unique in that it creates an incredibly high bar for the government to impose any kind of restriction on speech. Most other democracies have somewhat weaker free speech protections, and yet they remain liberal democracies. Canada, the UK, Germany, Austria, these are all countries that have free speech protections that don't measure up to the First Amendment, and yet they aren't dictatorships, so while censorship may be a tool of autocratic regimes, it's not clear at all that limitations on hate speech somehow rise to the level of autocracy.
And again, Twitter is not an organ of the government, so it isn't bound by the same limitations.
This is about Twitter trying to right the ship so it can sell itself to the highest bidder. Part of the reason its sale failed was because it couldn't bring the goons using it to spread hate under control.
But live chat doesn't deliver what the Alt-right want. They don't merely want to end up in corners of the Internet having racist circle jerks. Services like Twitter and Facebook offer them the ability to *disseminate* their hatred, and Twitter in particular has up until now basically turned the other way as the Alt-right have used their servers to openly and proudly harass other people.
I'd be quite happy to let this new generation of white supremacists go back to IRC and private chat. Go to Stormfront forums, go back to the echo chamber.
The modern far right, while still clearly hating African Americans (just look at how they try to make BLM out to be a hate group), have put more attention of late on to Latinos and Muslims, primarily of Middle or Central Asian origin. But underneath it all is still the old paranoia about the white race being defeated by inferior races. That these people now apparently have a representative at the highest levels of power is a sad day for America. I hope Trump is a better man than that, but I honestly fear that a lot of people have committed von Papen's critical error of assuming the leading nationalist demagogue was simply a loud mouthed half-wit who could be easily controlled.
And yet they look a lot like White Supremacists. They appear to hate blacks, appear to hate Jews, they view anyone who is even the vaguest bit progressive as some sort of vermin. Eighty years ago in places like Germany and Spain, these Alt-right types would have looked suspiciously like far right fascists. In fact, I'd say the Brown Shirts were largely made up of 1930s Germany's version of the Alt-right; extreme nationalists with racist views and a firm belief that they're being kept down by scheming and inferior ethnic minorities.
Milo was thrown off twitter for encouraging a campaign of harassment against Leslie Jones, not to mention retweeting fake tweets allegedly from her as a means of justifying his hate campaign.
And if a group isn't in fact advocating harassment, violence or hate, why would they run afoul of Twitter's new policies? What's more, as people like you need to be reminded, Twitter is a private company that is fully within its rights to impose any rules it likes. If they won't let racist hate groups use their service, that's their business.
How is it that BLM keeps being called a hate group? I'm sure there are a few members who probably are probably vile sorts, but BLM is about peaceful civil disobedience to draw attention to the fact that unarmed African Americans are far more likely to be gunned down by police than any other group in the United States? The only reason I can think of for someone to label them a hate group is because they don't them colored folk gettin' all uppety.
The Civil Rights Acts were upheld by the Supreme Court. As an individual you enjoy almost absolute freedom of association. As a business, the government has some significant power to oversee and moderate your behavior.
Germany has remained a pretty democratic nation since the end of the Second World War, even after the reuniting with East Germany, and it in fact makes it illegal for many kinds of Nazi and white supremacist speech to be disseminated. So the idea that censorship is the primary creator of Nazi-like regimes is absurd. I'm not defending censorship here, and I don't really even agree with Germany's stance (it made a lot more sense seventy years ago), but you're literally ignoring the most notorious aspects of Nazism and its fellow travelers in space and time. Nazism at its core was a nationalist and racist ideology that proclaimed the Aryan race to be superior and the rightful master of the other races, even to the point of taking upon itself the role of expunging ethnic groups it deemed unworthy or dangerous.
But as we all know, censorship, particularly in the US, is only a *legal* problem when it is the state trying to silence people. Twitter is a private organization, and is within its rights to determine who can and cannot use its service. It has decided that white supremacists and similar far right groups will not be able to use Twitter as a platform to disseminate their views. For the more extreme groups within the Alt-right, this is a problem, because if they're basically stuck on Breitbarts and even more far right sites, well, then they lose the efficiency that a platform like Twitter can offer them. But that really is there problem.
