EU: All your internet are belong to us
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
I am a member!
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
If neo-nazis march through your town shouting hate speech, and everybody is on vacation and the news does not cover the story, did the neo-nazis cause hate with this march?
A big part of the problem is that we help the hate speakers and promote their speech when we publicize it. Now, you may say that it is hard, sometimes impossible, to ignore it. Let's consider two examples:
1.) Hate crime committed by spray painting hate speech on a building.
Here there is the crime of damaging property. The laws will give a harsher sentence because it is a hate crime. But we should not take photos/videos of the 'painting'--that just spreads hate speech. It is free advertising for the hate speaker.
2.) Hateful 'speech', blog post, etc...
There is no clear crime here. If anything, denying the person their right to say those things is a crime. The best thing is to ignore the speaker. Don't publicize him on TV or the Internet. If he makes posts, however, a good solution is to mark these as hate speech and require a person to agree if they want to view it. This is a big difference from doing nothing. The people putting out this filth want it to reach everybody. They want it to reach people who don't want to hear it/see it. This way, they only reach the people who do want to hear it/see it.
I can agree with you from a technical point of view.
But most journalists, and politicians would jump at the occasion respectively sell or to manipulate the voters.
I mean, it's not gonna happen. It's one noisy tree.
It indeed has no power if it's not spread around.
A big part of the problem is that we help the hate speakers and promote their speech when we publicize it.
Exactly. And I agree that too much talk about it can do that the wrong way. But I'm still convinced that letting it go uncontrolled would do that too.
Mainly because it's a powerful tool to manipulate public opinion. And this works also with those who fight discrimination since even me (without further inquiry) was agreeing with that EU law at first.
I am a member!
Censorship on "trusted" news sources https://off-guardian.org/category/censored-on-cif/
Curious youtube comment censorship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbwbuUTpmO8
Google search manipulation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg
The problem with any censorship is who wields the eraser. I'd like to think that as an adult I can make up my own mind who I listen to. If I'm not allowed to make up my own mind and I am deprived of information then my opinion is being shaped. That is bad.
Even if I am led up a path that turns out to be a dead end or full of brambles, I would still appreciate the freedom to be led up that path!
I mostly agree here.
The only thing is, many people can't make up their own mind,
even out of the smarter/more educated people. Propaganda works. Rethorical devices work, mass disinformation works.
Many people don't bother with really seeking the truth for many reasons.
I am a member!
There are a few confusions here. First I never said I agreed with the law in question. Second, I am not recommending censorship. To label a post as hate speech and simply require somebody to click "OK, I understand I am about to read something that some people may find offensive" is NOT censorship. Censorship means that I am preventing or even discouraging people from consuming the hate speech. My suggestion does not do that. It puts it behind a labelled door that anybody can easily access just by clicking "OK". A two-year-old could click OK and see/hear hate speech. But they have to click "OK". It simply gives a warning. Warning people that they might not like what they are about to read/hear/see is not censorship--it is just a warning. I don't believe that this is the point behind the EU law we are discussing. They want to prevent people from getting to the information. Mine just puts a cover on it with a sign that says 'hate speech underneath this cover, remove the cover if you want and don't remove it if you do not want'. It is like some websites that label certain content "adult content" and require an extra step before people can view it. They may actually limit who can consume that 'adult' material; My advice is that hate speech is open to anybody that is warned first. There is not a court in the world, or even a free speech advocacy group in the world, that would object to my suggestion on the grounds of free speech.
I agree that preventing access is wrong.
Warning and discouraging are indeed different from one another:
Warning is supposed to warn people that they're about to watch something potentially offensive.
Discouraging could take many forms, from strong to mild discouraging.
Maybe such a simple warning could hurt hateful propaganda, but I doubt it. I don't know really, just thinking out loud.
I am a member!
I would have grave concerns over who labelled what "hate speech". For example it is becoming prevalent that any criticism of Israel is considered anti-Semitic.
A commenter on this post alleges that even mentioning the words "John Pilger" will get your comments removed from the Guardian's Comment Is Free section https://off-guardian.org/2016/02/16/btl-censorship-at-the-guardian-again/
I am very concerned that the war-mongering, land mine salesman, who have such a grip on this world, it's media and governments, will be the ones most likely to wield the eraser.
Speaking of John Pilger this is a very relevant article. http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepares-for-war
I am a member!
