EU: All your internet are belong to us
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
"New Online Hate-Speech Rules Threaten Free Speech (Op-Ed)"
"Web firms pledge to tackle online free speech"
"Microsoft, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have pledged to remove free speech within 24 hours, in support of a code of conduct drafted by the EU."
And why? Because it hurst terrorist feelings, they only wanted to bomb you and kill you a little.
"It requires the firms to act quickly when told about free speech and to do more to help combat "xenophobic" content."
"The need for better ways to combat online free speech had become more urgent in the wake of terror attacks in Belgium, said Vera Jourova, European Commissioner for "Justice"."
And so, because it hurts terrorist feelings "Microsoft, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have pledged to remove free speech within 24 hours"
As if we need any more reasons to stop using any services of Microsoft, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/eu-hate-speech-free-speech,news-22752.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36416967
I am a translator!
This thread belongs to the troll hole. It has nothing to do with software. Take it there.
SOPA and PIPA proposals don't belong here? Then how come people could talk all day long about that here?
The reason why I condemn this EU decision is EXACTLY the same as why the Trisquel community condemned SOPA and PIPA.
I am a member!
If anybody is interested, Richard Stallman already commented on this:
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2016-mar-jun.html
"1 June 2016 (Censorship of "hate speech")
Several "US" companies have signed a pledge to censor "hate speech", which is a crime in many European countries.
This includes statements of views that are protected in the US. We must not ban expression of opinions just because we find them disgusting. "
he links to this article in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-youtube-twitter-microsoft-eu-hate-speech-code
RMS has also said that he doesn't align with what he calls "right-wing libertarian anarchists".
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/stallman-talk#comment-95157
Libertarians fail in thinking that the pretty narrow scope of free software can be indiscriminately broadened and applied to politics and economy. In essence, the libertarians mispresent the freedoms to push their political agenda which is harsh on the poor and disadvantaged who would benefit from free libre software the most.
RMS is also a supporter of Sanders.
Just because the US government is perceived obnoxious does not imply that more moderate European governments could not regulate businesses the way they wish.
My opinions (if anybody cares):
- No *speech* should ever be outlawed (what ultimately makes disgusting speech stronger with the argument: "we are right; that is why they censor us") in the public space, Internet included: anyone should be allowed to write/say whatever (s)he wants on his/her *own* site/newspaper/radio or TV channel/etc.;
- Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc. can apply, on *their* sites, any rule they want within the boundaries of the law;
- If those rules involve manual interventions to edit/add/remove content, then Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc. should be considered "editors" and be held responsible of anything written on their sites (like newspapers' editors);
- No law should ever apply to a specific set of corporations (doing so - but does it? - the EU implies that Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc. are the whole Web and in charge of its governance);
Maybe not outlawed, but what about moderation then? Sure, it all depends on the kind of moderation.
Give too much room to disgusting speech and that's all you'll end up hearing. Specially since it usually doesn't only stop at speeches.
I am a member!
Let's look at this from a different angle:
Just because a private property is located on and accessible from a public road, doesn't mean you can enter that property. If you enter that property, that does not mean that you are free to do as you please. It is still private property.
For example, the entrance to my home can be accessed from a public road. If I let you in my house and say, "You can stay as long as you are civil", then you better be civil or you can leave (actually, if you are so 'uncivil' to the point of hate speech--you might not be able to leave my house; OK OK, you'll leave...but in a pine box!)
Apply this to private websites that can be reached from public roads (the internet). You do not have to join those websites by signing up and making a promise to abide by their rules. If you do, however, why are you surprised they will exercise control of their own property and enforce the agreement you signed.
Incidentally, and this is really germane to this entire thread, here are some relevant parts of the agreement we all signed in order to be able to post on these threads:
Profanity -- Do not curse or use hard language here. Social norms differ from place to place; hard language can deter people from our community.
Incivility -- Do not insult others here. Disagree and challenge ideas instead.
Based on the following, you might be able to argue that this thread should exist in the Troll Hole. One can make a stronger argument that it shouldn't exist in these forums at all:
The forum / mailing lists exist to foster the development and use of Trisquel. Non-constructive or off-topic messages, along with other abuses, are not welcome.