If I was running any kind of site or hosting service, and I had customers or users using my service to promote hatred of ethnic and racial minorities or promote white supremacist ideas, I don't care if I lost their business, I'd cancel their accounts and refund any money I might owe them. I have no desire to silence them, but I don't see why I'm obligated to provide them a platform.
That tolerance doesn't extend to private companies. You are free to disagree with a private organization, you are free to even refuse to deal with it, but they have a right to set the rules of remove anyone they don't feel they want.
You sure seem to have a problem with black people getting together to try to stop the police from shooting them down. Them thar n*ggers should learn their place! Is that it?
Slashdot Mirror
No, this is called you misusing a logical fallacy, not to mention invoking one of your own by using it to construct a strawman.
CO2 emissions are a lot more than coal burning, but even if this is true, how is this an excuse for doing nothing?
You mean stereotypes like white supremacist nationalists who constitute a significant political movement on the Right... Hmm... That does sound like the Dems to me. But I get it, you need to make your own views more tolerable by asserting some other group is just as nasty.,
And here comes the anti-BLM rhetoric again. Apparently standing up against police brutality against African Americans now constitutes a hate crime to the Alt-right.
And yet there's the alt-right, an essentially white supremacist movement that bases its entire oeuvre on the notion that the poor white man is beset on all sides by Muslims, Mexicans, and men with Jewish-sounding names...
And once again, the MightyMartian rule of pseudo-skepticism, "If I can raise an objection to a scientific theory, no matter how idiotic and fallacious the objection, I can claim the theory is disproven."
First of all, what does a decaying orbit have to do with anything, and why would you imagine there's just one satellite up there monitoring terrestrial temperatures?
It got translated that way because the Alt-right is dominated by white supremacists who want to normalize their bigotry by insisting that other groups are also bigoted.
Except China doesn't think AGW is a hoax, so this appears to be yet another climate denier simply inventing claims.
That skips over quite a bit of history where the people of the Italian peninsula went through a considerably nasty period as the Western Empire fell.
If such a group was actually promoting hatred, to be sure.
But since BLM doesn't actually promote hatred against whites, but rather demands justice for AFrican Americans, your attempt to foist the alt-right claim that being a black who protests against abuse makes you a racist fails with me.
But really, once again, Twitter is a private company. If it wants to allow your theoretical white-hater group to keep posting, but not allow the white supremacists in the alt-right post, that's their business, and your response can be not to use twitter.
There's disagreeing with someone, and there's what's been going on of late, dissemination of racism and bigotry, the use of services like Twitter to harass other people.
And once again, BLM isn't racist. Protesting against violence against AFrican Americans is not an act of hate. But I get it, you don't want to hear from none of them colored folk.
Since the United States government is not silencing anyone, the GP's statement was itself a strawman. I'm merely pointing out that one of the most developed and democratic nations on the planet has laws on the books (laws largely imposed by the occupied Allied Powers, I might add) banning some of the kind of speech that Twitter has been tolerating.
Censorship is used by lots of autocratic governments, but it is in fact also present to some degree in most liberal democracies. The First Amendment makes the US somewhat unique in that it creates an incredibly high bar for the government to impose any kind of restriction on speech. Most other democracies have somewhat weaker free speech protections, and yet they remain liberal democracies. Canada, the UK, Germany, Austria, these are all countries that have free speech protections that don't measure up to the First Amendment, and yet they aren't dictatorships, so while censorship may be a tool of autocratic regimes, it's not clear at all that limitations on hate speech somehow rise to the level of autocracy.
And again, Twitter is not an organ of the government, so it isn't bound by the same limitations.
This is about Twitter trying to right the ship so it can sell itself to the highest bidder. Part of the reason its sale failed was because it couldn't bring the goons using it to spread hate under control.