Also I think that a warning button is censorship. When told that you are about to view hate speech many people will not click it and will never make up there own mind. In my opinion creating a button is the same as censorship.
Yes, it has an effect, but still having access to it is a huge difference from 100% censorship.
I am a member!
"When told that you are about to view hate speech many people will not click it and will never make up there own mind."
So they can make up their mind about what is and what is not hate speech, but they can't make up their mind to press a button or not???
That does not make sense at all. You are giving people very little credit. People can think for themselves, they are not going to avoid reading something just because somebody else says that it is hate speech.
Regarding who decides what is and what is not hate speech, that is easy: The owner of the site. On one site something may be deemed hate speech and on another it will not be deemed so.
By your reasoning, it would be censorship if moderators of a site would move a thread from a main section to a 'troll hole' section. People won't read it because it is in a 'troll hole'. Give me a break! Your philosophy treats people as morons who can't decide anything for themselves.
By your reasoning, if you are at a news stand, they should put pornography right out front next to the NY Times. That it is censorship if they put it in the back where people can see only the title of the magazine. People won't ask to see the pornography if they can see that it is in the back. They will be afraid to look at it. So instead, let's put a magazine cover that is filled with genitalia and harsh images right in front of the face of a child that is walking by. That is freedom of speech: Having a photo of somebody's erection pointing right at the faces of the children that walk by the news stand.
You can avoid censorship and have common sense too. Putting a dialog up that requires a person to click "OK" is not censorship. Support your position. Show me anyone that agrees that requiring a person to click "OK" is censorship.
I am a member!
What I am saying is that if you do not want to view hate speech, you will not click a button that says 'this post may contain hate speech'.
However the decision to employ this button is given to who? The button may well be hiding something which is not hate speech.
An owner of a site can already decide what they feel is suitable or not and delete it appropriately.
A law will provide a decree by which government can tell an individual who owns a website what is hate speech and what is not.
Any website owner is free to put whatever buttons they want on it.
The question I have with your suggestion is what websites/blogs would this button appear on and who would have the authority to put it there?
Yeah, I wouldn't be too fond of being ordered by the state to put a button on my website labeling what I say as "hate speech" and asking them to confirm that they really want to see it. It would basically be a mandate to tell everyone not to listen to me, and it could even necessitate JavaScript use, which I am against in that context.
Also, consider the amount of resources that would have to be poured into such a project, and the fact that it's going to fail anyway.
Adults should be able to handle seeing things they don't like on the Internet. Children, maybe not, but sheltering children from things that might disturb them is both the decision and the responsibility of their parents. They can install an Internet filter, or they can even not permit their children to use the computer without supervision if they are especially concerned. They don't need the state's help.
They already put the cookie consent button on web pages and made it practically mandatory.
http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#section_4
Yeah, I sometimes see that getting in my way while using Tor, and it really bugs me. Whose brilliant idea was it to force websites to do something that Web browsers can already do on their own, in the process basically mandating JavaScript dependencies?
>Whose brilliant idea was it to force websites to do something that Web browsers can already do...<
Probably the same person who devised the "choose your browser" popup and shoved it down Microsoft's throat. They must think people are either not aware there are other browsers than IE, or they are incapable of downloading and installing a browser of their own choice.
I am a member!
I was not talking about the state, I was talking about the owners of the websites. If you don't like it, go to another site.
YouTube already does this. They tell you if a certain video contains material that might be offensive.
If you want to prevent people from using websites with Javascript, you will stop them from using 90% of the World's websites. In fact, all of this would be irrelevant, since all of the websites that are targeted require Javascript. If people don't use Javascript, they don't use those sites anyway. If they do use Javascript as part of using those sites, then the addition of this feature has no bearing.
Also, there is a difference between the state making mandates regarding a handful of gargantuan sites that reach so many people that they are used as platforms for hate speech, and the state mandating that all websites should do this. You can say, "yeah, well, that is next." That does not follow since they are not at all the same thing.
"Adults should be able to handle seeing things they don't like on the Internet."
There is variability in the World. You cannot reduce all 'Adults' to one picture you have in your mind. What about people with PTSD? They shouldn't use the internet because they might see something that hurts them? How about people that faint at the site of blood? Aww, they should just get over it, right? That is pretty strict for someone who is advocating freedom of choice.
