Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by chromas on Saturday April 14, @05:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the Smells-like-censorship-or-teen-spirit dept.

On the Daily Dot:

The Facebook pages of Richard Spencer, the alt-right leader who was famously punched in the face last year, have been suspended.

The pages for the National Policy Institute, a lobbying group of sorts for white nationalists, and Spencer's online magazine "altright.com," vanished on Friday after Vice sent the social network an inquiry about hate groups. They had a combined following of almost 15,000 followers.

The action was taken just days after Mark Zuckerberg emphasized during his testimony before Congress that Facebook does not allow hate speech. But it wasn't until Vice flagged the accounts that Facebook suspended them. The social network said in a statement that it identifies violating pages using human monitors, algorithms, and partnerships with organizations.

Also at Engadget and Vice.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by stretch611 on Saturday April 14, @06:00PM (3 children)

    by stretch611 (6199) on Saturday April 14, @06:00PM (#666981)

    How is he so lucky?

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:54PM (#666994)

      A small child giggled as he played with his new toy on the grass. As the child was playing, he heard someone approaching him and looked towards the source of the sound; once he saw it, his laughter ceased. A larger boy was walking up to him with a menacing expression on his face; it was Billy, who was a known bully. Billy demanded that the small boy hand over his new toy, which caused the child to start crying. However, Billy did not care about the little boy's feelings, and so he beat him up and forcibly took his toy. The bully walked away with his new possession, leaving behind a sobbing child.

      Billy smiled; this new toy was a bit damaged from the other boy using it, but it was still in good condition. Now, it was time to play. Billy began by snapping the toy's appendages one by one. The woman screamed as her bones were broken. But her screams only made the boy chuckle & chortle. Billy then snapped even more of the woman's bones, and began violating her while slamming his fists down on her face. The boy laughed and laughed and laughed some more. And the more the boy laughed, the more damage the woman sustained. "New toys are the best!" Billy said elatedly.

      After some time had passed, Billy realized that it was time to go home, and so he dragged the woman back to his house by her hair. Billy violently tossed the toy into his garage; it landed on a large pile of similar toys, most of which were broken. The boy smiled when he thought about what tomorrow would bring. What new, fun toys would he steal next...?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @09:49PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @09:49PM (#667066)

      yeah! why cant they delete mine. its not for the wont of asking.

      oh i get it

      you have to be a jerk in this world to succeed and get what you want. works for a lot of people that way. and since its all so polarized anyway, anyone i offend if I try to get deleted will gain me friends on the other side of the political spectrum, so really its a wash.

      can i get deleted if i tell the ceo how i really feel? can i do it in person? mr spencer got punched but I am hoping to do the punching when i deliver my message.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:46AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:46AM (#667101)

        you have to be a jerk in this world to succeed and get what you want.

        If that were the case then both you and I would be successful.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:01PM (24 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:01PM (#666982)

    But I am sad to see censorship being used as a PR tool, I mean why now immediately after the congressional hearing? This the new "think of the children"?

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:05PM (18 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:05PM (#666984)

      What is a hate group again?

      • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:13PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:13PM (#666986)

        Something that hasn't truly existed in the U.S. in a long time.

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by HiThere on Sunday April 15, @12:51AM (1 child)

          by HiThere (866) on Sunday April 15, @12:51AM (#667103)

          Hasn't existed? You have lead a very sheltered life.

          --
          Put not your faith in princes.
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:39AM (#667159)

            Leaving out "in a long time" changes the entire message. All I see these days are a bunch of annoying dickheads shouting from every angle and vandalizing the communities they're claiming to want to protect. What you don't see anymore is a group like the KKK rounding up blacks and lynching them in the street. If the worst we get is people shouting, damaging property, and an occasional scuffle between people that were out looking for a fight to begin with, then we've got it good compared to what it could be.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday April 14, @08:10PM (14 children)

        by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Saturday April 14, @08:10PM (#667016)

        You know who the "hater" is by the reaction when someone gets punched in the face. If a "hater" punches someone they go away for a long time and everyone cheers. If a "hater" gets punched everyone just cheers. See how simple that is?

        The solution to social media censorship is also simple. Offer them two choices.

        1. They are publishers and my ban anyone they want from their platform. But because of the millions of illegal posts they don't remove they can try running their companies from "pound me in the ass" Federal Prisons or go insane with the banhammer and drive off all of their users.

        2. Be common carriers and use the safe harbor provisions those laws include. If they don't like what some people are saying on their platforms they can shut the Hell up and "bake the fucking cake." That ship sailed, even Gary Johnson is on board with compelled speech now so I'm Goddamned tired of you morons who still think you can keep YOUR right to free association and speech while censoring your enemies and forcing US, at gunpoint if needed, to speak lies. When you file for a business license you forfeit your 1st Amendment rights. Deal with it.

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Whoever on Saturday April 14, @08:25PM (9 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Saturday April 14, @08:25PM (#667026) Journal

          When you file for a business license you forfeit your 1st Amendment rights. Deal with it.

          So you think that Citizens United was wrongly decided, then?

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday April 14, @08:42PM (8 children)

            by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Saturday April 14, @08:42PM (#667037)

            No, it doesn't apply to this situation, try to keep up. Citizens United says people can join into a single corporate "person" to jointly pay for political speech.

            The gay wedding cake precedent does apply, it says a business can't refuse business because they disagree with the expressive content of the material they are being asked to work with. Exactly as I warned for years. The line begins here [ ] for everyone to apologize and admit I was right as to what the consequences of that would be. But while we lost that battle we WILL use the side effects of that loss to win this battle today. You guys established the precedent that a business has no right of conscience, no right to say "I don't agree with this speech and refuse the business", you established the rule that a business has to transmit whatever the customer wants it to say. So how can Jack and Mark now argue they have the right to refuse to obey rules they heartily supported? Rules established in causes they personally donated to? No, time for them to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE! One law for all or anarchy, choose wisely.

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Whoever on Saturday April 14, @09:36PM (7 children)

              by Whoever (4524) on Saturday April 14, @09:36PM (#667062) Journal

              No, it doesn't apply to this situation, try to keep up. Citizens United says people can join into a single corporate "person" to jointly pay for political speech.

              How do you think people join into a single corporate person? They incorporate, just like forming a business. The Citizens United decision was based on prior decisions granting businesses 1st amendment rights. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti.

              You also appear to think that the court meant only natural persons when it decided Citizens United. I don't think that this is true.

              But let's take your line of thinking. If businesses don't have a 1st amendment right, they shouldn't get that right simply by forming an association. So, any industry lobbying group should not have 1st amendment rights. Since the NRA is mostly funded by gun manufacturers, it should not have a 1st amendment right, etc.. Is that what you want?

              Also, newspapers are businesses. Are you of the opinion that newspapers should not have 1st amendment rights? How about Fox News?

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday April 14, @10:08PM (1 child)

                by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Saturday April 14, @10:08PM (#667071)

                Last attempt. Apparently Vox Day is correct about communication across several SDs of IQ. Argh.

                Citizens United says a corporation can speak. So Facebook or Twitter can buy a political ad if it wants. The gay wedding cake precedent says that once a business accepts a paying customer it must accept any customer, regardless whether it disagrees with the expressive content servicing that customer entails. Yes there is an obvious conflict between the two, I argued that very point for years and lost. If you are still confused, ask someone else to explain it to you because I'm done.

                • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Whoever on Saturday April 14, @10:58PM

                  by Whoever (4524) on Saturday April 14, @10:58PM (#667083) Journal

                  Just because you are unable to clearly write a coherent argument doesn't make you more intelligent than others.

                  I could make an argument about how the wedding cake can be distinguished form this situation by anyone with half a brain, but I won't bother.

                  Go fuck yourself and take your imagined superiority with you.

              • (Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Sunday April 15, @01:51AM (4 children)

                by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 15, @01:51AM (#667118)
                I don't actually agree with him (or you, at least not in full) but I also don't agree with whoever is downmodding him troll. Just thought I'd get that out, I know it's not necessarily you. He can be wrong without being a troll. He's a pretty serious poster usually.

                It's a mistake to extend human rights to legal fictions. If the various stockholders, officers, and employees want to spend money on political speech, they shoudl be free to do so, but the corporation itself should be absolutely prohibited from having any hand in it.

                But he's right about another point. If a baker can't offer a cake with writing on it and then refuse to make it with writing he finds offensive, how does facebook get the right to refuse to carry writing *they* find offensive, hmm?

                The safe harbor concept is predicated explicitly on the business not doing this. And if that goes away then they can be sued by anyone and everyone that finds anything anyone ever said on facebook offensive.

                Which, now that I think of it, wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen.

                --
                "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
                • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday April 15, @02:21AM (3 children)

                  by Whoever (4524) on Sunday April 15, @02:21AM (#667127) Journal

                  If a baker can't offer a cake with writing on it and then refuse to make it with writing he finds offensive,

                  But that's the key issue, isn't it? They didn't get as far as discussing what the cake would look like, what messages it might include. The baker refused to make the cake not because of any message on it, but because of who the customers were.

                  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday April 15, @02:40AM (2 children)

                    by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 15, @02:40AM (#667133)
                    It was going to be a wedding cake for a same sex couple. They found that offensive. Any text that would fit the occasion would therefore be offensive to them, so no, I don't think your quibble is the key issue.
                    --
                    "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
                    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Sunday April 15, @03:06AM (1 child)

                      by Whoever (4524) on Sunday April 15, @03:06AM (#667144) Journal

                      Any text that would fit the occasion would therefore be offensive to them

                      Without discussing the actual text, you cannot possibly know that. Besides which, it's quite clear that the baker's objection was to people getting married, not to any speech that might or might not have been involved.

                      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday April 15, @03:13AM

                        by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 15, @03:13AM (#667146)
                        A wedding cake is not just symbolic is it *primarily* a symbol, it is 'speech' in and of itself, aside from any text placed on it, in roughly the same way that burning the flag is speech even if there is are no words, spoken or written, to accompany the act.
                        --
                        "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
        • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday April 14, @08:43PM (1 child)

          It's says so right there in the book of Revelation.

          I once had the mark of the beast: most refer to them as Resale Licenses but the proper name for them is Seller's Permit.

          --
          "You, Michael David Crawford, you are helping to destroy America."
          -- Anonymous Coward
          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday April 15, @01:38AM

            by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 15, @01:38AM (#667115)
            I'm sorry but you seem to be confused. The Orwellian appellation you are searching for is "smart phone."
            --
            "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @09:34PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @09:34PM (#667061)

          When you file for a business license you forfeit your 1st Amendment rights. Deal with it.

          Ah, the well-known "business license" exception to the first amendment! Of course! Why didn't I think of that!? I can't wait for the government to start censoring video games, books, movies, and all other forms of media because many of them are produced by businesses. Brilliant!

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday April 14, @10:12PM

            by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Saturday April 14, @10:12PM (#667073)

            That is what I said. For years, loudly and annoyingly. Didn't matter. Somewhere a faggot was crying and nothing else mattered. So now I will apply the new rule mercilessly. Give them exactly what they demanded, good and hard.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:30PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:30PM (#666990)

      I think we should be more saddened that Facebook exists in any way, shape, or form. Not having an account is not enough to stop them entirely from violating your privacy, since other people can upload pictures of you without permission and tag your name. I wish Facebook would delete itself. Or, perhaps even less likely, maybe we could get some real privacy laws in this country and then Facebook's business model would be destroyed.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @06:35PM (#666992)

        Facebook just happens to be the most public example of that at this time.

        It used to be librarians and postmen had a solemn duty to keep the confidentiality of your choice of literature and the contents of your mail. Then the phone company started listening in on unwarranted calls, collecting metadata, and slowly we morphed from a culture of privacy conscious folk differentiating ourselves from the communists by our pride in our privacy and anonymity into another proto-fascist communist-like regime.

        Right or Left, you're now Redder than the Russians. I hope you're proud, because your Homeland demands your acquiescence.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:51AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:51AM (#667102)

        It's your privacy and your web activity. Seems to me it's your responsibility to protect yourself while online. If you go traipsing all over the internet, and then complain that websites saw you visit them, you may not understand how the world works.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @02:08AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @02:08AM (#667123)

          You didn't read the comment at all, I see. Other people uploading pictures of you without your permission to monstrous surveillance engines like Facebook has nothing to do with websites seeing you visited them. Facebook has shadow profiles of people who don't even use their disservice. We need real privacy laws to prevent that sort of thing.

          For the record, I use addons such as uMatrix to block all third party junk by default.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday April 14, @07:15PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 14, @07:15PM (#666999) Homepage

      Why does everybody give a shit about this only now? Everybody and their grandma has seen multiple past examples of this unfolding. Not just the censorship, but the collection of data and the resulting abuse.

      Theory 1: They failed to use their platform to swing the election to Hillary (they didn't crack down on "hate speech" and "Russian hackers" more quickly and aggressively).
      Theory 2: It was leaked or discovered that the links between Facebook and 3-letter agencies is more intimate than at first glance -- CIA or Mossad funding, possibly an arm of the CIA or Mossad itself, and information gathered was used to blackmail important people. Senators may not post their drug usage anywhere near Facebook, but with evidence of infidelity men can and do get raped of their shekels in divorce proceedings. Rather than reveal that to the public, Facebook is being dismantled gracefully.
      Theory 3: A week or two after Soros denounces Facebook, everybody magically turns against it even though they all knew or figured that Facebook was always up to Jewey business. This may also tie into theories 1 and 2.
      Theory 4: What the news is telling us at face-value about this is actually the whole truth. The least likely theory.
         

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Captival on Saturday April 14, @07:07PM (2 children)

    by Captival (6866) on Saturday April 14, @07:07PM (#666996)

    So Facebook doesn't allow hate groups, but let this one slide until "the media" reported it? That makes a whole lot of sense.

    And considering this is Vice Media [variety.com] we're talking about, the people doing the reporting are much worse criminals [narcity.com] than the people they're pointing fingers at. Where's their ban?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @07:11PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @07:11PM (#666997)

      Sexual harassment is an expression of love, not hate.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Saturday April 14, @07:25PM

    by acid andy (1683) on Saturday April 14, @07:25PM (#667002)

    If only t'were that easy to get your data deleted!

    --
    Make hay whilst the intervening mass is insufficient to inhibit the perceived intensity of incoming solar radiation.
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @08:00PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @08:00PM (#667009)

    Now all those nasty fascist racist monster neanderthal scum-sucking hitlerite blights on the face of humanity have vanished! Progress prevails!

    ... wait, what? They just lost their Facebook voice? They might actually reconvene elsewhere? Oh shit, the FBI needs backdoors! NSA! CIA! Do something! For the children!

    This first amendment bullshit needs some repealing. Fuck the second, the first is the real threat!

    • (Score: 3, Troll) by looorg on Saturday April 14, @08:30PM (2 children)

      by looorg (578) on Saturday April 14, @08:30PM (#667030)

      They have already reconvened elsewhere. All this is doing when Facebook and Twitter are purging rightwing groups are making their platform "safe" for leftwing hategroups, that they are somehow unable to delete -- it won't take you many seconds to find a horde of AFA and @ pages and they quite clearly advocate hate. So with the great Facebook purge comes the alternatives, from what I heard all the white power people already hopped over to VKontakte (vk.com) for their facebook like needs and Gab replaced twitter. There is probably a whole slew of other sites that offer similar services. All so that they can all create their own perfect little echo chambers without ever having to notice, hear or see each other -- all so they can feel "safe".

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by jmorris on Saturday April 14, @08:57PM

        by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Saturday April 14, @08:57PM (#667048)

        Nope. Gab will replace twitter, because it isn't intended to remain an echo chamber long. Of course any forum that does not practice aggressive censorship becomes a "hatebox" so you will not like the day Gab and other open platforms become dominant. Gab will win because Jack is now in a no-win scenario. His (and Zuck's) business model requires him to do things that are increasingly toxic to his userbase. Gab has no Wall Street money or advertisers, because either would bring the mandated censorship with it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @05:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @05:25PM (#667713)

        what kind of stupid bitch mods things they don't agree with as troll. soon the people that would ban these "hate groups" and mod these posts trolls will learn what real hate is. i wonder if their ear spacers will save them?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @08:11PM (27 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @08:11PM (#667017)

    Your support for civil rights and tolerance isn't determined by the things that offend other people. It's determined by the things that offend you.

    So, if you are on the left, your tolerance of leftist causes doesn't count. Being tolerant of LGBT means nothing, because you weren't bothered anyway. Being tolerant of non-whites, non-Christians, and non-English speakers means nothing. It doesn't count, because you like that stuff. For a leftist, we must measure your tolerance by how you feel about things like Westboro Baptist, British National Front, Breitbart, infowars.com, the NRA, Gun Owners of America, the wall, Milo, Diamond and Silk, ICE, and of course Trump.

    Most of you are intolerant of free speech. These days, the left is far more intolerant than the right. The left is even resorting to violence. Evidently, they can't bear the thought of a person expressing wrongthink.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday April 14, @08:27PM (4 children)

      by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Saturday April 14, @08:27PM (#667028)

      While you are entirely correct, you still miss the point. The Left is done with pretending they support free speech. They are now "out" on repealing the 1st Amendment along with the 2nd. So you can't shame them by pointing out their hypocrisy because they aren't being hypocritical anymore. They openly call for censorship, speech codes, banning open unrestricted commenting on the Internet, banning anonymous posting, banning public speakers, banning rallies and other public assembly. You can smell the fear now. They lost control of the Narrative and will get it back or die trying. To borrow the line from Men in Black, our reply should be, "Your proposal is acceptable."

