Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago, but thought that it was more important to be edgelords and have lulz than it was to be responsible. So now, you reap the whirlwind and spoil it for everyone. You think it's fun to talk about kids who are slaughtered being "crisis actors" and the height of irony to wear nazi uniforms and then you're shocked...shocked, I tell you...when society comes and slaps you the fuck down and tells you to sit down and shut up. Then, you feign surprise when the real sickos shout out your vidya heroes when they shoot up a church or murder a bunch of school kids like you didn't know it was coming.
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless.
Oh, society can "take" the edgelords in stride, alright. It strides right over them. Historically, it's been done on a regular basis. It was done in the 1940s, and again to the KKK in the 1960s. And now it's your turn in the barrel.
Society interprets hateful edgelords as damage and routes around them.
All your whining about 4chan and talk of barrels like a parody of the very edgelords you criticize, yet general society seems to be even less inclined to support your side of the fence today and ratings for your SJW media are lower and lower with each week, both in trust and viewership. Equating 4chan to KKK and Nazi Germany is the kind of rhetoric that resulted in this, and also in labor unions giving a middle finger to the far left now, of all things. Maybe it's not the edgelords who are going into a barr
Society interprets hateful edgelords as damage and routes around them.
...hence the need for speech codes in places like university campuses**, right?
** It should be noted that a university is precisely the place where ideas noble and stupid, concepts altruistic and hateful... all of this should be debated openly, in an environment that encourages clear logic, reason, and rhetoric. Alas, there seems to be a lack of that on most campuses these days. Probably because people go around calling every idea that makes them uncomfortable "hateful" and suchlike, without even trying to do anything beyond generalization and stereotype.
...hence the need for speech codes in places like university campuses**, right?
Gosh, you're so close to understanding my point. We get speech codes on campus because edgelords thought irresponsible speech was the height of cleverness and society will eventually say, "enough".
Speech codes are bad. But they are what society is going to do when people don't know how to fucking behave responsibly. If you want to be an edgelord, you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. But just be aware that every
Just because Muslims are responsible for trade towers, doesn't mean we should hate or ban Muslims it is wrong and an overreaction. Same with free speech just because there are people out there that say stupid or racist things doesn't mean we should banning all speech that we disagree with. You maybe right and society may do this, but it shouldn't.
Just because Muslims are responsible for trade towers, doesn't mean we should hate or ban Muslims it is wrong and an overreaction. Same with free speech just because there are people out there that say stupid or racist things doesn't mean we should banning all speech that we disagree with.
"Banning" Muslims would be something government does. YouTube is not the government. If they don't want stupid or racist things on their site, they can do what they want.
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
And if it had no real world consequence then I would be on your side. However, hate crimes have been spiking and it turns out some edgelords aren't really being edgy at all. Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
that Hate Crime is increasing while the rest of violent crime decreases. Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.
We fought hard to delegitimize organized violence against minorities in this country. There was widespread anti-black terrorism committed with impunity right up until the 70s (and the occasional incident in the 80s and 90s).
It's not that Americans evolved some higher form of intelligence or empathy. We're the same folk we were 40 years ago minus a chunk of bigotry. What I'm saying is that it would be effortless for us to regress back to the KKK days. I'm a white dude and I do not want that.
"Hate Crimes" are like autism - a new measure of something that already existed, but people didn't call it that.
Hate crimes aren't spiking in the US. In fact, they are down from the 1960s and 1970s. Or 1980s. Or even the 1990s. Or the 2000s.
Media focus on "hate crimes" is way up, though, because it serves a political purpose right now. Notice the attention paid to Jussie for his victimization - when the opposition was to blame. As soon as it turned out to be fake, it got dropped.
Because hate crime is fucking made up. And they didn't classify anything as "hate crime" until the last decade or so, because it's a made up thing. So you can't use "hate crime" or "hate speech" or any of your other loaded terms for anything, because they're literal figments of your imagination. You mean there was less hate crime back in the "let's hang us a n1ggger KKK days" than there is now?
Give me a fucking break. You need to go take a shit, because you're full of it.
Now here's a real important question that you don't answer. If hate crime is increasing, is it because hate crime is actually increasing or is it because the definition of hate crime is broadening? Remember, in the UK we are now at a point where calling a boy a boy if he wants to be called a girl is now considered a hate crime. That wasn't true like, a year ago.
Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.
What does that 17% mean? Do you think NBC did due diligence in understanding the numbers to give you an accurate picture of reality? Or do you think they headlined a specific narrative?
Now if you ignore what the media say and go to the actual FBI press release [fbi.gov] you will understand why there was a super scary increase in hate crime for 2017.
. Although the numbers increased last year, so did the number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data—with approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributing information.
That is a very different reality than what narrative is being pushed. Now you may think that a year to year raw comprison is valid but the FBI doesn't as they caution agai
A probably reasonable way to assess that data would be to take all reported hate crimes and divide it by the number of agencies reporting. Then, multiply that by the total number of agencies.
That gives you an estimate of the total number of hate crimes in the country.