They can just use filters, right? OK, so you are advocating that sites like Facebook and Microsoft give people the option of using filters?! Who decides what gets filtered and what does not? My suggestion is less strict since you can still see the title of the video or post and decide whether or not it is worth taking a chance on clicking OK. With a filter, you completely depend on the people making the filter.
> What about people with PTSD? They shouldn't use the internet because they might see something that hurts them?
If it's so bad that the consequences of seeing something they might see on the Internet are really so drastic, then maybe. If you are an adult who suffers from such a crippling disability, you know this and probably figured out how to deal with it years ago. The point is, as an adult, your problems are your responsibility.
> How about people that faint at the site of blood? Aww, they should just get over it, right?
I don't know what someone who would faint just by seeing a picture of blood should do. Clearly, they should never watch any TV shows or movies rated above G or TV-Y. Even children's shows (TV-Y7 or PG rated) are able to show small amounts of blood. But in any case, someone with such a crippling disability, who is an adult, is ultimately responsible for dealing with that problem.
And that's the thing: we all have things we have to deal with, some minor and some severe. But society can't bend over backwards to make sure that everyone lands on a comfortable pillow; there are too many different issues like this for that to be even remotely feasible, and it would require suppressing essential liberties. As adults, we all are ultimately responsible for dealing with our own problems. That includes getting help if we need it.
> They can just use filters, right? OK, so you are advocating that sites like Facebook and Microsoft give people the option of using filters?!
No, I was talking about Internet filters that you can install on your computer. Usually they prevent pages that have certain keywords from being displayed, and they are intended to stop children from seeing things like porn.
> Who decides what gets filtered and what does not?
The parents of the child do, because it's their computer and they are the ones who set up the filtering software.
I am a member!
It is a nice way to simplify the World's problems: reduce them all to issues of personal responsibility. Sadly, onpon4, the World is not simple. It is filled with variability, complexity, paradoxes, and contradictions. This is why it is hard to find an example of a society of pure anything (capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, libertarianism, etc...) It is because of those pesky exceptions. How convenient it would be if we could dismiss any counter-examples to the 'personal responsibility' thesis you propound, with a, "that is merely an exception to the rule". Yet when you do, sure as the day is long, another one comes along to interfere with that slick and simplistic "it is about personal responsibility". You need a philosophy that is flexible enough to handle all of the realities of the World.
This is a bunch of weasel words. There is no refutation here to anything I said.
I am a member!
"The point is, as an adult, your problems are your responsibility."
"an adult, is ultimately responsible for dealing with that problem."
"As adults, we all are ultimately responsible for dealing with our own problems."
You accuse me of weasel words, yet you are using weasel ideas. You are punctuating your sentences with this concept as though it is self-evident. Plenty of people disagree with these statements you are asserting about individual responsibility. Since your entire argument depends on that, my counter-argument takes the form of calling your assumptions into question.
The onus is not on me to refute the idea you are asserting about individual responsibility. It sounds nice, but to just say it and then claim I have to refute it assumes that it is intrinsically true. Bear in mind that the correctness of ideas are not decided by what is popular in the Trisquel forums.
> Plenty of people disagree with these statements you are asserting about individual responsibility.
Even if that is true, so what? "People disagree with you" is not an argument.
> Since your entire argument depends on that, my counter-argument takes the form of calling your assumptions into question.
Why not refute this "assumption" (which is in fact not an assumption, but an assertion) if it is incorrect?
> The onus is not on me to refute the idea you are asserting about individual responsibility. It sounds nice, but to just say it and then claim I have to refute it assumes that it is intrinsically true.
Are you suggesting that everyone, by default, is incapable of personal autonomy? Because if that is the case, I don't know how any society can possibly run. After all, the government is controlled by people who, you are suggesting, are incapable of personal autonomy, and thus need to be propped up by others.
I'm sorry, but this idea is absurd.
And this is not a case of me making a claim that you are not accepting. You are the one who made the claim that the Internet should be constructed to shelter people from things like images of blood, and now you seem to be making the claim that all people need to be sheltered and assisted by the entire world. Pointing out the individual responsibility of adults was part of my refutation of your claim, and a counter-claim.
If it makes you feel better, feel free to carry on believing that adults need to be treated like children. But don't pretend that this is a null hypothesis. It is not. When discussing how a society should be run, there is no null hypothesis.
I am a member!
"Why not refute this "assumption" (which is in fact not an assumption, but an assertion) if it is incorrect?"