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @11:16PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @11:16PM (#667089)

        You have it wrong.
        The left wants to ban free speech for everyone BUT THEMSELVES!

        After 400 years of enlightenment we still can't get along.

        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday April 15, @01:13AM (2 children)

          by HiThere (866) on Sunday April 15, @01:13AM (#667111)

          Ah, you're saying they're just like the right.

          On this issue I pretty much agree with you. Now the question is "Is that a proper approach?", and there I'm conflicted. Fast communication between large groups of people really changes the social dynamic, and in ways that I'm quite uncomfortable with. But I really hate centralization of power, for anybody. Neither political party acts to decrease centralization of power, because when they've got it, it's so convenient.

          An additional problem is that those holding power when decisions are implemented are never called to task afterwards. (And rarely at the time. Not if they were really holding power rather than just a figurehead or fall-guy.) So the only people silenced by censorship are those who are speaking against the desires of those holding power. (And those desires can change quickly.)

          OTOH, people are easily stirred up against innocent scapegoats. And this is really undesirable. Should Facebook be liable for contributory slander? Or should that be libel? (Facebook feels more like slander.) Truth should be a defense, but how would Facebook know? OTOH, they were clearly never a common carrier. They're more similar to a call-in radio show, but those always have a moderator who keeps things within some sort of bounds. (I'm not exactly sure what bounds besides the "seven words", but certainly within some bounds.)

          --
          Put not your faith in princes.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @02:38AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @02:38AM (#667131)

            (I'm not exactly sure what bounds besides the "seven words", but certainly within some bounds.)

            The "seven words" are unconstitutionally government-imposed, since there are penalties involved. The idea that these rules are constitutional because it's a public broadcast is entirely without merit, since if they tried to ban (for example) people from advocating Christianity over public broadcasts, suddenly people would cry about the first amendment. So it's all just special pleading nonsense used to censor very specific speech that some people are offended by.

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday April 15, @07:46AM

            by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Sunday April 15, @07:46AM (#667196)

            Ah, you're saying they're just like the right.

            I tire of these lame attempts to declare "both sides do it" and thus distract attention from the current atrocity committed by the Left. The Right is pretty unified on the idea of Freedom of Speech being a good thing. As an example, a quote from today's Gab stream by a someone who was dis-employed by a Twitter/Media Rage Mob for his "dangerous ideas that are out of the mainstream" posted a draft version of a "National Right" manifesto including the following two points bearing on this discussion:

            Free speech

            To promote our ideas and the essential conversations between different groups to decide the best path forward for our nation, we support unrestricted free speech across all platforms and vehemently oppose efforts at censorship by both governmental and corporate actors.

            Free association

            Americans have the right to identify with and work with whichever people they so choose so long as they do not harm another. The long inquisition of political correctness which has been used to intimidate people into silence must be confronted and defeated as people join together to express their honest feelings without threat of reprisal.

            Nope, no attempt to censor there, that is about as clear as the 1st Amendment itself.

            Or another gab user posted the following gag:

            Nazis: We need to stop blowing up brown people and ensure people have the right to criticize government without retaliation.

            Hippies: No.

            If this poster some moderate or such? Gab user profiles have a spot for a short quotation, here is this user's:

            I used to support diversity initiatives in my field, but the harder I tried, diversity further abused and gaslit me. Now I seek an identity separate from my abuser, diversity. I am strong, I know the abuse isn’t my fault no matter what it screams. I won’t let it hurt me or scare me. I am free.

            Nope, sounds like a dirty double plus ungood crimethinker to me. And clearly supports Free Speech.

            The Constitutional Conservative Right of course supports the 1st Amendment absolutely because "muh Constitution" and all that. The Libertarian Right also agrees while the Libertarian Left says "Bake the effing cake, bigot." The only faction right of center who doesn't support the idea of free speech are some of the NRx types who think we suffer from a lack of a King. A few black pillers like Vox Day are saying that if the Left seems intent to revive blasphemy laws we should oblige them and show them the folly of their way. Pretty sure he would be willing to settle for a peace where the Left agrees to stop their current course but he, probably correctly, assumes they lack the ability to see consequences or the will to change course.

            Face it, the Left started openly calling for the repeal of the 1st Amendment in the raging butthurt over losing Citizens United and haven't stopped. But they effectively announced their departure from a belief in freedom of speech years before with their fetish for "hate speech" laws. Now they openly call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. If you support Truth, Justice and the American Way the Democratic Party must be your enemy for they certainly consider you their enemy.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday April 14, @09:07PM (21 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 14, @09:07PM (#667053) Journal

      Your support for civil rights and tolerance isn't determined by the things that offend other people. It's determined by the things that offend you.

      That's absolutely true, and quite insightful.

      These days, the left is far more intolerant than the right.

      That's false. The Left is more hypocritical on tolerance than the Right. Many Leftists think they are "tolerant" and preach "tolerance" but (as you note) are often quite intolerant toward those with conservative views. People the Right, on the other hand, often explicitly display their intolerance. It's part of their branding. While not true of all, it's not uncommon to hear a Christian Right-wing person declare that "God is on our side" and that Muslims should be punished, homosexuals are going to hell, interracial dating/marriage is miscegenation, etc.

      Don't misunderstand: there are "tolerant" people on the Right for all of these issues, but there are also intolerant ones, and the Right is better know for being explicit about its intolerance... conservativism is often more about identifying "rules" and those who are outside those rules. It's a common characteristic of Conservative ideology.