Then, when 1000 new agencies report data than the previous year, your estimate for total hate crimes simply becomes more accurate, rather than jumping wildly.
You're saying "censor the edgelords to make sure we get the racists". Nope. I'm saying "don't censor the racists either". The solution to "bad speech" is more speech. Freedom: it's important.
Hate Crimes spiked with a frequency parallel to the trust ratings dropping for left-leaning media publications and "journalism" to a historical all-time low beneath Congress of all things, while the ragebait articles of the SJWs increase in frequency only to be followed by hate crimes rather than following in their toes. 4chan ain't doing shit to plant seeds of hate, you idiots who were once trolled by it and now divert narratives from actual sources and roots that create terrorism to a bunch of meme spouti
And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling? Well, ready or not, open wide...
First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" [wikipedia.org] clearly shows that you are scum. That you're also setting that up as a strawman shows also signs of mental retardation and sociopathy. You think that you are smarter than the average bear, but you're actually so pathetic that you don't even realize how epic your dumbness and ignorance truly are.
See... the actual issue is with the severity of the crime due to
Would you like some cock down your throat too? Aw hell, why not... It's not like I'll run out of copy/paste any time soon while you try to block me for calling you out as sniveling racist cunts that you are. Anyway... as I was saying to that racist scumbag Penguinisto up there...
Would you like some cock with that strawman? And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling? Well, ready or not, open wide...
First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" [wikipedia.org] clearly shows that you are scum. That
You've got it backwards. It's not that the victim is less valued, but that the motive was less heinous.
Consider a driver who, while texting, runs a red light and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk through negligence / recklessness / whatever you want to call it.
Now consider a different driver who sees the pedestrian in the crosswalk, says to themself, "I hate balding people," and runs over poor baldy on purpose.
Both victims are equally dead, but the second driver deserves a harsher punishment.
Motive and state of mind have always been part of legal determinations. If I shoot you dead, the severity of the punishment will vary wildly depending on my motive, from 'I'm a dumbass who doesn't know how to handle a gun'
through 'I shot you because you punched me'
to 'I've hated you a long time and I've been planning to shoot you all week'.
As for hate crimes, the theory behind that is nothing to do with the 'value' of the victim. It's addressing the secondary effects; punching people hurts those I punch and is assault, but punching people because they're Jewish causes harm in the Jewish community, causing them to live in fear, increasing marginalization and generally causing wider social harm beyond the immediate act. This is analogous to terrorism. If I kill 10 people purely to watch them die, then I'm a plain vanilla mass murderer. But if I kill 10 people because they're infidels and I want to bring on the global caliphate then that elevates me to a terrorist, and brings with it a commensurate increase in the resources wielded against me and in the severity of the response. That's why we call it 'terrorism', the harm caused is much wider than the immediate effects of the act.
I see no reason why 'hate crimes' don't fall squarely on the standard scale. Why do they need separate laws? If we want to consider them more heinous than a similar crime / motive combination (which I'm totally fine with), why does that not simply happen during the normal process?
For example, a crime of passion might be second degree, but the same crime for bigoted reasons might be first degree.
Why do we need additional 'hate crime' laws at all?
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, legislation does just that. 'Hate crimes' don't exist as separate crimes but as aggravating circumstances in the sentencing of already existing offences.
Not really. There was a "spike" in 2016 but the increase came about because of increased hate crime against white people (marginal effect) and because of an increase of reporting agencies participating with the FBI to gather the statistics (big effect). Since after the election the trend has been going down.
Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
You shouldn't use an anecdote to base your opinion. By all metrics and by all statistics it isn't as bad as the media or you portray it.
There was a "spike" in 2016 but the increase came about because of increased hate crime against white people (marginal effect) and because of an increase of reporting agencies participating with the FBI to gather the statistics (big effect). Since after the election the trend has been going down.
There are four assertions in those two sentences, and every single one of them is a lie. Four out of four.
Or, you could just cite some supporting data for your original assertion. It's not my job to prove what you said is bullshit. It's your job to back up your claims with more than fantasy.
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar. Now, that you have supporting data; Am I still a liar or are you the one in a fantasy because everything you said is bullshit.
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar.
Do you realize your supporting data actually verifies that you're not being truthful? You provide data for 2015 and 2016, but your assertion was about "after the election". Do you know that most of your increase in "anti-white motivations" were hate crimes against gays? Your desperate to show somehow that right-wing hate crimes perpetrated by white people are not increasing. You have failed to do so an
I did not assert "after the election". Maybe you need to reread the comment. I said "in 2016" because that was when we started to see the "spike in hate crime" narrative start "because Trump".
were hate crimes against gays?
Maybe you need to read the links I sent a bit more because saying that makes you look like an idiot. I cited single bias incidents. There were 32 multiple bias incidents in 2016. If you want to contest that the single bias incidents that were classified as racially motivated but were really about sexual orientation, by
Uh oh. you got me. I read that somewhere and I can't remember where. So I can't support it. Everything else I said was true and that last sentence doesn't change the point I was making.