It is difficult to refute anything with the complexity of what we are discussing. But given your comment earlier about assertions, it is you who needs to prove your assertion. At least attempt proving it, and then I will attempt refuting it.
"Are you suggesting that everyone, by default, is incapable of personal autonomy? "
Saying I disagree with a blanket statement regarding everyone having personal responsibility, is not the same as saying I believe nobody does. This whole concept you have that either everybody is capable of personal autonomy or nobody is, is two-dimensional. There are lots of possibilities in between. Perhaps it is this all-or-nothing reasoning of yours that suggests to you that these issues are subject to refutations.
"You are the one who made the claim that the Internet should be constructed to shelter people from things like images of blood, and now you seem to be making the claim that all people need to be sheltered and assisted by the entire world."
I never said the Internet should be constructed to shelter people...This is you simplifying, generalizing, and using all-or-nothing thinking again. I merely suggested putting the letters HS at the beginning of a link. This does not shelter anything. Any more than putting up road signs, or signs on doors, is sheltering people. The link is totally open and you can read the title--it just has a little sign added to it, not on top of it, not covering it. For instance:
HS gttp://yyy.neo nazis paint racist message on town hall.com HS
Previously I suggested that there should be a pop-up warning the user they are about to see hate speech. You correctly pointed out a potential issue with Javascript, so I made this prefix/suffix to links suggestion instead.
In the above case, it is easy enough to tell by the link's title that it will be about hate speech. There are links were this is not so obvious. Like there might be a link to a thread filled with posts, several of which are inundated with hate speech. The link might not reveal that. By adding an HS to the beginning and end (or some other useful marking) this makes it clear.
It was an innocuous suggestion that could help mitigate some of the disagreements on these issues. I would have no problem giving the user the option of turning this feature off. Just like ixquick has a family filter on by default and you can turn it off in the settings if you want. Personally, I don't like that and it is one reason why I don't use ixquick very often. But that is me, obviously ixquick thought that more people would prefer it on by default. But even if these large companies under discussion are forced to make such markings standard, it hardly threatens some 'personal authority' foundation of society. Any more than adding more road signs would do so. Want to ignore the road signs when you drive, or not read the signs on the doors you enter/exit, that is your prerogative.
> I merely suggested putting the letters HS at the beginning of a link.
Yeah, "merely" check every single link that ever gets posted and make a decision on whether or not the link is to "hate speech". And for what reason? Because you presume that all...
> There are lots of possibilities in between.
OK, most adults need to be treated like children.
I am a member!
"OK, most adults need to be treated like children."
I didn't say that either. Once again, you had stated that everyone has to assume personal responsibility. My point was that it is not everyone I never said that I was speaking in terms of the opposite of your view.
Your all-or-nothing thinking assumes I must either completely agree with you or completely disagree with you. Neither are true. I disagree that these issues are reducible to just this dimension of personal responsibility. That is all.
It is nice to imagine that all the World's problems are binary, yes-or-no, in nature. I have noticed a tendency among some people in this community to think in those terms. Perhaps there are a disproportionate number of gamers that have a zero-sum mentality. Perhaps thinking about one issue--software--in absolute terms, promotes absolute thinking elsewhere. Or perhaps people who think in absolute terms elsewhere, are drawn to the free software community. It is a chicken-and-egg conundrum.
Regardless, much as you want to debate me in these simplistic terms, I will not oblige. Flesh your ideas out, give sources, and I will debate. Don't be surprised, however, if we agree on many things in the process. I don't have to believe that everything you say is wrong and make you my enemy, just because I disagree with you on many issues. I also agree with you on many issues. Especially when it comes to issues of free software. In fact, on those issues I often look to you for guidance. What we are discussing now is a much larger issue, much larger than the free software issue.
> Your all-or-nothing thinking assumes I must either completely agree with you or completely disagree with you.
And you are not even responding to my actual points. You're too dead-set on the idea that you are aware of nuances that I am not to actually tell me what is wrong with any of the arguments I have made. I'm sorry, but I don't think it should be necessary for me to explain every single possible nuance. If it is a nuance that destroys my argument, you should tell me what that nuance is.
> Flesh your ideas out, give sources, and I will debate.
Give sources for what? That I think adults should take responsibility for their own issues? This isn't science we're talking about here. There is no objective truth to be found. All sources can prove is popularity of a position, and popularity does not make a position correct.