Good point:
Respect among community members
Discrimination -- Do not discriminate against people based on age, gender, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion, ideology, ideas, social class, nationality, race, intelligence, or any analogous grounds.
Profanity -- Do not curse or use hard language here. Social norms differ from place to place; hard language can deter people from our community.
Incivility -- Do not insult others here. Disagree and challenge ideas instead.
Does that go against free-speech? If it does, I'm fine with that. I definitely don't mind giving so much voice to intolerant propaganda. I mean what's happening in Croatia or Poland is not something I want to encourage, even in the name of free speech.
It makes me think about that Voltaire quote. Not the one you're thinking about:
if you want to quote Voltaire on free speech, here’s something that he did write once, in his 1763 Treatise on Toleration: “The supposed right of intolerance is absurd and barbaric. It is the right of the tiger; nay, it is far worse, for tigers do but tear in order to have food, while we rend each other for paragraphs.” That’s something probably everybody on the Internet could stand to think about, ourselves included.
http://www.themarysue.com/voltaire-beatrice-evelyn-hall/
On the other hand, if it's not clearly defined, it's clearly a censorship tool.
So, what about the actual text? How loosely defined is it, in practice?
Does Tresquel 7 support RAID 1? I have a hardware RAID 1 set in an Icy
Dock 3.5" backplane with 2 SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs and have tried Intel
chips and AMD chips with the same result: Tresquel won't install. It
gets to the "Preparing to Install Trisquel" place and stops. The little
white thing will spin for as long as I let it. Ubuntu Studio 14.04 LTS
installed fine, first try, and works good. What's up with Tresquel?
Thanks. I learn a lot here and I appreciate it. I like Tresquel more
than Ubuntu and want to use it.
Does Tresquel 7 support RAID 1? I have a hardware RAID 1 set in an Icy
Dock 3.5" backplane with 2 SanDisk Extreme Pro SSDs and have tried Intel
chips and AMD chips with the same result: Tresquel won't install. It
gets to the "Preparing to Install Trisquel" place and stops. The little
white thing will spin for as long as I let it. Ubuntu Studio 14.04 LTS
installed fine, first try, and works good. What's up with Tresquel?
Thanks. I learn a lot here and I appreciate it. I like Tresquel more
than Ubuntu and want to use it.
I am a member!
Last I checked, there are hundreds of people who are viewing this site at any point in time. I wouldn't blame any of them for rejecting this community for its inability to control itself from having these polarizing discussions about politics and hate speech and the like.
For those whose attitude is: "Good, f*** 'em, they can't stand the heat--get out of the kitchen!!". Realize this:
Trisquel is a very tiny community that needs growth and can't afford to lose people that like Trisquel, but dislike unpleasant, unnecessary, totally out-of-place, political debates.
We all agreed on the terms of using these forums. While I know it is fun to be an anarchist, let's stop feeding this thread let it crawl into the corner and die like it deserves.
IMHO :)
I agree.
root_vegetable and loldier has drag me and other in this thread way too off-topic. Now let's back to the main topic. Which is EU with a new law that could and can be used to control public opinion directly in the EU and outside too indirectly.
I am a member!
"Now let's back to the main topic."
You are not listening troll. Maybe louder will help??
GO AWAY!!!
I've been here for way more time than you, I've probably helped more the cause of free software in all these years more than you.
So instead of calling me names you should show some respect.
I am a member!
"So instead of calling me names you should show some respect."
You are receiving respect in proportion to your actions. Act like a troll, get treated like a troll. You are continuing to provoke people with this topic, in the wrong forum. So my comments were appropriate.
If you have been here longer, then you should know better! You should lead by example. So this makes your actions worse, and therefore more deserving of my statements.
But I wasn't singling you out--you singled yourself out!
>"GO AWAY!!!"
>"I wasn't singling you out
Don't you love people who just lie straight out?
I don't know why you have it against me and only me. But I'm not about to capitulate.
This EU rule is not much different than SOPA, PIPA and the other harmful proposals that we condemn right here in the Trisquel forum (of course you don't remember because you weren't here then).
I am a member!