Edgelords are, by definition, on the edge. A society who takes them in stride expands its boundaries to include things that were previously on the edge. A society that ceases to define its boundaries ceases to be a coherent society.
Your sentiment is nice, but it makes no sense in applicable terms. People who push the edge of acceptable behavior should expect consequences. If you're doing it because you need or want society to change, that's the cost of being a social animal.
There's a needed distinction between "discourse acceptable in polite society" and "legal discourse allowed on common carriers". Let the edgelords and the pornographers and everyone else the finger-wagging moral scolds hate have their place. .
Let the edgelords and the pornographers and everyone else the finger-wagging moral scolds hate have their place..
You have your place. Don't blame us if that place is far from the rest of us. You have basements, gab, klan meetings, CPAC, Zerohedge, Stormfront, 4chan, NAMBLA conventions. I could go on and on.
You don't get to demand a podium and an audience, especially when someone privately owns that podium. You don't get to demand an income stream. And by the way, I would like to see you make a case f
You don't get to demand a podium and an audience, especially when someone privately owns that podium.
It amazes me how zealously you defend the rights of corporations here. Are they people? Monopolies deserve regulations that competitive markets don't, especially when that intersects with political speech.
"Oh, the government isn't censoring, it's just that the monopoly is censoring in a way the government likes, and the government isn't intervening. Total coincidence, free speech unaffected".
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
And please tell me which society that can really take edgelords, anywhere in the world? Stop being idealist and be more realist here.
Hitler didn't run on Genocide. Nobody ever leads with it. It starts out with angry, disaffected people who get conditioned into violence over time. See for an explanation [youtube.com] for how you go from Edge Lord to an Alt-Right rally where folks are chanting "Jews will not replace us" carrying torches. The follow up video [youtube.com] is good too.
What I'm saying is that there is a process to radicalization. Now, there's two ends to fight that. One the one end you've got YouTube demoting the Edge Lords in ranking and banning t
Hitler didn't run on Genocide. He started out as a disgruntled part of a minority family in Austria-Hungary, one of the superpowers surrounding the oppressed German States whose bodies were used as chess pieces in intermediate war between these superpowers. He started out with a privileged vs oppressed, overclass vs underclass narrative. He started out being spoiled by his mother and having dislike for his strict father, developing a Princess Complex. He started out losing his testicle in WW1 and becoming scree
That's a lot of words to say that you like censorship. I don't.
The solution for "bad speech" is more speech. Don't like speakers that "radicalize" people? Present a more compelling argument. Should be easy: after all, you're right and they're wrong, yes? But if you insult instead of argue, and the radicals welcome people and validate them, you're going to lose.
Some social norms are bad. We need the ability to "radicalize" people away from those. And it's not your job to choose.
That's a lot of words to say that you like censorship. I don't.
If you don't like censorship, then why do you promote irresponsible behavior that will inevitably lead to censorship?
It's never failed, you know. At some point, society will say, "enough" to the edgelords and then bring down the hammer. If you want to push the envelope in violent and hateful ways, prepare to accept society's consequences. But remember, you're bringing down everyone else with you. Whether we like it or not, this is how it wor
I'm not sure I see that pattern. There are moral panics, to be sure. The waltz, pool halls, D&D, video games, really anything the kids do. That's not the same thing, though. There is certainly much historical precedent for government or religion stamping down on those who challenge their authority (which, yes, is a thing popular with edgelords), but that's not the same, really.
Its not about that, its about algorithms designed to present you with things that enrage you. Enclosing you in filter bubbles. Since enabling raw emotions is what keeps retention. Which turns into clicks and revenue + tracking data that can be sold to third parties.
Censor the DNC then. They have promoted a lie, that they knew was a lie, that Trump colluded with Russia for 2 years. Page, in closed door testimony to Congress a year ago, told them that the FBI had no evidence. Yet they were attempting to incite violence against Trump supporters based on this known lie. Look what happened to the Covington kids, where people were saying to throw them into a wood chipper head first. Somollett attempted to start riots with his "hate crime hoax". This was possible ONLY
Does it say we get free speech as long as we're "responsible" with it?
Encouraging violence is not speech.
Speech that does not tell people to be violent cannot incite violence. If someone decides to engage in violence over an idea, they're morons responsible for their own actions.
Blaming other people for your behavior is childish. Justifying tyranny because someone blamed words for their actions is just as absurd.
Enacting violence is the crime, not telling people to enact violence or even how to enact violence.
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is still free speech; nobody has to act on that speech, and if people behave in a way that tramples others, then the people who trampled are at fault, etc.
The notion of a yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater came from an American Supreme Court judge who was trying to rule against a guy handing out anti-War pamphlets during WWI; that judge later admitted that he was wrong in
By your logic you'd be 100% ok with someone purchasing a billboard on the lot next to your house that says "Here is KelvinB's phone number, place of employment, and daily schedule. He rapes children every day and will come for yours next!". And if anything happens to you or your family, the person who bought the billboard is 100% ok in your book; the blame solely lies on whatever wackjob believed the billboard.
The only problem in your scenario is the whackjob that could hurt you.
The problem is the whackjob; rather than attacking the whackjobs, you're attacking the next easier target, which is a terrible way to foster a robust community.
The American independence happened because some people promoted violence. Slavery was abolished because some people promoted violence. It is sad, but there is always a moment when you have to promote violence if you want to have freedom. One thing is for sure, when we are not allowed to speak, then violence is the only solution.
There was no "war of Northern aggression". The south fired first, and fought nastiest. The North simply woke up and finished the fight. Same with the "Revolution". England started violence, and woke a sleeping giant.
I would argue that's less true for the Civil War. The North won and wandered off the field. The South has stayed on the field and spent over a century slowly rewriting history, with pretty good results.
you're shocked...shocked, I tell you...when society comes and slaps you the fuck down and tells you to sit down and shut up. Then, you feign surprise when the real sickos shout out your vidya heroes when they shoot up a church or murder a bunch of school kids like you didn't know it was coming.
And that if Carlin were alive today and did the same bits today he did then he would likewise probably be thrown in jail for so called "Hate Speech" right?
That's utter nonsense. You can find tons of comedians doing Carlin's act and even going further today and not being "thrown in jail for hate speech". You can't just throw nonsense like that out and not be challenged.
Do you really believe that "Count Dankula" is the equivalent of George Carlin?
And say what you will about the right but you can go to any right wing website and be as leftist as you want,
Breitbart refused to publish my 2000 word essay on the benefits of Socialism. And that was before they banned me from their comments section for saying Steve Bannon looks like Baron Harkonnen.
Bad analogy (it's almost like this is slashdot). A better analogy would be if Breitbart refused to sell you ad space for your socialist screed. But that's flawed too: Breitbart is a publisher, not a common carrier, and can e.g. be sued for libel for what they publish.
There's no objective way to distinguish who is "the press", but I think self-selection could work well. Let corporations decide whether they're a publisher, with editorial control and liability, or a platform with neither.
A better analogy would be if Breitbart refused to sell you ad space for your socialist screed.
No. You seem to have forgotten that YouTube hasn't sold a goddamn thing to the people who post videos. They're not the customers. They're the product, and their relationship to YouTube is entirely voluntary...on both sides.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
It's not just YouTube. It's also Facebook refusing to sell pro-life ads, and that sort of thing.
Anyway, if YouTube censors beyond what the laws require, they should be liable for libel, copyright infringment, and everything else from every random person who posts. The EU clearly ants that to be the future, probably because they want to destroy a platform that allows people to gasp, the horror, say what they want.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
Breitbart is a publisher, not a platform. They're already liable for libel, copyright infring
Also, are they a publicly held corporation? I have no idea. If not, it's a different world.
Why does it matter if they are publicly held or privately held? In both cases, they own their property. Maybe you don't understand what "publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
Also, courts have held that Facebook and YouTube are indeed "publishers", but the distinction doesn't matter. Either way, it's their
"publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
It has been a key distinction in multiple SCOTUS rulings, including Citizens Unieted. A group of people, peaceably assembled, have a First Amendment right to political expression. in a partnership or tightly held corporation, the rights of the owners aren't reduced by the fact they've gotten together.
A publicly held corporation, OTOH, has no rights, constitutional or otherwise. It does not have the right to political expression. If corporate involvement is politics hurts the people, and it damn well doe
A publicly held corporation, OTOH, has no rights, constitutional or otherwise. It does not have the right to political expression.
That is 100% not true. You can go all the way back to Santa Clara v Southern Pacific and the Supreme Court has never held a distinction under the First Amendment for publicly held vs closely held corporations.
And Citizens United, the most recent case, also did not hold a distinction.
Did I mention that we need to ban publicly held corporations making campaign contributions?
I believe it's you that wrote " Did I mention that we need to ban publicly held corporations making campaign contributions?" you nobend. So it's fairly clear who's in favor of censorship as long as it's the right kind of censorship.
Do you really believe that "Count Dankula" is the equivalent of George Carlin?
Subjectively, Carlin was funny, and Dank isn't, but that's the only distinction I see. And my subjective tastes in humor are hardly relevant. The SCOTUS has been very firm on this: if something is intended as parody, no matter how poorly executed, it gets the protections of parody, because the government does not get to decide what is and isn't art. The UK courts took a strongly opposite view, saying flat out "we decide what the context is". Glad I live in the US, but hey, if you prefer the UK way, the
"Someone said and did bad things, so I guess we just have to punish everyone I disagree with!" Okay I put some words into your mouth there, but not many. You're going down a dark path; it's not 4chan that's the problem. Take another look and you might see a forest in those trees.
Felson's Law:
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from
many is research.
Good (Score:1, Insightful)
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago, but thought that it was more important to be edgelords and have lulz than it was to be responsible. So now, you reap the whirlwind and spoil it for everyone. You think it's fun to talk about kids who are slaughtered being "crisis actors" and the height of irony to wear nazi uniforms and then you're shocked...shocked, I tell you...when society comes and slaps you the fuck down and tells you to sit down and shut up. Then, you feign surprise when the real sickos shout out your vidya heroes when they shoot up a church or murder a bunch of school kids like you didn't know it was coming.
Thanks for fucking it up for everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Oh, society can "take" the edgelords in stride, alright. It strides right over them. Historically, it's been done on a regular basis. It was done in the 1940s, and again to the KKK in the 1960s. And now it's your turn in the barrel.
Society interprets hateful edgelords as damage and routes around them.
Re: (Score:0)
All your whining about 4chan and talk of barrels like a parody of the very edgelords you criticize, yet general society seems to be even less inclined to support your side of the fence today and ratings for your SJW media are lower and lower with each week, both in trust and viewership. Equating 4chan to KKK and Nazi Germany is the kind of rhetoric that resulted in this, and also in labor unions giving a middle finger to the far left now, of all things. Maybe it's not the edgelords who are going into a barr
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Society interprets hateful edgelords as damage and routes around them.
...hence the need for speech codes in places like university campuses**, right?
** It should be noted that a university is precisely the place where ideas noble and stupid, concepts altruistic and hateful... all of this should be debated openly, in an environment that encourages clear logic, reason, and rhetoric. Alas, there seems to be a lack of that on most campuses these days. Probably because people go around calling every idea that makes them uncomfortable "hateful" and suchlike, without even trying to do anything beyond generalization and stereotype.
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh, you're so close to understanding my point. We get speech codes on campus because edgelords thought irresponsible speech was the height of cleverness and society will eventually say, "enough".
Speech codes are bad. But they are what society is going to do when people don't know how to fucking behave responsibly. If you want to be an edgelord, you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. But just be aware that every
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Banning" Muslims would be something government does. YouTube is not the government. If they don't want stupid or racist things on their site, they can do what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
And if it had no real world consequence then I would be on your side. However, hate crimes have been spiking and it turns out some edgelords aren't really being edgy at all. Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Fewer than 8K hate crimes per year in a country of 330M people, and you see a problem? Out of ~1.1M violent crimes, mind you....
It should also be noted that violent crime rates have fallen by ~1/3 over the last three decades.
I think the problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
We fought hard to delegitimize organized violence against minorities in this country. There was widespread anti-black terrorism committed with impunity right up until the 70s (and the occasional incident in the 80s and 90s).
It's not that Americans evolved some higher form of intelligence or empathy. We're the same folk we were 40 years ago minus a chunk of bigotry. What I'm saying is that it would be effortless for us to regress back to the KKK days. I'm a white dude and I do not want that.
Re: (Score:0)
"Hate Crimes" are like autism - a new measure of something that already existed, but people didn't call it that.
Hate crimes aren't spiking in the US. In fact, they are down from the 1960s and 1970s. Or 1980s. Or even the 1990s. Or the 2000s.
Media focus on "hate crimes" is way up, though, because it serves a political purpose right now. Notice the attention paid to Jussie for his victimization - when the opposition was to blame. As soon as it turned out to be fake, it got dropped.
The biggest "Hate Crim
Re: (Score:0)
Because hate crime is fucking made up. And they didn't classify anything as "hate crime" until the last decade or so, because it's a made up thing. So you can't use "hate crime" or "hate speech" or any of your other loaded terms for anything, because they're literal figments of your imagination. You mean there was less hate crime back in the "let's hang us a n1ggger KKK days" than there is now?
Give me a fucking break. You need to go take a shit, because you're full of it.
Go. Fuck. Yourself.
Re: (Score:0)
Now here's a real important question that you don't answer. If hate crime is increasing, is it because hate crime is actually increasing or is it because the definition of hate crime is broadening? Remember, in the UK we are now at a point where calling a boy a boy if he wants to be called a girl is now considered a hate crime. That wasn't true like, a year ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.
What does that 17% mean? Do you think NBC did due diligence in understanding the numbers to give you an accurate picture of reality? Or do you think they headlined a specific narrative?
Now if you ignore what the media say and go to the actual FBI press release [fbi.gov] you will understand why there was a super scary increase in hate crime for 2017.
. Although the numbers increased last year, so did the number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data—with approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributing information.
That is a very different reality than what narrative is being pushed. Now you may think that a year to year raw comprison is valid but the FBI doesn't as they caution agai
Re: (Score:2)
A probably reasonable way to assess that data would be to take all reported hate crimes and divide it by the number of agencies reporting. Then, multiply that by the total number of agencies.
That gives you an estimate of the total number of hate crimes in the country.
Then, when 1000 new agencies report data than the previous year, your estimate for total hate crimes simply becomes more accurate, rather than jumping wildly.
Re: (Score:0)
Hate Crime is increasing
Check your definitions. Effect has started to bleed in with the cause.
Dude backs into your car, you go argue with him and end up stabbing him in the leg. Afterwards, call him [name offensive to group x].
That used to be "just" violent crime. Nowadays its hate crime.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're saying "censor the edgelords to make sure we get the racists". Nope. I'm saying "don't censor the racists either". The solution to "bad speech" is more speech. Freedom: it's important.
Re: (Score:0)
Hate Crimes spiked with a frequency parallel to the trust ratings dropping for left-leaning media publications and "journalism" to a historical all-time low beneath Congress of all things, while the ragebait articles of the SJWs increase in frequency only to be followed by hate crimes rather than following in their toes. 4chan ain't doing shit to plant seeds of hate, you idiots who were once trolled by it and now divert narratives from actual sources and roots that create terrorism to a bunch of meme spouti
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
So what makes a victim of any other similar crime less valued and less harmed than the victim of a "hate crime"?
In a world where equal rule of law is supreme, motive should only determine guilt or innocence, and not severity.
Would you like some cock with that strawman? (Score:0, Troll)
And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling?
Well, ready or not, open wide...
First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" [wikipedia.org] clearly shows that you are scum.
That you're also setting that up as a strawman shows also signs of mental retardation and sociopathy.
You think that you are smarter than the average bear, but you're actually so pathetic that you don't even realize how epic your dumbness and ignorance truly are.
See... the actual issue is with the severity of the crime due to
Well hello there racist cunts! (Score:2)
Would you like some cock down your throat too? Aw hell, why not...
It's not like I'll run out of copy/paste any time soon while you try to block me for calling you out as sniveling racist cunts that you are.
Anyway... as I was saying to that racist scumbag Penguinisto up there...
Would you like some cock with that strawman?
And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling?
Well, ready or not, open wide...
First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" [wikipedia.org] clearly shows that you are scum.
That
Re: (Score:0)
You've got it backwards. It's not that the victim is less valued, but that the motive was less heinous.
Consider a driver who, while texting, runs a red light and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk through negligence / recklessness / whatever you want to call it.
Now consider a different driver who sees the pedestrian in the crosswalk, says to themself, "I hate balding people," and runs over poor baldy on purpose.
Both victims are equally dead, but the second driver deserves a harsher punishment.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Motive and state of mind have always been part of legal determinations. If I shoot you dead, the severity of the punishment will vary wildly depending on my motive, from
'I'm a dumbass who doesn't know how to handle a gun'
through
'I shot you because you punched me'
to
'I've hated you a long time and I've been planning to shoot you all week'.
As for hate crimes, the theory behind that is nothing to do with the 'value' of the victim. It's addressing the secondary effects; punching people hurts those I punch and is assault, but punching people because they're Jewish causes harm in the Jewish community, causing them to live in fear, increasing marginalization and generally causing wider social harm beyond the immediate act. This is analogous to terrorism. If I kill 10 people purely to watch them die, then I'm a plain vanilla mass murderer. But if I kill 10 people because they're infidels and I want to bring on the global caliphate then that elevates me to a terrorist, and brings with it a commensurate increase in the resources wielded against me and in the severity of the response. That's why we call it 'terrorism', the harm caused is much wider than the immediate effects of the act.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no reason why 'hate crimes' don't fall squarely on the standard scale. Why do they need separate laws? If we want to consider them more heinous than a similar crime / motive combination (which I'm totally fine with), why does that not simply happen during the normal process?
For example, a crime of passion might be second degree, but the same crime for bigoted reasons might be first degree.
Why do we need additional 'hate crime' laws at all?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, legislation does just that. 'Hate crimes' don't exist as separate crimes but as aggravating circumstances in the sentencing of already existing offences.
Re: (Score:3)
However, hate crimes have been spiking
Not really. There was a "spike" in 2016 but the increase came about because of increased hate crime against white people (marginal effect) and because of an increase of reporting agencies participating with the FBI to gather the statistics (big effect). Since after the election the trend has been going down.
Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
You shouldn't use an anecdote to base your opinion. By all metrics and by all statistics it isn't as bad as the media or you portray it.
Re: (Score:1)
There are four assertions in those two sentences, and every single one of them is a lie. Four out of four.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well you said it so it must be true.
Re: (Score:1)
Or, you could just cite some supporting data for your original assertion. It's not my job to prove what you said is bullshit. It's your job to back up your claims with more than fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar. Now, that you have supporting data; Am I still a liar or are you the one in a fantasy because everything you said is bullshit.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime... [fbi.gov]
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime... [fbi.gov]
6121 in 2016.
5850 in 2015.
This is the 4% total hate crime incident spike talked about for 2016.
3489 in 2016 were racially motivated
3310 in 2015 were racially motivated
This is a 5% to describe the racially motivated spik
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Do you realize your supporting data actually verifies that you're not being truthful? You provide data for 2015 and 2016, but your assertion was about "after the election". Do you know that most of your increase in "anti-white motivations" were hate crimes against gays? Your desperate to show somehow that right-wing hate crimes perpetrated by white people are not increasing. You have failed to do so an
Re: (Score:1)
I did not assert "after the election". Maybe you need to reread the comment. I said "in 2016" because that was when we started to see the "spike in hate crime" narrative start "because Trump".
were hate crimes against gays?
Maybe you need to read the links I sent a bit more because saying that makes you look like an idiot. I cited single bias incidents. There were 32 multiple bias incidents in 2016. If you want to contest that the single bias incidents that were classified as racially motivated but were really about sexual orientation, by
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a direct quote from your comment:
And, that assertion is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh oh. you got me. I read that somewhere and I can't remember where. So I can't support it. Everything else I said was true and that last sentence doesn't change the point I was making.
Re: (Score:0)
Edgelords are, by definition, on the edge. A society who takes them in stride expands its boundaries to include things that were previously on the edge. A society that ceases to define its boundaries ceases to be a coherent society.
Your sentiment is nice, but it makes no sense in applicable terms. People who push the edge of acceptable behavior should expect consequences. If you're doing it because you need or want society to change, that's the cost of being a social animal.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a needed distinction between "discourse acceptable in polite society" and "legal discourse allowed on common carriers". Let the edgelords and the pornographers and everyone else the finger-wagging moral scolds hate have their place. .
Re: (Score:2)
You have your place. Don't blame us if that place is far from the rest of us. You have basements, gab, klan meetings, CPAC, Zerohedge, Stormfront, 4chan, NAMBLA conventions. I could go on and on.
You don't get to demand a podium and an audience, especially when someone privately owns that podium. You don't get to demand an income stream. And by the way, I would like to see you make a case f
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to demand a podium and an audience, especially when someone privately owns that podium.
It amazes me how zealously you defend the rights of corporations here. Are they people? Monopolies deserve regulations that competitive markets don't, especially when that intersects with political speech.
"Oh, the government isn't censoring, it's just that the monopoly is censoring in a way the government likes, and the government isn't intervening. Total coincidence, free speech unaffected".
Is that really the hill you want to defend?
Re: (Score:2)
Private property is private. Don't you think so?
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with that absolute. Monopolies and other situations where there's no free market operating need oversight. Seems obvious given history.
Re: (Score:0)
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
And please tell me which society that can really take edgelords, anywhere in the world? Stop being idealist and be more realist here.
If I may Godwin this thread (Score:1)
What I'm saying is that there is a process to radicalization. Now, there's two ends to fight that. One the one end you've got YouTube demoting the Edge Lords in ranking and banning t
Re: (Score:0)
Hitler didn't run on Genocide.
He started out as a disgruntled part of a minority family in Austria-Hungary, one of the superpowers surrounding the oppressed German States whose bodies were used as chess pieces in intermediate war between these superpowers.
He started out with a privileged vs oppressed, overclass vs underclass narrative.
He started out being spoiled by his mother and having dislike for his strict father, developing a Princess Complex.
He started out losing his testicle in WW1 and becoming scree
Re: (Score:3)
That's a lot of words to say that you like censorship. I don't.
The solution for "bad speech" is more speech. Don't like speakers that "radicalize" people? Present a more compelling argument. Should be easy: after all, you're right and they're wrong, yes? But if you insult instead of argue, and the radicals welcome people and validate them, you're going to lose.
Some social norms are bad. We need the ability to "radicalize" people away from those. And it's not your job to choose.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like censorship, then why do you promote irresponsible behavior that will inevitably lead to censorship?
It's never failed, you know. At some point, society will say, "enough" to the edgelords and then bring down the hammer. If you want to push the envelope in violent and hateful ways, prepare to accept society's consequences. But remember, you're bringing down everyone else with you. Whether we like it or not, this is how it wor
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I see that pattern. There are moral panics, to be sure. The waltz, pool halls, D&D, video games, really anything the kids do. That's not the same thing, though. There is certainly much historical precedent for government or religion stamping down on those who challenge their authority (which, yes, is a thing popular with edgelords), but that's not the same, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:0)
Exactly, and a government that actually concerns itself with edgelords and shitlords is at best an insecure government.
Re: (Score:1)
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago
Yes, they did! Think about that. Maybe you might discover the goal... Sounds vaguely familiar doesn't it?
Censor the DNC then (Score:-1)
Censor the DNC then. They have promoted a lie, that they knew was a lie, that Trump colluded with Russia for 2 years. Page, in closed door testimony to Congress a year ago, told them that the FBI had no evidence. Yet they were attempting to incite violence against Trump supporters based on this known lie. Look what happened to the Covington kids, where people were saying to throw them into a wood chipper head first. Somollett attempted to start riots with his "hate crime hoax". This was possible ONLY
Where in the constitution... (Score:2)
Does it say we get free speech as long as we're "responsible" with it?
Encouraging violence is not speech.
Speech that does not tell people to be violent cannot incite violence. If someone decides to engage in violence over an idea, they're morons responsible for their own actions.
Blaming other people for your behavior is childish. Justifying tyranny because someone blamed words for their actions is just as absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Does what say?
Encouraging violence is STILL free speech (Score:0)
Enacting violence is the crime, not telling people to enact violence or even how to enact violence.
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is still free speech; nobody has to act on that speech, and if people behave in a way that tramples others, then the people who trampled are at fault, etc.
The notion of a yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater came from an American Supreme Court judge who was trying to rule against a guy handing out anti-War pamphlets during WWI; that judge later admitted that he was wrong in
Re: (Score:0)
By your logic you'd be 100% ok with someone purchasing a billboard on the lot next to your house that says "Here is KelvinB's phone number, place of employment, and daily schedule. He rapes children every day and will come for yours next!". And if anything happens to you or your family, the person who bought the billboard is 100% ok in your book; the blame solely lies on whatever wackjob believed the billboard.
Do you realize how insane that sounds?
It doesn't sound insane at all. (Score:0)
The only problem in your scenario is the whackjob that could hurt you.
The problem is the whackjob; rather than attacking the whackjobs, you're attacking the next easier target, which is a terrible way to foster a robust community.
Re: (Score:1)
The American independence happened because some people promoted violence. Slavery was abolished because some people promoted violence. It is sad, but there is always a moment when you have to promote violence if you want to have freedom. One thing is for sure, when we are not allowed to speak, then violence is the only solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but in both cases, the side that promoted violence ended up losing. You should have thought that through.
Re: (Score:2)
In those two examples, there was plenty of violence on both sides.
If the independence movement had failed, we'd be talking today about that time revolutionary terrorists conspired to attack shipping in Boston.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
History is always written by the winners. Win, they are freedom fighters. Lose, they are terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:0)
you're shocked...shocked, I tell you...when society comes and slaps you the fuck down and tells you to sit down and shut up. Then, you feign surprise when the real sickos shout out your vidya heroes when they shoot up a church or murder a bunch of school kids like you didn't know it was coming.
fake and gay.
feigning surprise? the 4chans?
youre driving by second-hand accounts. spicy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's utter nonsense. You can find tons of comedians doing Carlin's act and even going further today and not being "thrown in jail for hate speech". You can't just throw nonsense like that out and not be challenged.
Do you really believe that "Count Dankula" is the equivalent of George Carlin?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Breitbart refused to publish my 2000 word essay on the benefits of Socialism. And that was before they banned me from their comments section for saying Steve Bannon looks like Baron Harkonnen.
So, I'm sorry, you're just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad analogy (it's almost like this is slashdot). A better analogy would be if Breitbart refused to sell you ad space for your socialist screed. But that's flawed too: Breitbart is a publisher, not a common carrier, and can e.g. be sued for libel for what they publish.
There's no objective way to distinguish who is "the press", but I think self-selection could work well. Let corporations decide whether they're a publisher, with editorial control and liability, or a platform with neither.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You seem to have forgotten that YouTube hasn't sold a goddamn thing to the people who post videos. They're not the customers. They're the product, and their relationship to YouTube is entirely voluntary...on both sides.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just YouTube. It's also Facebook refusing to sell pro-life ads, and that sort of thing.
Anyway, if YouTube censors beyond what the laws require, they should be liable for libel, copyright infringment, and everything else from every random person who posts. The EU clearly ants that to be the future, probably because they want to destroy a platform that allows people to gasp, the horror, say what they want.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
Breitbart is a publisher, not a platform. They're already liable for libel, copyright infring
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it matter if they are publicly held or privately held? In both cases, they own their property. Maybe you don't understand what "publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
Also, courts have held that Facebook and YouTube are indeed "publishers", but the distinction doesn't matter. Either way, it's their
Re: (Score:2)
"publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
It has been a key distinction in multiple SCOTUS rulings, including Citizens Unieted. A group of people, peaceably assembled, have a First Amendment right to political expression. in a partnership or tightly held corporation, the rights of the owners aren't reduced by the fact they've gotten together.
A publicly held corporation, OTOH, has no rights, constitutional or otherwise. It does not have the right to political expression. If corporate involvement is politics hurts the people, and it damn well doe
Re: (Score:2)
That is 100% not true. You can go all the way back to Santa Clara v Southern Pacific and the Supreme Court has never held a distinction under the First Amendment for publicly held vs closely held corporations.
And Citizens United, the most recent case, also did not hold a distinction.
I agr
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I get it. You just love censorship, as long as the other guys are censored. All else is rationalization.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really believe that "Count Dankula" is the equivalent of George Carlin?
Subjectively, Carlin was funny, and Dank isn't, but that's the only distinction I see. And my subjective tastes in humor are hardly relevant. The SCOTUS has been very firm on this: if something is intended as parody, no matter how poorly executed, it gets the protections of parody, because the government does not get to decide what is and isn't art. The UK courts took a strongly opposite view, saying flat out "we decide what the context is". Glad I live in the US, but hey, if you prefer the UK way, the
Re: (Score:0)
You are a massive coward.
Re: (Score:2)
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @12:35PM "
Re: (Score:0)
>Thanks for fucking it up for everyone
You're the only one complaining.
Re: (Score:0)
"Someone said and did bad things, so I guess we just have to punish everyone I disagree with!"
Okay I put some words into your mouth there, but not many. You're going down a dark path; it's not 4chan that's the problem.
Take another look and you might see a forest in those trees.