I am a member!
"There is no objective truth to be found."
OK, so no proof is possible and no refutation is possible. Stalemate.
"you are not even responding to my actual points."
You have made one point and applied it throughout your arguments--Every person should accept personal responsibility. Less government is best, and so on.
This is a normative, not empirical, statement--as you've pointed out. So that is your opinion about what you should do and what others should do. It has the same logical import as saying that you like oranges better than any other food and you think everybody else should like them better than any other food too. Why? You don't provide reasons why oranges are better than any other food. You feel you should take "personal responsibility" and you think others should take "personal responsibility" OK, so? So what? You don't give reasons why we should prefer your "personal responsibility" calculus above other ways of handling an issue.
For us to explore this we would have to debate a dozen topics at the very least. For instance, I'll go out on a limb and give you something concrete for you to sink your teeth into, how does your personal responsibility philosophy handle the issue of public healthcare?
> how does your personal responsibility philosophy handle the issue of public healthcare?
It isn't a "philosophy", but regardless, it doesn't. Universal healthcare is the best option because:
1. Private insurance doesn't work all that well. It is inefficient and results in many people being uninsured, meaning they have to pay for health care out of pocket. Additionally, of those that are insured, many have absurdly high deductibles, which makes having the insurance not much better than being completely uninsured.
2. The poor simply cannot pay for the costs of health care by themselves.
3. Those who cannot afford to pay for health care will not, because they can't. Therefore, someone else will have to pick up the cost; that's everyone else, through even higher health care costs and insurance premiums.
4. Tying health care to employment is completely stupid, because it discourages empoloyers from hiring more people full-time.
5. Diseases can spread. Therefore, it is beneficial to everyone for fewer people to have diseases. When you have to pay to get treated for anything, you are less likely to do so, meaning you are more likely to put others at risk in this way.
You'll notice that none of this has anything to do with personal responsibility. It is imperative for the health of all citizens to be taken care of because health is a public matter, and because private insurance and uninsurance are a terrible burden on the economy. In other words, it's about how it affects the public, not about how it affects one individual.
I am a member!
"It is imperative for the health of all citizens to be taken care of because health is a public matter, and because private insurance and uninsurance are a terrible burden on the economy. In other words, it's about how it affects the public, not about how it affects one individual."
Point well-stated and point well-taken.
As I stated earlier, I could debate you on your statements regarding "personal responsibility". However, we have drifted far from the point of this thread. The way I would summarize our discussion is as follows:
1.) We disagreed--and still disagree-about the use of some kind of marking on links to alert people that it contains hate speech
-a- Your basic points are that it is impractical to accomplish and is fundamentally wrong on ideological grounds (i.e. people should take responsibility for their navigating of the internet and do not need anybody to evaluate material in advance to protect them, as though they were children, from any subject matter on the web.
-b- My main points are that it is not impractical, keywords/filters can be used, and, more importantly, it provides guidance , it doesn't cost anything, and it doesn't hide anything from anybody or prevent anybody from viewing anything
2.) A lot of talking about talking, and a focus on a particular point regarding people with PTSD and people who are afraid of blood (and I agree that this second category is probably a little ridiculous, even though my aim was just to point out some examples of possible exceptions).
-a- Your main point was that these 'exceptions' can be dismissed on the grounds of personal responsibility (see point 1a)
-b- My main point was that your use of 'personal responsibility' is too simple a calculus for deciding such complex matters
(1) You think it is not complex and that it isn't a calculus and that it is as simple as people taking responsibility for their actions
Feel free to correct my summary where you think it is incorrect. What is left to debate is:
1.) Is it easy or difficult to implement some kind of hate speech marking system?
2.) Is it ideologically wrong to even have a marking system?
3.) How does the idea of "personal responsibility" fit into these issues?
Point 3 can take us a very long time to debate effectively. Point 1 is the easiest to come to some understanding about, but as it depends on point 2, that must be addressed first.
This leaves point 2, which basically takes us back to the starting point of the thread! For me, I didn't feel it necessary to determine whether or not a marking system is right or wrong on fundamental grounds. That is because I think a marking system has no real risk and is easy to implement. So if that prevents censorship, why not try it first. You have made a determination about a marking system on fundamental grounds--you've decided that it is wrong. So there isn't much for us to discuss in a productive way on this particular subject (the subject of a marking system).
I am a member!
"What I am saying is that if you do not want to view hate speech, you will not click a button that says 'this post may contain hate speech'."
Freedom of choice, I like it.
"However the decision to employ this button is given to who? The button may well be hiding something which is not hate speech."
Again, you assume that nobody is going to choose to click 'OK'. There will be many people who click 'OK' and they will complain if they see abuse of the system. The site owners will provide a list of what things will get labelled hate speech. If they violate their own list, the people that cilcked 'OK' will let the world know. If they are consistent with their own list, then people know what to expect if they click 'OK'.
"An owner of a site can already decide what they feel is suitable or not and delete it appropriately."
This is as much possible without rules about hate speech as it is with the rules. So it is not relevant to my suggestion.
"A law will provide a decree by which government can tell an individual who owns a website what is hate speech and what is not."
Labelling and censorship are not the same thing. This is a XXX movie. Nobody is stopping you from buying it, but they are warning people who do not want to see such movies. People who don't want to see such movies can see them if they want to, with or without the label.
I know what is bothering you. "Who decides what is XXX and what is XX and what is X and what is R and what is PG..." The answer is that there is a group of people that give movies ratings. Now, the guidelines can be vague. Some people will go to a PG movie and say, "that should have been R" Some people will go to an R movie and say, "that should have been PG". Here is the point: If that happens a lot, people will see that the ratings (labels) are not that reliable and they won't pay much attention to them--They will click 'OK' anyway. On the other hand, if they ARE reliable labels, then people who do not want to see certain things can choose not to see them. That is their right.
I am a member!
The question I have with your suggestion is what websites/blogs would this button appear on and who would have the authority to put it there?
I am a member!
I am not talking about labelling websites or blogs. I am talking about labelling posts/links within a larger site.
Here is an example of a strategy: You see a list of links:
a nice place to visit dot com
a holocaust denier piece of shit dot com
...
...
You click on a link and you get a pop-up that states that the site has hate speech and to click 'OK' to continue. Which of the above two links have hate speech? Either one, all, or none. Who knows?
onpon4 makes a point about Javascript, so perhaps it would work if the link was in a different color, or labeled with HS at the front of it, etc...
I'm not preventing people from doing anything. It is like having signs on a road. You can ignore the signs or use the signs for help, it is up to you. Either way, you can travel the road.
I am a member!
So
what you're suggesting is a guideline for owners of larger websites to
implement something that warns their users that the website owner deems the link they may visit
to be "hate speech"? Or who or what? Never mind. I don't like your idea
but like you say Youtube and others are already doing it so it's hardly
your suggestion is it?
What I object to is if the state or government got to decide what is or
isn't hate speech but you say "I was not talking about the state, I was
talking about the owners of the websites."
Which is something they can do anyway.
Most hate speech is just that, pretty obvious and easy to detect -- until somebody comes and tries to circumvent it by camouflaging as free speech.
If the government cannot define hate speech, who will? The hate speakers? I think it's exactly the government's (justice system's) job to regulate things.
You make it sound like "I object to if the state got to decide what is bad manners".
You apparently see free speech as an excuse for hate speech. I see "hate speech" as an excuse for censorship, and a shallow one at that.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: no view, no matter how backwards or disgusting, is as disgusting as censorship.
There is another way -- the hard way. Let them out whatever they will and call for a genocide. Then go for them and bring them to a judge and ticket them each time they stretch the boundaries of free speech.
Saying a disgusting view is not "stretching the boundaries of free speech". It's just free speech.
This will never end. I say no. Hate speech is just hate speech, malicious words designed to hurt, castigate and ostracize.
Let this be enough, though. We have different views.
It's both. Not everything is binary.
I am a member!
" like you say Youtube and others are already doing it so it's hardly your suggestion is it?"
LOL are you serious? It is what I am suggesting as a solution to this debate in the Trisquel forums. And, like you say, "like you say YouTube and others..." you know that I know this because I already attributed it to at least YouTube.
What difference does it make who's idea it is? I am pointing an idea out, I am pointing out that it has been done before, and I am suggesting it is a good idea. You don't like the idea. That is not an informative answer. Why do you not like it?
The link you give seems to regard censorship within the Guardian website. So it is not clear what you are providing an example of.
I am a member!
Okay I have definitely misunderstood what you were saying.