But live chat doesn't deliver what the Alt-right want. They don't merely want to end up in corners of the Internet having racist circle jerks. Services like Twitter and Facebook offer them the ability to *disseminate* their hatred, and Twitter in particular has up until now basically turned the other way as the Alt-right have used their servers to openly and proudly harass other people.
I'd be quite happy to let this new generation of white supremacists go back to IRC and private chat. Go to Stormfront forums, go back to the echo chamber.
The modern far right, while still clearly hating African Americans (just look at how they try to make BLM out to be a hate group), have put more attention of late on to Latinos and Muslims, primarily of Middle or Central Asian origin. But underneath it all is still the old paranoia about the white race being defeated by inferior races. That these people now apparently have a representative at the highest levels of power is a sad day for America. I hope Trump is a better man than that, but I honestly fear that a lot of people have committed von Papen's critical error of assuming the leading nationalist demagogue was simply a loud mouthed half-wit who could be easily controlled.
And yet they look a lot like White Supremacists. They appear to hate blacks, appear to hate Jews, they view anyone who is even the vaguest bit progressive as some sort of vermin. Eighty years ago in places like Germany and Spain, these Alt-right types would have looked suspiciously like far right fascists. In fact, I'd say the Brown Shirts were largely made up of 1930s Germany's version of the Alt-right; extreme nationalists with racist views and a firm belief that they're being kept down by scheming and inferior ethnic minorities.
Milo was thrown off twitter for encouraging a campaign of harassment against Leslie Jones, not to mention retweeting fake tweets allegedly from her as a means of justifying his hate campaign.
And if a group isn't in fact advocating harassment, violence or hate, why would they run afoul of Twitter's new policies? What's more, as people like you need to be reminded, Twitter is a private company that is fully within its rights to impose any rules it likes. If they won't let racist hate groups use their service, that's their business.
How is it that BLM keeps being called a hate group? I'm sure there are a few members who probably are probably vile sorts, but BLM is about peaceful civil disobedience to draw attention to the fact that unarmed African Americans are far more likely to be gunned down by police than any other group in the United States? The only reason I can think of for someone to label them a hate group is because they don't them colored folk gettin' all uppety.
The Civil Rights Acts were upheld by the Supreme Court. As an individual you enjoy almost absolute freedom of association. As a business, the government has some significant power to oversee and moderate your behavior.
Then sell your shares.
Germany has remained a pretty democratic nation since the end of the Second World War, even after the reuniting with East Germany, and it in fact makes it illegal for many kinds of Nazi and white supremacist speech to be disseminated. So the idea that censorship is the primary creator of Nazi-like regimes is absurd. I'm not defending censorship here, and I don't really even agree with Germany's stance (it made a lot more sense seventy years ago), but you're literally ignoring the most notorious aspects of Nazism and its fellow travelers in space and time. Nazism at its core was a nationalist and racist ideology that proclaimed the Aryan race to be superior and the rightful master of the other races, even to the point of taking upon itself the role of expunging ethnic groups it deemed unworthy or dangerous.
But as we all know, censorship, particularly in the US, is only a *legal* problem when it is the state trying to silence people. Twitter is a private organization, and is within its rights to determine who can and cannot use its service. It has decided that white supremacists and similar far right groups will not be able to use Twitter as a platform to disseminate their views. For the more extreme groups within the Alt-right, this is a problem, because if they're basically stuck on Breitbarts and even more far right sites, well, then they lose the efficiency that a platform like Twitter can offer them. But that really is there problem.
If I was running any kind of site or hosting service, and I had customers or users using my service to promote hatred of ethnic and racial minorities or promote white supremacist ideas, I don't care if I lost their business, I'd cancel their accounts and refund any money I might owe them. I have no desire to silence them, but I don't see why I'm obligated to provide them a platform.
That tolerance doesn't extend to private companies. You are free to disagree with a private organization, you are free to even refuse to deal with it, but they have a right to set the rules of remove anyone they don't feel they want.
You sure seem to have a problem with black people getting together to try to stop the police from shooting them down. Them thar n*ggers should learn their place! Is that it?
Thank goodness you still have Stormfront, eh?