5
   

Banish the Cyber-Bigots?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 04:18 pm
@dyslexia,
Quote:
your illogical silliness is incomprehensible.

Right, because you don't have a pattern of being dismissive of that which you don't want to deal with. You have said at least a dozen times that I am not logical, that I am too silly for comment. The problem for you is that I know full well that you are full of ****, and so do all of the people who enter into debate with me.

You demean yourself, but carry on.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 04:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
Not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit. You want your government to intervene in the private affairs of its citizens so that those who claim to be ignored because they are personally unpopular can now force others to hear them? This is one of the more idiotic and laughable contentions you have made here, which is saying quite a lot.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 04:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
You'll find the courts do not agree with you, and justifiably so. You could print and distribute your ideas, but you can't force anyone to read them. That's really what you're saying here, that either the private individuals who control this private space, or the government, has to take steps to force other people to read or hear that in which they have no interest. I suggest that neither the people on the left nor the right are going to go along with that idiotic suggestion.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 04:29 pm
What is really hilarious in all of this had already been alluded to by O'Bill. Despite all of his pissing and moaning, and even direct complaints about this site, his presence here is tolerated--nothing has ever been done to censor his speech here.

The problem he has is that people here have no respect for him or his expressed opinions. He's trying to claim that the "truth" is not being heard because he is unpopular. But people here have heard his rant, and they don't consider that it contains any truth, so they no longer have an interest in reading the drivel he posts. He is unpopular because of the things he has posted, rather than what he is attempting to say being ignored because he is unpopular.

What a little whiney bitch.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 04:33 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit. You want your government to intervene in the private affairs of its citizens so that those who claim to be ignored because they are personally unpopular can now force others to hear them? This is one of the more idiotic and laughable contentions you have made here, which is saying quite a lot.


You are not paying attention, I said that private owners need to voluntary set up places for debate, free speech, to include what is called hate speech or bigoted speech. You can as always avoid such places, you have control of your browser. I also said that such places should be held in high regard, not demeaned. I am fully within my rights to argue that those who demand an end to free speech, to places in which to conduct the free speech both in real life and virtual space, are enemies of democracy.

I have not said a word about your right to ignore, you are making that up.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 06:57 pm
Quote:
Tags: Demented Misogynist, Internet, Whimpering Troll, Wasted Oxygen, Shorteyes Cries


We seem to have some practitioners of free speech in this thread, maybe even some hate speakers. I sure hope that they are not the same folks who rail against free speech, who condemn those who believe in free speech and in full and open debate. Hypocrites are slime.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 08:18 pm
Quote:
Klein Drowns in the Ethical Shallows
On Friday, Post blogger Ezra Klein took a short break from Barack Obama’s unpaid policy staff to respond to my last column and dismiss the importance of bigotry and hatred on the Internet. “That doesn’t describe the Internet I know,” he claims, “but the Internet is big, and Gerson might visit parts I miss.”

Sometimes innocence, however, is merely ignorance. You don’t need to trawl the seedier portions of the Internet to be familiar with a growing literature on Internet hate. An education on this topic might include the Simon Wiesenthal Center report, “Facebook, YouTube +: How Social Media Outlets Impact Digital Terrorism and Hate.” Or the Anti-Defamation League’s recent conference, “The Internet Is Making Anti-Semitism Socially Acceptable.” Or the ADL’s report on how mainstream Web sites were flooded with anti-Semitism in the wake of the Madoff scandal. Or a variety of resources on the role of the Internet in promoting Middle Eastern anti-Semitism and the revival of racist ideology in Germany.

In preparing my Friday column, I found an interview with David Goldman by the Southern Poverty Law Center particularly interesting. After monitoring Internet hate sites for many years, Goldman has concluded that the main dangers are now found in chat rooms, comment boxes and email. “In chat rooms,” he says, “which are populated mainly by young people, you can swear and use racial epithets with a certain amount of ease, and that helps to support your own stereotypes and racial bigotry. Unlike hate sites, these chat rooms create a sense of immediacy and community.”

These are the type of sources one encounters while doing extensive research for a column. A blogged response to a column, of course, is free from such archaic, old-media constraints.


One part of Klein’s post is particularly illuminating. He finds it amusing to belittle the threat of a hypothetical someone he calls “jewhater429, the 97th entrant in a comment thread” -- just a few months after an Internet-based Jew hater entered the Holocaust Museum with a gun and killed an African-American guard. Some people have the oddest sense of humor.

The real threat, according to Klein, is not from Jew haters, Holocaust deniers or white supremacists. It is from conservatives who listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. And why? Because Limbaugh interferes more directly with Klein's political agenda. The seriousness of this moral argument is…undetectable. It is a case study in how an excess of ideology can affect the optic nerve -- leading to complete moral blindness.

I have little patience for the hyper-partisan rants of Glenn Beck or Arianna Huffington. But they are not Nazis because I disagree with them. Interestingly, Beck, Huffington and Klein seem comfortable with this same, lazy tactic -- the reductio ad Hitlerum. They are full partners in the same calumny.

This approach is both uncivil and dangerous. We do not avoid comparing our opponents to Nazis merely out of politeness. We reserve this charge for actual racists, for actual incitement to violence, for actual evil, so that the accusation is not diluted and powerless when it is most needed. Those, like Klein, who trivialize evil are actually making its advance more likely. Their cynicism and ideological manias are the allies of genuine bigotry, because they blur its distinctive shape and cover its distinctive smell.

On this topic, Klein wades into the ethical shallows and manages to drown. In the future, it might be less embarrassing to avoid the water entirely

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/klein_drowns_in_the_ethical_sh.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

so what, are we to follow China's example and have words on the internet banned, and the attempt to use them draw a response from the police??

The definition of hate and bigotry will always be shifting, it is highly unwise to peg limits on debate to emotions and guesses of other peoples beliefs and motivations.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 08:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I said that private owners need to voluntary set up places for debate, free speech, to include what is called hate speech or bigoted speech.

Why? You are perfectly free to create such a website, or to put up a soapbox on your property and invite folks to talk.

You seem to be angry that no one has supplied you with an audience for your screeds. Unfortunately for you (and fortunately for us), no one is under such an obligation.

Go find your own audience.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 08:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
You are fully within your rights, certainly, to make up a story about people who demand an end to free speech (while not providing an iota of evidence). The rest of us are within our rights to point out that this is a great, stinking load of self-serving horseshit.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 08:28 pm
Quote:


“In the course of a few years," writes Michael Gerson, "a fringe party was able to define a national community by scapegoating internal enemies; elevate a single, messianic leader; and keep the public docile with hatred while the state committed unprecedented crimes. The adaptive use of new technology was central to this achievement."

That party? The Nazis. That technology? Talk radio. But Gerson's subject is not talk radio or the Nazis, but the vast expanses of the Internet. "User-driven content on the Internet often consists of bullying, conspiracy theories and racial prejudice," writes Gerson, which is interesting, as I thought it consisted of porn and teenagers holding party cups. "The absolute freedom of the medium paradoxically encourages authoritarian impulses to intimidate and silence others," he continues. "The least responsible contributors see their darkest tendencies legitimated and reinforced, while serious voices are driven away by the general ugliness."

That doesn't describe the Internet I know (unless, for some reason, you don't think Autotune the News is a serious voice), but the Internet is big, and Gerson might visit parts I miss. "The exploitation of technology by hatred will never be eliminated," he concludes. "But hatred must be confined to the fringes of our culture -- as the hatred of other times should have been."

What's striking is that this doesn't really describe the Internet. Hateful voices remain on the fringe. And they stay on the fringe. The beauty of the Internet is that it's pretty much all fringe. Controlling a Web site or a blogspot domain is not like controlling a radio station or a television network.

Gerson's examples, in fact, come from comment threads, which virtually disproves his thesis. But there is a major medium where the hateful voices sit firmly in control of the content, and it's the same medium that begins Gerson's remarks: talk radio. And, to a lesser extent, cable news. That's where society's most hateful conspiracy theories sit and fester, where its most explosive lies are recounted and amplified, where its least responsible elites have control of the means of production. I don't worry about jewhater429, the 97th entrant in a comment thread. I worry about Beck and Limbaugh and Savage

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/hate_in_the_media.html
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 08:32 pm
That last post is hilarious. It basically dismisses your thesis. I guess you either didn't read it carefully, or you failed in your reading comprehension.

Quote:
What's striking is that this doesn't really describe the Internet. Hateful voices remain on the fringe. And they stay on the fringe. The beauty of the Internet is that it's pretty much all fringe. Controlling a Web site or a blogspot domain is not like controlling a radio station or a television network.

Gerson's examples, in fact, come from comment threads, which virtually disproves his thesis. But there is a major medium where the hateful voices sit firmly in control of the content, and it's the same medium that begins Gerson's remarks: talk radio. And, to a lesser extent, cable news.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 08:40 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
That last post is hilarious. It basically dismisses your thesis


it does not, and I never claimed that it does support my argument. I pride myself on being open minded and fair, I am willing to acknowledge all comers. I understand that the concept is alien to you, thus you assume that any post I link is supposed to parrot my views.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 08:47 pm
No, i made no assumptions, i just found it hilarious that it dismisses your thesis. And i continue to suspect that you either didn't realize that, or hadn't carefully read it. Don't try to feed me your noble intellect bullshit, i don't believe it and i have absolutely no respect for you, including specious self-promotional claims intended to suggest that you are a paragon of honesty and probity.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 09:28 pm
@Setanta,
We both say that hate speech on the internet is not currently a problem. I THINK that we are both saying that there is no justification for regulating internet speech more than it already is. We have different ways of getting to the same conclusion.

In any case, since the debate on this thread has been greatly limited due to you militant anti free speech types trying to shout down all other views I thought that maybe a different argument than mine might help the thread along.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 09:29 pm
In your second post, ramping up the hysteria factor in your stupid thesis, you wrote:

Quote:
The result of continuing to be unwilling to face reality, and talk honestly about reality, will be revolution.


Subsequently, you wrote:

Quote:
The law must be reformed, the law is in error.


Then, when confronted with the absurdity of expecting government to rectify what you allege to be problems in private internet spaces, you deny that you were talking about government. So, do you allege that private individuals are the targets of revolution? Are you calling on private individuals to reform the law? (Of course, you are referring to a vague and amorphous law, and not any specified statutes.)

As usual, your rant lacks coherence.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 09:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
Bull ****. I haven't commented at all about hate speech on the internet, so you can't make any claims about what "we both" say. Furthermore, you are jumping to conclusions about what i (or anyone else here) thinks of the proposition of internet speech and its nature and ramifications. So to suggest that "we" have different ways of getting to the same conclusion is just more evidence of your incoherence.

Then you throw out this slur about those who don't jump to pat you on the back for this Chicken Littler performance being "militant anti free speech types" who you allege are trying to shout down all other views. What a crock. That was just an attempt on your part to find another way to slide out from under the obvious contradiction of your thesis in the last external piece you quoted.

You lack coherence. In fact, a lack of coherence is about the only consistent aspect of your "contributions" to this site.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 10:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
you militant anti free speech types trying to shout down all other views

O irony!
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 10:51 pm
Quote:
Now they’re setting their sights on the United States. “We have established an OIC Group in Washington D.C.,” Ihsanoglu explained, “with the aim of playing a more active role in engaging American policy makers.” This will involve agitating for laws restricting free speech: “And in confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna,’” (which showed Muslims acting on violent passages in the Qur’an), Ihsanoglu continued, “we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” Ihsanoglu says it’s already working: “As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”

In other words, “irresponsible” speech -- which is defined as speech he disagrees with -- should be banned.

Ihsanoglu is right that such a “message” has found a receptive audience, even in the West. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey published in mid-June found that while 88% of Americans support the right to free speech (only 88%?), only 53% oppose banning “hate speech.” Significantly, however, only 11% support bans on “hate speech” when they’re reminded that “hate speech” is in the eye of the beholder, and that the government would be deciding what constitutes hate speech and what doesn’t. That is, the government, or the OIC making the government dance to its tune.

“Hate speech” is also a tool to prevent the dissemination of what have more of a claim to be called “inconvenient truths” than anything Al Gore has ever been involved with. Mark Steyn is on trial in Canada right now for telling the truth. The renowned Canadian journalist and politician Peter Worthington commented acidly about the Steyn proceedings: “Truth is no defence before a Human Rights tribunal. Steyn’s accuracy is not at issue, just his opinions. Under hate legislation, opinions are punishable if they offend a particular group. If you think about it, this is an abomination.”


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27175

Make no mistake, free speech is under attack. I am ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who is willing to defend it, for without free speech democracy dies.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 11:06 pm
It is just hilarious to see this joker portraying himself in the heroic mold. Yeah, right . . . all of us wanna stand shoulder to shoulder with the Rapist Boy.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 11:21 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
you militant anti free speech types trying to shout down all other views

O irony!
Make that idiocy. Not one contributor on this thread has suggested reducing free speech in any way, shape or form. I suspect we are all in fact in complete agreement that even Shorteyes has and should have an absolute right to speak his demented nonsense freely.

But you can bet your last buck he wouldn't get away with it in any private venue owned by me. In this exact case, the demented coward requires cooperation from owners of private venues so he can deal his demented dribble while cowering behind a fake name and phony avatar.

Hell, even Shorteyes fellow sickos at N.A.M.B.L.A. at have the courage to exercise their freedom of speech publicly. All of whom would do the collective a tremendous service if they would simply remove themselves from the gene pool, before spreading their collective dementia.

Setanta wrote:

It is just hilarious to see this joker portraying himself in the heroic mold. Yeah, right . . . all of us wanna stand shoulder to shoulder with the Rapist Boy.
Isn't it though? I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with just about anyone in defense of free speech... but that sick twisted **** would eat an elbow in short order.
 

Related Topics

So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 02:02:29