For the record I don't think we need that here. The troll lounge (cool name) is perfectly acceptable for off topic talk and I think the people here are more than capable of deciding what links they click on or not.
I am a member!
"For the record I don't think we need that here. The troll lounge (cool name) is perfectly acceptable for off topic talk"
I agree. Hopefully it will stay that way. I think having a separate place on a site for people to talk about anything is useful.
Troll Lounge is a clever name, but I still prefer Troll Hole. This is not a place where people lounge around chit chatting while drinking martinis. This thread is a perfect example of a topic that is not relaxing!!
"people here are more than capable of deciding what links they click on or not."
Exactly, and that would hold true for links with warnings added and links without.
I am a member!
Well I'm perfectly relaxed. I think folks took exception to a link to a David Duke video, but I think everyone here agrees that Mr Duke has the right to say whatever he wants. The actual video itself is quite a good example of mainstream media censoring the plight of the Palestinian people.
I don't know about this guy, I'll read the links.
I think criticism of Israel is a very good example because it clearly come in two forms: reasoned political/social commentary, and plain old racism disguised or mixed with reasoned political/social commentary.
And calling both as being one and the same is wrong (but very easy), as much as letting the racism sometimes mixed in roam unchecked is wrong. Both are dangerous.
> "it is becoming prevalent that any criticism of Israel is considered anti-Semitic."
It has gotten so bad that even jews are being labeled as antisemitic if they critic Israel in any way. I don't remember who once said that antisemitic nowadays doesn't mean someone who hates jews, but rather someone who's hated by some jews.
And Lennon said "woman is the nigger of the world." There are more 'jews' than ever nowadays. They are just called by another name. There just has to be a jew to pick.
I am a member!
"And Lennon said "woman is the nigger of the world."
He also said, "I am the walrus"
"There are more 'jews' than ever nowadays. They are just called by another name. There just has to be a jew to pick."
There are only 13-14 million Jews on the planet. This means one-fifth of one-percent 0.2% of the World's population
I am a member!
"I don't remember who once said that antisemitic nowadays doesn't mean someone who hates jews, but rather someone who's hated by some jews."
I'll help you remember. It is the same guy who said that dark means light and up means down and left means right. Words have definitions and what you are doing is giving the opposite definition to something. It is nothing more than a perversion of the truth (oh yeah, I forgot, he also said: true is false and right is wrong and bad is good...
You don't know what you're talking about. I'll try to find who was he. I think it was a jew who said some Israel actions where comparable to the nazis.
BTW. didn't you said you wouldn't comment on this thread?
danieru98 said:
"I don't remember who once said that antisemitic nowadays doesn't mean someone who hates jews, but rather someone who's hated by some jews."
pragmatist said:
"what you are doing is giving the opposite definition to something. It is nothing more than a perversion of the truth"
Found him.
"An anti-Semite used to be a person who disliked Jews. Now it is a person who Jews dislike"
Hajo Meyer (12 August 1924 – 23 August 2014) was a Jewish German-Dutch physicist and an anti-Zionist political activist.
On 2010 Meyer said:
"Israel acts like Nazis"
http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/the-nazi-genocide/auschwitz-survivor-israel-acts-like-nazis
And because of that he was labeled an anti-Semite.
Wanna know something else about Dr Meyer? Something that I didn't remember and that it shocked me now as I read.
He was an Auschwitz survivor. He was arrested and spent ten months in Auschwitz! So if someone knows how Nazis used to act. Who better than someone who had to deal with the Nazi regime? I wouldn't take with a grain of salt "Israel acts like Nazis" now that I know from who's coming.
I am a member!
" Who better than someone who had to deal with the Nazi regime? I wouldn't take with a grain of salt "Israel acts like Nazis" now that I know from who's coming."
Before I bother, tell me how long a list do you want of Holocaust survivors that do NOT think that Israel acts like Nazis??
You can find one person who says anything. For instance, there are idiots out there who actually say the Holocaust never happened. At least you are not one of those!
The fact that you can find a Jew that hates Israel or a Jew that hates Jews means nothing at all. Some of the worst anti-semites were Jews. According to Judaism, to be a Jew you only have to have a mother who is a Jew. Bobby Fischer, a former World Chess Champion, was famous for his hatred of Jews, even though his mother was a Jew and therefore he was a Jew. He actually wrote the Encyclopedia Judaica to insist that they remove his name--that is but one example of how much of a self-hating Jew he was.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti