02 Mar 2021, 6:19 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Daddy63 wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
How is this a problem? 
They should be commended for helping moderate hate speech on their platform.
They should be commended for helping moderate hate speech on their platform.
The problem is who determines what is hate speech and what is not. Political speech shouldn't be moderated or considered hate speech but today that is the norm. Democratic Party political propaganda seeks to divide people by skin color, gender, religious beliefs and sexual orientation for the sole purpose of favoring some groups while blaming and hating others. Voices opposing them are considering hate speech and are censored on some social media platforms.
Meanwhile true hate speech continues on Twitter and is ignored.
Individual rights like free speech shouldn't depend on gender, skin color, religion, sexual orientation and/or political affiliations.
Access to a platform isn't a right, it's a privilege. Trump was banned for persistent ToS violations. They don't owe him their service as a fluffer, especially when he's already been perma-b&.
They wouldn't promote an ISIS leader's speech, no matter how popular that leader was. Why should other terrorist leaders not be treated similarly?
Ding ding ding. Just because a politician says a thing doesn't make it solely political speech that should be allowed to be said regardless of what it is. Hateful views & terrible things are still exactly those and are deserving of censorship, criticism, or even criminal investigation.
To be fair, since he's a wealthy man of the correct complexion and political leanings, his hate speech was historically protected so the freak-out alt-right types are having isn't that unreasonable. Historically we've been far too protective of incitement when it comes from certain segments of the political spectrum.
Trump and his supporters don't need to be judged because of their skin colour, the demonstrated contents of their characters are adequate enough to make one judge them negatively.
I want to ask you a question. Do you believe the mainstream media and big businesses are hostile or opposed to conservative or right-leaning political opinion?
02 Mar 2021, 6:19 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
02 Mar 2021, 6:22 pm
Pepe wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
The problem seems to be the large number of people who equate "speech that they hate" with "hate speech", whether through lack of understanding of the difference between these categories or an intentional choice on their behalf to combine them both under the one heading as it helps their agenda\"side".
Agreed.
Disagree.
Hate speech is defined by hate speech legislation. Most developed geographical areas have Human Rights Codes and anti-discrimination laws for workplaces as well as clearly defined hate crimes when it comes to the motivation for heinous acts.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,343
Location: Right over your left shoulder
02 Mar 2021, 6:30 pm
02 Mar 2021, 6:42 pm
02 Mar 2021, 7:33 pm
02 Mar 2021, 8:28 pm
02 Mar 2021, 8:34 pm
02 Mar 2021, 8:35 pm
02 Mar 2021, 8:49 pm
02 Mar 2021, 9:05 pm
02 Mar 2021, 9:18 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
The problem seems to be the large number of people who equate "speech that they hate" with "hate speech", whether through lack of understanding of the difference between these categories or an intentional choice on their behalf to combine them both under the one heading as it helps their agenda\"side".
Here you have the chance to teach us what hate speech is and is not, and all you have done is further criticize those who are against it. So try again; try to define "hate speech" without incriminating yourself.Cornflake wrote:
Hate speech definitions are incorporated into legislation world-wide.
If something is legitimately "hate speech", then it is legislated against, and so those making the "hate speech" can be pursued by the lawful authorties for this. Speech that lies outside what is covered by this legislation (whether through form or substance), whilst perhaps not pleasant, therefore does not constitute "hate speech", but (depending on the observer) could be construed by some as "speech that they hate". If people want this form of speech to be classed as "hate speech", then they need their legislators to make the appropriate changes to the legislation. Quite a simple concept, really, and it is surprising how few seem to understand it.Now, try again, in your own words, and without incriminating yourself.
They were my own words (well, except for the contribution quoted from a post by the "Site Admin")...I didn't copy them from anywhere, nor paraphrase some other source - If people honestly believes they were not my own words, then maybe I should look into becoming a professional writer, as it obviously can't be that difficult an occupation.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,343
Location: Right over your left shoulder
02 Mar 2021, 9:22 pm
02 Mar 2021, 9:28 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
If people honestly believes they were not my own words, then maybe I should look into becoming a professional writer, as it obviously can't be that difficult an occupation.
A few of us on here can write a stream-of-consciousness that has more formal grammar than most people's structured prose.
No doubt...It would be ableist, though, to point out another's deficiencies through statements such as that.
It's probably best to consider the content of what each member posts, rather than the format of it (or worse, looking for\injecting hidden "meanings" into it).
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,343
Location: Right over your left shoulder
02 Mar 2021, 9:41 pm
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
If people honestly believes they were not my own words, then maybe I should look into becoming a professional writer, as it obviously can't be that difficult an occupation.
A few of us on here can write a stream-of-consciousness that has more formal grammar than most people's structured prose.
No doubt...It would be ableist, though, to point out another's deficiencies through statements such as that.
It's probably best to consider the content of what each member posts, rather than the format of it (or worse, looking for\injecting hidden "meanings" into it).
It's a pseudo-compliment since it's something I'd say we share and a trait worthy of appreciating, but not one that inherently means the people who possess it are smarter. It's more like a matter of being better equipped to express our ideas in a manner that communicates them effectively. Those ideas can still be shallow, misinformed, disconnected from reality or whatever.
There's a bunch of us on here who write like professional writers but many of us don't have any significant formal educational background. I guess this means we're the kids who paid more attention in English class than to our conversations?
02 Mar 2021, 10:25 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
If people honestly believes they were not my own words, then maybe I should look into becoming a professional writer, as it obviously can't be that difficult an occupation.
A few of us on here can write a stream-of-consciousness that has more formal grammar than most people's structured prose.
No doubt...It would be ableist, though, to point out another's deficiencies through statements such as that.
It's probably best to consider the content of what each member posts, rather than the format of it (or worse, looking for\injecting hidden "meanings" into it).
It's a pseudo-compliment since it's something I'd say we share and a trait worthy of appreciating, but not one that inherently means the people who possess it are smarter. It's more like a matter of being better equipped to express our ideas in a manner that communicates them effectively. Those ideas can still be shallow, misinformed, disconnected from reality or whatever.
There's a bunch of us on here who write like professional writers but many of us don't have any significant formal educational background. I guess this means we're the kids who paid more attention in English class than to our conversations?
English was never one of my preferred subjects (although I did have fun in my final years at school with one task requiring us to write a "script" and using previously heard comments from various people in class and intergrating them into it - not everyone in the class approved, for some reason...) - I preferred Science\Maths\Technical drawing, but it seems some small portions got through into my subconscious and were unable to be evicted (mainly the "comparative reading" and the portions where we had to put together arguments both for and against given subject matter).
The compulsary "Technical Writing" at university also helps - The required "presentations" in both english at school, and in the "Technical Writing" at University were probably what caused my lack of interest in pursuing a role in the area.
(Sadly there was not a section on emojies, so I never know which to use without risking giving a different impression to that which I intend (or interpreting it in a different manner to that intended by the writer), and I'm not a fan of making ambiguous posts in general).
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Thank you Donald J Trump! |
Today, 4:39 pm |
| Mullvad Breaks Silence on Founder’s Political Donation |
25 Jul 2026, 9:12 am |