"I agree [with you, let's stop this thread]"
"...Now let's back to the main topic [and not stop this thread!]."
Oh, I see. You agree with me about stopping the thread, and then immediately try to restart it!!!
I'd actually be offended at your calling me a liar if you weren't so hypocritical.
Notice I didn't mention you at all until you responded to my call to end the thread with 'ok, let us start all of this over again from the beginning'
So I was not lying at all. Pay attention now as I explain it slowly:
1.) You singled yourself out as a troll and
2.) I told you to go away.
Q.E.D.
If this stuff stays in the Troll Hole, let 'em have their fun. :p
Problem is it doesn't, and people post this stuff in the main forum. The heck, mates? Don' t do that!
hate speech is defined by the EU as including ‘incitement to hatred’, which is both circular and so vague as to mean almost anything.
What this means is lawyers can use this loophole to give their own interpretation on whats hate speech and use it on their advantage to ban almost anything.
That would be the legal system being used (again) for the interests of a few rather than truth and justice for everyone.
Is this all you got about this law? Any source, something? Anyway, I second this thread to at least be moved to the Troll hole. It has nothing to do with Trisquel or free software.
Does SOPA and PIPA has neither to has anything with trisquel?
Because I remember very well that people here could talks abut that endlessly.
You mean those things about copyright infringement and intellectual property? By definition, they fit free software way more than that "imaginary" EU bill. But let's say it does belong in the main forum for a second, because I'd like you to answer the other part of my statement.
I say "Imaginary" because this is the 3rd time I'm pointing out that the discussion revolves around nothing concrete.
Would you care to provide some actual sources?
Because I don't see the point of going on if it's a philosophical debate about the concept of free speech.
The free software movement (free in bold because you seem to be legally blind) cares about freedom of computing, and freedom in general too. Freedom of speech is something rms (for instance) has a long history of advocacy. Also, when SOPA and PIPA came people had fear that it could become an instrument of censorship and even more massive surveillance. Just the same as I'm fearing too this could become in a future.
Since I'm blinded by your brilliance (at avoiding to present sources), please help me find actual proof of what you're saying about that EU bill. Because I still don't see a damn source.
Since you want to bring RMS in:
When people talk about punishing "hate speech", they advocate censorship of opinions. Censorship is dangerous to society and democracy.
And I can't disagree with that, yet I'd tell him that unrestricted free speech is just as dangerous to society and democracy.
https://stallman.org/archives/2016-mar-jun.html#3_June_2016_%28Censorship_in_the_UK%29
And here's a source about that EU thing you're talking about:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/hate_speech_code_of_conduct_en.pdf
You remind me of that Demolition Man movie which is Manichean (and extreme) as possible, in freedom and its opposite.
It's all about balance, it's not all or nothing. It's contextual, not the same concept you apply "as is" any time, anywhere.
The IT Companies also share the European Commission
's
and EU Member States'
com
mitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the
Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and
expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws
transpos
ing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a
group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion,
descent or national or ethnic origin. The IT Companies and the European Commis
sion also
stress the need to defend the right to freedom of expression, which, as the European Court of
Human Rights has stated, “is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are
favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of i
ndifference, but also to those
that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”
.
1
This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What matters is HOW they intend to do it.
That's the difference between theory (or good intentions) and practice.
Yea, I'm against laws that prohibit hate-speech or try to regulate it.
The EU's bill sounds terrible to me...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
See the limitations part.
Also I find interesting that the right to privacy (which I value a whole lot) is a restriction of free speech. Depending on the context (as nearly always), I'm perfectly fine with that.
Allowing unrestricted free speech is at least as dangerous as heavily restricted free speech. Like many things in real life, it's too complex to just be either all black or all white, but more like shades of grey.
That's doesn't change the fact that this EU law (as many others) is just plain wrong.
What EU law? I still don't see any source, therefore I can hardly judge whether it's right or wrong.
Of course there are and should be limitations on free speech-- hate speech shouldn't be one of them, though.
Prohibiting hate speech seems like discounting or ignoring human fallibility to me. As much as something expressed can be completely repulsive (Westboro, etc) those expressing it could-- however microscopic of a chance there is-- be correct in the long run. Preventing the discourse of an idea that may-- no matter how small the chance-- be correct, is wrong.
I see what you mean. But I don't see how hate speech has even a remote chance to be correct, anywhere, at any time.
Let me rephrase that: I don't see how "attacks on a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation" can potentially be the correct way to go, in any context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
I'm still thinking about this by the way. But right now I don't see how hate speech deserves a free pass. Specially when seeing the amount of it on the web.
EDIT: My answer is obviously for JadedCtrl.
Good point!
What concerns me, though, is how "hate speech" could be considered differently from different people.
Namely, different political parties. I'm a tad bit worried that hate speech laws could be twisted by the party in power at the time for censorship.
Some states in the EU have such laws-- anyone happen to know if they have protections put in place to help prevent the party in power from doing such a thing?
I don't see which kind of european law you're referring to, but I agree that if there's a chance of distorting the meaning of a badly defined law, it will be distorted.
In a nutshell (focusing on hate speech for simplicity),
censoring it feels obvious because it's so wrong that anyone opposing would have to fight through rhetorical attacks to maybe get his point across.
This is what happened with political correctness.
It's only an extension of that, if I'm not mistaken.
The problem I have with it is that it's way too easy to distort the original non PC but valid argument with pure unadulterated hate speech. Sometimes, the timing and repetition in prime time television is enough to make a valid argument look like hate speech.
And this is only enhanced by the current economic climate.
Zero intervention and hoping for auto-regulation won't likely go toward less prejudice.
But it has to be done precisely. A loosely defined law is not an accident, since vocabulary used for writing laws is so precise (it has to be).
Then there's the point of state regulation and auto-regulation. I have no answer right now, that's a huge and old debate. I'd tend towards some degree of state control because at least, you can be sure it will be applied to all, though it doesn't come with upsides only. But I find it weird that these american companies comply with a State law. I mean, as far as I know (not far), that's not really the american way, right? Or at least, not the Silicon Valley way.
Anyway, putting the last point aside for a sec,
Let's say the law has good intent, but is only some kind of trojan horse.
How to go against it?
I have no idea of the history of such laws, if they usually pass or not.
All I know is that those SOPA/PIPA didn't pass, but there was at least one attempt to make it pass discretely, or repackaged, I don't remember.
And these attempts most likely won't ever stop. I really don't know a thing about this stuff.
Hello Good Morning Trisquelians ;-)
I watched this thread with my coffe & croissants yesterday morning and well back to it this morning..;-)
so i'll just do a " Revue de presse"
EFF on the subjet 18hrs ago
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/european-commissions-hate-speech-deal-companies-will-chill-speech
European Press Release Data
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm
http://www.euractiv.com/section/social-europe-jobs/opinion/hate-speech-in-the-european-parliament/
European Court of Justice of Human Rights
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf
This law is yet another step further into shaping public opinion & controlling dissent
This law encourages IT companies to to educate and raise awareness with their users about the types of content not permitted under their rules and community guidelines. The use of the notification system could be used as a tool to do this
I defend Freedom and value the right to free speech for anyone whatever his or her opinion
I fear that this law will mostly target activist that fight for justice or try and raise public awareness
(many a times public resistance is towards these very same corporate interests)
...uh
cofees cold
.......
I want to remark something from your first link
>"despite a lengthy negotiation between companies and the Commission, “hate speech” remains vaguely-defined. Companies have been tasked with taking the lead on determining what constitutes hate speech, with potentially disastrous results."
>"speech that is permitted by companies’ terms of service is often removed, with users given few paths to recourse. Users report experiencing bans from Facebook for 24 hours to up to 30 days if the company determines they’ve violated the Community Standards—which, in many cases, the user has not. Requiring companies to review complaints within 24 hours will almost surely result in the removal of speech that would be legal in Europe."
They will use this new tool given by the EU to remove pacific, well thought, free speech. Take a screencap of this, it WILL happen because YOU (generic you) allowed.
(With "YOU" I mean generic you, meaning, everyone who did not act. Not you Mangy Dog, you're pretty cool :)
>"This law is yet another step further into shaping public opinion & controlling dissent"
[...]
>"I fear that this law will mostly target activist that fight for justice or try and raise public awareness
(many a times public resistance is towards these very same corporate interests)"
A very justified fear based on past experience. Here's a little transcript from CentaurX00's video link:
From 01:43 to 02:36
"At a public campus in California, on Constitution Day in 2013 (September 17, 2013).
A student who also happens to be a decorated military veteran, was told he can not hand out the Constitution to his fellow students.
The objection from the university was NOT ideological it was out-of-control bureaucracy.
That same day another college student in that same state was told he can not protest NSA surveillance outside of a tiny "free speech zone", an area that comprise only 1.3% of the campus.
Months later class students in Hawaii where told both they could not hand out the Constitution to their fellow students.
And that the could not protest NSA policies outside the school's "free speech zone"."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vVohGWhMWs
This law is yet another step further into shaping public opinion & controlling dissent
This is a major clamp down on Freedom of expression and joins the
Directive on Terrorism: The European Parliament against our freedoms
https://www.laquadrature.net/en/terrorisme-directive-european-parliament-against-liberties
The European Commission is a known slave of the establishment.
"European Commission enabling blockade of WikiLeaks by U.S. hard-right Lieberman/King, contrary to European Parliament’s wishes" 27 November 2012
https://wikileaks.org/European-Commission-enabling.html
They will use this as an excuse to delete and try to occult messages of alert about establishment's abuse of power.
That's right, in the surface they will lie straight out and say "we are all for peace" when in reality all they care is to keep you controlled, stupid and docile. So they can they advantage of you.
Hi! I've moved this thread to the just-renamed "The troll lounge", mostly because even though it has provided interesting conversation, its tone and content has sometimes been too off-topic to stay at the trisquel-users forum.
The renaming of "the forum previously known as the troll hole" has been performed to recognize the fact that quite a lot of non-trolling and interesting conversation happens there; we could also have renamed it just "off-topic", but what would be the fan in that?
I know what discrimination is, but i think freedom of expression is more important, and also i think no one should own the internet, i've been discriminated all of my life because of my economic status (mainly) because of my sexual orientation and even by doctors because i have De la Chapelle's syndrome, even with all of that i think people should be able to say whatever they want and write whatever they like, because they arent hurting anyone, those are just words, you CAN ignore them, it only hurts if their words fits you (and also if you think is wrong being the way you are) EVERYONE should be able to defend their points of view, this is a good example of internet censorship, and it IS WRONG to prevent someone from expressing just because "it offends you"
I agree with you .
Of course most people disaprove "hate speach"
But this is the the tree that hides the forest(the law in the links i posted above)
https://www.accessnow.org/edri-access-now-withdraw-eu-commission-forum-discussions/
This means that this “agreement” between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech
Opinion formation on social media: An empirical approach
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/chaos/24/1/10.1063/1.4866011
How Twitter Shapes Public Opinion
https://www.aip.org/publishing/journal-highlights/how-twitter-shapes-public-opinion
As much as I disagree that hate speech is something to ignore and let happen, I can agree that such censorship, since it's coming from the GAFAM and backed up by the EU, isn't something to welcome, no matter how ethical it sounds like on paper.
I believe the real issue is about control of what really gets censored or not. And that's impossible: Fecesbook already manipulates what's displayed on the used wall.
Having the legal benediction of the EU means making that manipulation easier, and basically throwing away the legal ways to fight back.
So in this situation, I hate to admit that their censorship of hate speech is logically BS.
But that doesn't mean I wouldn't fight hate speech as a general rule whenever I can.
It's not "just words":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse
But as answered to Mangy Dog, in the case of this law, I agree that freedom of spech comes first, though it's already partly irrelevant since the GAFAM (at least Fecesbook) can an does censor and manipulate the displayed content.
Hate speech is a Orwellian term of Newspeak.
By censoring what people say and putting the lid on will only create more problems. If people arent allowed to say what they feel it will be suppressed and it will come out other ways. Just look in Europe and Sweden if you say things that isnt political correct you can get an axe in the door by the establishments useful idiots called AntiFA. People in Sweden are fed up by the corruption here but Swedes are the biggest pussies in the entire world and are very afraid to say anything. The government has taken care of the swedes and swedes have become docile but now swedes are noticing that government has changed and they are now forced to take care of them self. Governments priorities have changed rapidly last years. The corruption stared to come to the surface some years ago when second biggest down got the name "Muteborg" (Bribe town). Swedes didnt think that corruption existed in sweden, at least 60+ docile group.
But more people are now starting to get fed up by all this PC crap and the corrupt establishment. Brexit... Polls now show that Brexit leave will win but the establishment do not want Britain want to leave collapsing EU/European Dictatorship and will probably be a vote fraud. Look at "Brexit The Movie" and look how fucked up EU is.
Why I think people vote for Trump is because people are fed up will politicians who just lie over and over again. Trump is like fresh air in the political area, but I think if he win he will be assassinated. People do not vote for Trump because what is saying but he is the only alternative the corrupt establishment. This is why right wing groups are popping up everywhere because they are the only "real" alternative to the establishment. People are fed up about being bullied by their government. It will get a lot worse 2017 and 2018. Brexit now, then US in november, then France and Germany next year. 2/3 of Germany want Merkel gone.
Why the hate speech and other censorship tools I think is to keep the lid on the people but they will not succeed. We are now living in the collapse of western world and socialism (collective the makes the individual smaller.).
Just open your eyes... Would you now go in to debt and feel safe for the future 10-20 years? The euro going down and will die. Maybe not in 1 or 2 years but maybe 5-10 years down it will be dead.
(How can people defend the psychopath and mass murderer Lenin? Do people believe the false version of this guy. A lot of information now comes out how evil communism in Soviet was and most people dont know jack shit because that information isnt thought in school of mass media in the west, but on former occupied countries by Soviet. But this isnt political correct what I just did write here because it hurts peoples feeling who identify as communists.)
Note:
We all know we can trust Wikipedia. Especially on areas the establishment dont like the truth.
I am a member!
Banning words gives them power. People should realise that "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me," is the absolute truth.
The only people who are really scared of words are the Dutroux defending, unelected, Gladio gangster criminals who make EU law. (And obviously all the other politicians;)).
The fact that such law is defended by companies that abuse their power definitely makes it fishy (no pun intended). So I can't logically back up this specific law anymore.
Yet, as a general rule, words have an effect:
I your parents told you every single day from your early childhood that you're worthless/a moron etc. vs encouraging words, you can expect different results.
And giving so much unrestrained room to hate speech like it can ever be the way to go (definitely useful for political manipulation though, but it's a dangerous game, History showed us) makes me think of another saying: "silence is consent".
And when I see so much room given for hate speech, I wonder who a so-called completely unrestrained freedom of speech serves.
Either you fight hate speech, or you encourage it (specially when you abuse the purpose for your interests, like the EU/GAFAM are attempting to).
Letting it grow like it has no effect or like it's harmless is dangerous.
There is such a thing as not enough and too much free speech. And the right amount isn't necessarily in the middle. The more, the better. Yet there is such a thing as too much (so-called) free speech.
I am a member!
The late great comedian, Lenny Bruce, did a short bit on the power of words concluding with an important point. The first link is to an audio recording of the actual Lenny Bruce doing the bit. The second is a video from the movie "Lenny" where Dustin Hoffman plays Lenny Bruce doing the same bit:
Well, until such words become associated with something positive or neutral at best, there's a looong way to go.
Plus in the video, the name calling was fairly distributed.
I doubt that it would have had the same effect if Bruce or Hoffman have sticked to "n****r" (the focus, the insistence on the target makes a difference. If everyone is treated the same way, that's not discrimination anymore,I suppose).
And if it's not this or that word, there will be another.
Mankind won't stop discriminating just because one word lost its meaning. And sometimes it's not even the words, it's the insistence of describing the others as demeaning stereotypes.
Hate speech can be lowkey, and often is, actually.
But fighting it properly isn't an easy task.
The political attempts I know about that had the intent to fight against discrimination were always using that goal as a decoy.
I am a member!
The point was that as a society we should work on depriving these words of their power. The example was that if the President of the US would throw these words around ad absurdum then these words would not be as hurtful.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- seguinte ›
- última »
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios