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 every
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. 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.
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: (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 every
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: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: (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.