      Bottom line is that I'd say both the Left and the Right are (on average) about equally intolerant of people who have differing views from their own. The Right is just somewhat more honest about it. And there are somewhat more tolerant people on both sides, but they can be hard to find.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by stormwyrm on Saturday April 14, @11:57PM (20 children)

        by stormwyrm (717) on Saturday April 14, @11:57PM (#667098) Journal

        Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

        — Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies [archive.org], p. 265 (all emphasis in original). I don't know if what is happening here is suppression of intolerance of the sort Popper describes, but it is something to think about. If you extend unlimited tolerance to the intolerant, the intolerant will use your tolerance to destroy the tolerant and tolerance itself.

        --
        People don't like to think. If one thinks one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday April 15, @12:35AM (4 children)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @12:35AM (#667100) Journal

          This is a good point. However, condemnation of "intolerant" people can sometimes be made out of ignorance. Sometimes supposedly "intolerant" perspectives are actually resulting from different underlying assumptions or worldviews, rather than something objectively "less tolerant."

            Also, my larger perspective would be to say that simply condemning the intolerant and not "tolerating" then is often counterproductive. Those condemned will often just lash out or ignore you or view your condemnation as arrogance. If you really want to stamp out intolerance, it must be addressed through understanding the underlying perspectives and a sympathetic ear, not just dismissive. One need not tolerate intolerance, but one should approach it with understand.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 15, @02:11AM (3 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @02:11AM (#667124) Journal

            So drag the intolerant out into the sunlight and show, by being better-informed, wittier, and a better person, WHY they are wrong. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. This idea of just shutting them down completely creeps me the hell out. If they want to do something like that they need to show that this guy and others are actually breaking laws. Until then, the proper response is a combination of ignoring them and ridiculing them six ways from Sunday as they richly deserve.

            If nothing else, this feeds right into their stupid fucking persecution complex. These people *want* to martyrs for the cause. What they don't want is being forced to live while their cause collapses around them in a landslide of scorn and ridicule. Don't censor the alt-right: send them up as the stupid, foolish, dangerous clowns they are.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 4, Funny) by jmorris on Sunday April 15, @07:56AM (2 children)

              by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Sunday April 15, @07:56AM (#667200)

              What if they don't want to debate you? The left is increasingly of the belief that the best debating tactic is to simply punch their opponents until they shut up or die. Meanwhile Islam teaches that the best rebuttal is cutting off their opponent's head.

              Those examples point the way to a useful definition of the bounds of tolerance. Tolerance for all those willing to openly engage in a debate but not just censorship for those unwilling, expulsion from our lands if possible and death if it isn't. Total exclusion from anyone entering our civilization who is known to be antithetical to its continued existence and absolutely zero apology or guilt tripping over it. Rule one must be survival in any rational moral code.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 15, @02:38PM (1 child)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @02:38PM (#667276) Journal

                Oh, I agree there with that last sentence, and with it, you have simply restated the Paradox :) Thing is, though, people like you and with your beliefs *are* dangerous to society's continued survival.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @06:13PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @06:13PM (#667343)

                  Bingo. Jmorris, the goose stepping martyr. Oh wait, he's not martyr, he's just another loser that hopes for a martyr to suffer instead.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:26AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @04:26AM (#667158)

          The paradox of tolerance is not a reasonable explanation for leftist intolerance. Proof: an absurdly intolerant religion has, strangely, been embraced by leftists. The left claims to support both LGBT and a religion which has, as an undeniable element of faith, the requirement to chuck LGBT (at least receptive males) from rooftops. The left claims to support both women and a religion that gives women less freedom.

          So that explanation just doesn't work.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @06:28AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @06:28AM (#667173)

            Truly, this is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on SoylentNews, jmorris level of stupidity. Do you actually think that tolerance of Islam is embrasure? Tribal, black or white, "with us or with the t'rrists" George W Bush level stupidity. Why don't you post something else about supporting equal rights, you reprobate repugnant deplorable AC, so we can all have a good laugh at your idiocy again! Please!

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 15, @06:15AM (12 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @06:15AM (#667171) Journal

          Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.

          That's an opinion which I don't see supported in practice. Rather I see intolerant people gleefully on exhibition whenever they find an socially approved target towards which they can be intolerant without repercussions.

          and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

          Oh look, someone doing something illegal. It's not about intolerance at this point, it's about establishing and enforcing reasonable laws.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @06:33AM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @06:33AM (#667176)

            Rather I see intolerant people gleefully on exhibition whenever they find an socially approved target towards which they can be intolerant without repercussions.

            Poor, poor khallow! Did the SJWs waylay you during recess, and steal your taxes again? I, for one, feel for you. I just hope that others, too, will see the violence inherent in the system of violent imposition of law and order, a violence that primarily oppresses single white males who work in tech industries!! Oh, the Huge Manatees! Or huge men in tees? I am not intolerant enough to worry about getting it right.

            • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday April 15, @06:43AM (10 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @06:43AM (#667181) Journal
              One merely needs to look at your post to see the problem in practice. We're not even remotely Popperian at this point. There is no "intolerance" on my part to which one can be intolerant in turn. Yet you're still a dick.
              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 15, @02:40PM (9 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @02:40PM (#667277) Journal

                Oh come on, he's not being "intolerant," he's giving your passive-aggressive, self-serving horseshit the mockery it deserves. Ridicule is not oppression, you fragile yellow snowflake.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday April 15, @11:42PM (8 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @11:42PM (#667411) Journal

                  he's giving your passive-aggressive, self-serving horseshit the mockery it deserves

                  In other words, intolerance.

                  Ridicule is not oppression

                  Except when it is, of course. Harassment and punishment via ridicule [wikipedia.org] is not a new thing. Ridicule without context as was exhibited in this thread is such a pointless exercise. What do we gain by ridiculing people, if it is not accompanied by or spurring thoughtful debate? Answer: suppressing speech with which the poster disagrees. The problem is that disagreement is not a sign of correctness or rationality. It merely means you disagree. The wisest and dumbest can both disagree with equal facility. Even worse, as in this case, we don't know why or on what the poster disagrees. You might disagree, but that signals to me that I shouldn't care what the poster happens to believe.

                  The problem with not tolerating the intolerant, is first, that you don't actually change the intolerant beliefs. You might drive it underground which does have some propaganda value. But without providing a genuine rebuttal, it's going to survive and rear up at some later time. Second, while there is this myth that such beliefs can never be changed, one sees many such changes over time. Beliefs can be discredited, but you have to honestly engage them in order to discredit them (ridiculing people, especially when such ridicule is more likely to fall on the sensible and sane than those who are not, is not honest engagement). Third, it routinely pushes important problems into becoming taboo subjects. Anyone willing to address those taboo subjects then has a powerful rhetorical advantage over those ignoring elephants in rooms.

                  For example, the alt-right has gained a great deal of credibility because it is willing to publicly address excesses of "social justice", the problems that come from high levels of immigration, flaws of democracy, skepticism of climate change claims, etc. Some of their answers are batshit crazy, but at least they're willing to talk.

                  For a more specific example, Trump won the US presidency because he was willing to speak out and address many voters' fears about immigration. His idea of "building a wall" is loony, particularly compared to some of the more successful policies of his predecessor (ironically, one of the few things Obama has done right is figure out how to reduce illegal immigration - eg, shifting deportations [snopes.com] to "formal deportations" which document the illegal entry and allow for temporary and permanent immigration bans for repeated violations of US law), but no one else would even think about it.

                  That's one of the ways you can get bad policy. If no one is thinking about solving a big problem except for the crazies, then you're not going to get sane solutions.

                  Fourth, intolerance of intolerance is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not the worst thing out there, but you probably should reduce your intake of it.

                  Finally, look at what I quoted.

                  Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.

                  So what was Popper's idea of "unlimited tolerance"?

                  and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

                  We wouldn't "tolerate" muggers assaulting people with fists or pistols. So why would we tolerate those muggers because they happen to be alt-right or some other ideology? It's nonsense. That's not tolerance. That's failure to enforce the law.

                  The answer to the so-called Paradox of Tolerance is tolerate people and their beliefs and speech, but consistently don't tolerate criminal behavior. It's very simple.

                  • (Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday April 16, @02:42AM (7 children)

                    by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @02:42AM (#667470) Journal

                    What do we gain by ridiculing people, if it is not accompanied by or spurring thoughtful debate? Answer: suppressing speech with which the poster disagrees. The problem is that disagreement is not a sign of correctness or rationality. It merely means you disagree. The wisest and dumbest can both disagree with equal facility. Even worse, as in this case, we don't know why or on what the poster disagrees. You might disagree, but that signals to me that I shouldn't care what the poster happens to believe.

                    My dear and squishy khallow, many, many times right here on SN soylentils have given you thoughtful debate. It has spilled off your brain like dusk off a waterback. It is not that we disagree, it is that you are wrong! We have been trying to educate you, point out your errant initial assumptions and crazed conjectures, but this has not worked. Now we are left with nothing but trying to shame you, not into suppression (hell, it usually has the opposite effect, if jmorris is any indication), but into a realization of your wrongitude. We know you don't care, you are not interested in thoughtful debate, and you argue in bad faith. So really, there is nothing to be done with you, until you change your ways, but to mock you mercilessly. Mockery will continue until morals improve!

                    So, please respond with some more of your highest grade whining, so we can mock you a second tyime!!

                    --
                    #freearistarchus!!!
                    • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday April 16, @04:14AM (6 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @04:14AM (#667503) Journal

                      My dear and squishy khallow, many, many times right here on SN soylentils have given you thoughtful debate.

                      Feel free to try to include yourself among that number at some point. Seriously, it does seem that there's a real mind somewhere behind that mask, but we rarely get to see it.

                      As to the rest of your post, you did get a rise out of me, but it's just not worth it to express it in words. As I said before, I respond to thoughtful debate. But when it's not, well, you might get a good response out of me or you might not. Seems to me that one should get something more out of an aristarchus debate than just pushing the same worn-out buttons [soylentnews.org] that have been pushed for years.

                      • (Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday April 16, @09:33AM (5 children)

                        by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @09:33AM (#667557) Journal

                        Yes, of course, thought so. People advocating white supremacy are just plain stupid, because anyone can see that white people are not all that smart. And, even more damning, those white people who try to advocate white supremacy are among the stupidest members of the human species. So we are going to censor you, if you want to go down that path, khallow, and to your credit I have not seen you explicitly do so, yet. But if you do, we will not have a thoughtful debate about your theory of racial superiority, we will instead post news stories about your affair with your step-mother-in-law/landlady in the trailer park, mutandis mutandum. And you will be very, very ashamed. Until that, keep pushing the whole "private property incentivication" and "prosperity gospel" snake-oil. And, oh, remember to deny climate change again. You need to meet your quota for the month!!

                        --
                        #freearistarchus!!!
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 16, @01:28PM (3 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @01:28PM (#667614) Journal

                          People advocating white supremacy are just plain stupid, because anyone can see that white people are not all that smart.

                          I'm not doing that. You're not doing that. So completely irrelevant. Why don't you go bug Ethanol-Fueled (whose views still aren't white supremacy, but at least much closer to that than mine)? His permaban doesn't seem to be working.

                          Until that, keep pushing the whole "private property incentivication" and "prosperity gospel" snake-oil.

                          What I've written on that subject (the latter, the increasing prosperity of humanity everywhere) has been backed by actual evidence (for example, here [soylentnews.org]). Two thirds of humanity as a whole has seen substantial increases in wages over a recent 20 year period. Something big is being done right.

                          As to "private property incentivization"? It's its own incentive. There's no need for additional incentivization and I have never proposed such.

                          and to your credit I have not seen you explicitly do so, yet

                          Exactly. Why again are you being a jerk to me for things I haven't done "yet" (nor ever will)? Where were you when we had people ranting [soylentnews.org] about genocide was justified because the target did it first via mere immigration.

                          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday April 16, @06:40PM (2 children)

                            by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @06:40PM (#667753) Journal

                            Two thirds of humanity as a whole has seen substantial increases in wages over a recent 20 year period. Something big is being done right.

                            Done "right", alright! Like 1%, Old Skool Big Business Republican Right! Oh, my dear and furry khallow, has it ever entered your head to assess metrics that seem to support your ideological position, so that you might see that an increase in wages can actually be a decrease in relative income, and a lowering of standards of living?

                            Please, tell us more! I just love Vienna Sausage Economics!

                            --
                            #freearistarchus!!!
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 16, @11:35PM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @11:35PM (#667850) Journal

                              so that you might see that an increase in wages can actually be a decrease in relative income, and a lowering of standards of living?

                              The links address that. For example, from the link [voxeu.org] showing a huge improvement in the well-being of all humanity. First, they define "real income":

                              Each country’s distribution is divided into ten deciles (each decile consists of 10% of the national population) according to their per capita disposable income (or consumption). In order to make incomes comparable across countries and time, they are corrected both for domestic inflation and differences in price levels between countries.

                              Then view figures 1 and 2.

                              When we line up all individuals in the world, from the poorest to the richest (going from left to right on the horizontal axis in Figure 1), and display on the vertical axis the percentage increase in the real income of the equivalent group over the period 1988–2008, we generate a global growth incidence curve – the first of its kind ever, because such data at the global level were not available before. The curve has an unusual supine S shape, indicating that the largest gains were realised by the groups around the global median (50th percentile) and among the global top 1%. But after the global median, the gains rapidly decrease, becoming almost negligible around the 85th–90th global percentiles and then shooting up for the global top 1%. As a result, growth in the income of the top ventile (top 5%) accounted for 44% of the increase in global income between 1988 and 2008.

                              So collectively - after correcting for inflation and differences in price levels, the world got a lot wealthier over the period 1988-2008 with around two thirds of the entire human population seeing large improvements over that time period. I'm oversimplifying the interpretation a bit, but it's showing the best improvement ever in humanity to date rather than some spurious artifact. Who received what depends on the country. China did a lot better than India, for example. And some did worse such as the lower classes of Japan.

                              At this point, it's looking pretty good with several decades track record, and looking to get better. Sure, we could embrace radical doubt [soylentnews.org] and assert without evidence that the presence of some confounding factor, like an all-powerful evil deity, is throwing off our economic numbers. But what would be the point?

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, @04:05PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, @04:05PM (#668154)

                              If you were to buy some stocks . . .

                              Oh never mind. You would choose stocks that would leave you destitute. Don't bother.

                        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 16, @09:45PM

                          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @09:45PM (#667815) Journal

                          people who try to advocate white supremacy are among the stupidest members of the human species

                          For certain values of "stupid", that may be true. On the other hand, a white supremacy regime in Europe did a damned good job of fucking up half the world when it threw a temper tantrum. If those people were so stupid, why did it take all of the rest of the world's power to stop them, and a couple of allies? It would seem that those Nazis were pretty damned intelligent, to have done so well, up until they fucked up with Barbarosa. You may or may not argue that Hitler was insane - but not even insanity negates a high intelligence. The bastard was crazy, AND smart, not to mention cunning and charismatic. That was a very, very VERY dangerous combination. Had Hitler not began losing touch with reality, he may very well have overrun Europe and it's allies.

                          It really isn't necessary to display your ignorance here. Politics, prejudice, racism, religion, and similar traits are no more an indicator of intelligence than height, or hair color, or the language you speak.

                          --
                          Death smiles at everyone. Sailors smile back.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday April 14, @08:24PM

    WebCom was the first commercial web hosting company, cofounded by Thomas Leavitt and Chris Schefler.

    Chris was and Thomas still is as left as they come. Thomas later built the website "Buy French Now!" when the Congressional lunchroom started serving Freedom Fries, then the Savage Stupidity site that lampooned right-wing radio host Michael Savage.

    True lefties believe in free speech.

    I worked there for a while. During my time WebCom made headlines everywhere because it was hosting Ernsts Zundel's Holocaust Revisionism site - and they refused to ban him.

    Holocaust Revisionism is unlawful in Germany, so the German government ordered all the german ISPs to ban WebCom's IP.

    Tens of thousands of websites. The customers all complained, many took their business elsewhere but still Chris and Thomas kept hosting Zundel's site.

    --
    "You, Michael David Crawford, you are helping to destroy America."
    -- Anonymous Coward
  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday April 14, @08:26PM

    Private parties have the right to censor speech and writing.

    But I don't think they should. I feel Facebook did the wrong thing.

    I strongly agree with the assertion that the best response to hate speech is more speech.

    --
    "You, Michael David Crawford, you are helping to destroy America."
    -- Anonymous Coward
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @08:58PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, @08:58PM (#667049)

    If this were Nazi Germany, he would be helping connect Jewish people to a gas chamber.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:04AM (#667107)

      He'd steal pictures of the gas ovens and put them on a hot-or-not site.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 14, @10:00PM (18 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 14, @10:00PM (#667068) Journal

    This is NOT how you deal with shitheads. You don't censor them; you MOCK them.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday April 14, @10:05PM (3 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Saturday April 14, @10:05PM (#667070)
      For once, we fully agree.
      --
      "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:56AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @12:56AM (#667105)

        Are you mocking Azuma Hazuki?

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday April 15, @01:32AM

          by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 15, @01:32AM (#667113)
          No, but I did make a note to try to do so in the future, ok?
          --
          "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @01:09AM (#667109)
        Arik has shown the way. Let's all write in monospace.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 15, @02:27AM (12 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @02:27AM (#667129) Journal

      Correct. Censoring someone suggests that A. you disagree with him, and B. you have no rational argument to offer.

      Censorship is almost always wrong. In fact, censorship is so seldom right, that we can ignore those few instances where it might be right.

      --
      Death smiles at everyone. Sailors smile back.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @03:05AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @03:05AM (#667142)

        Who cares whether it's right or wrong?! Discussing it is stupid. Let's just work on making it impossible, or at least impractical. And since the majority wants more censorship, not less, we must use technology to defeat this social problem. Where are the real freedom fighters to helps us out?

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by jmorris on Sunday April 15, @06:38AM

          by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Sunday April 15, @06:38AM (#667180)

          The freedom fighters you seek are at Gab, working on something they call the "Exodus Protocol" which will supposedly permit the current gab.ai to be replaced with a version that operates in a similar way to the end users yet be cryptographically impregnable to all attempt to censor, by gab, by their upstream name service and hosting providers, even nation state actors. Whether it can actually be done remains to be seen. Work began (or was announced to the public) when political pressure from upstream forced them to ban weev.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday April 15, @06:49AM (2 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @06:49AM (#667184) Journal

        Censorship is almost always wrong.

        Your idea intrigues me. Let us set the full syllogism in order:

        Censorship is almost always wrong.
        Runaway is almost always wrong.

        Too much to be mere coincidence. So we may conclude:
        ⊨Runaway is censorship.

        Ancillary corollary conclusion:
        ⊨Runaway must be censored.

        You can't argue with logic. Or at least that appears to be the case, judging from your posting history.

        言 者 不 知, 知 者 不 言

        Laozi

        --
        #freearistarchus!!!
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 15, @11:07AM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @11:07AM (#667230) Journal

          Let us set the full syllogism in order

          Few people have minds so warped that they can follow your "logic". You are in a class all by yourself, somewhere over in La-La land.

          --
          Death smiles at everyone. Sailors smile back.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday April 15, @08:30PM

            by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @08:30PM (#667378) Journal

            Sorry! You are correct! Pursuant to your final surmise:

            In fact, censorship is so seldom right, that we can ignore those few instances where it might be right.

            the appropriate parallel construction should have been:

            In fact, censorship Runaway is so seldom right, that we can ignore those few instances where it he might be right.

            Thank you for your intervention! And remember! All Cretans are liars, and it's true because one them even said so! So, clearly, Runaway is not correct, even if he is. (The "Man in Black" says: "Truly, you have a dizzy intellect!")

            --
            #freearistarchus!!!
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @08:17AM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, @08:17AM (#667205)

        Censoring someone suggests that A. you disagree with him, and B. you have no rational argument to offer.

        Bullshit. Society needs to censor bullshit, or we'll end up with "Creationists" in science class. Why? Because like you or jmorris, you will simply never change your opinion and will tirelessly rumble on line a fucking idiot. The rest of us go on, and live our lives while you and your type of idiots continually spread your bullshit. Then the ratio of bullshit to non-bullshit gets lower and lower, mainly by your inability (and jmorris) to FUCKING STOP posting shit. You will never manage to clue in that you are indeed wrong no matter how many examples are brought up.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide [wikipedia.org]

        was brought to you by your "free speech". In sane nations, like Canada or Germany, we have laws against hate speech. And these rules exist mainly to protect the majority from the relentless bullshit by the vocal minority of idiots.

        The problem with Facebook and Twitter is that it allowed these individual fuckwits to congeal together into masses of fuckers. People like the nazis like Spencer, or ISIL or whatever the fuck they want to call themselves. Same bullshit spreading idiots.

        So, STFU about your "free speech". We want to live our lives in peace not to hear how some Nazi got his fucked up twitter deleted. Is this a "compelling argument" for you or will you ignore it like always?

        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 15, @11:05AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @11:05AM (#667229) Journal

          Bullshit. If society is run as a democracy, then enough atheists, other theists, and even Christians accept the idea of evolution, that the Christains aren't going to censor out evolution. I suppose that you have citations for one church or another condoning that genocide? Which one, specifically? Accusations flew, sure, but as far as I can see, no religious leaders were convicted. It's equally likely that the non-Christians leveled charges against every Christian they could find, just because they could.

          Free speech, bitch. You can say what you want - I can say what I want. What's more, any swinging dick in the world can log in, and have his say. Even better, those people who don't have dicks can log in to say anything they want.

          Funny thing is - jmorris and people who agree with him and I actually like hearing what all the other morons have to say. You? You're just an intolerant shit. You want to censor all of us who disagree with you. Back to my post, to which you responded: You disagree with me, but you have no rational argument. You're a loser.

          --
          Death smiles at everyone. Sailors smile back.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 15, @02:45PM (4 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @02:45PM (#667279) Journal

          The entire point of rights is that they apply even to scumbags. Now, there are of course limits like the much-referenced "shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater" example, but that's not a limit on speech for its own sake, but a limit on a dangerous misuse of it. And "hate speech" laws are gilding the lily; we ALREADY have laws making it criminal to threaten violence.

          What we need to do is fucking enforce them, and if you figure out why they're not being enforced, you'll have figured out the real problem (that many of the people in charge of enforcing them are assholes). Since criminals don't obey laws, and since LEOs and other upper-crust (read: rich and/or otherwise powerful) people have gamed the system such that laws don't apply or don't have teeth in the form of consequences, *more laws* aren't going to help.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday April 15, @08:34PM (3 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 15, @08:34PM (#667380) Journal

            But this is the point, I fear. "Weaponizing" free speech to further violent ideologies is in fact analogous to "shouting fire in a crowded threatre", is it not? The rabid right does not insist on speech to express their ideas, they are trying to insult, frighten, and hurt their fellow citizens. It is terrorism, pure and simple, and not free speech at all.

            --
            #freearistarchus!!!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @03:07AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @03:07AM (#667476)

              I think aristarchus speaking is in fact analogous to "shouting fire in a crowded threatre", the rabid aristarchus does not insist on speech to express their ideas, they are trying to insult, frighten, and hurt their fellow citizens. It is terrorism, pure and simple, and not free speech at all.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday April 16, @09:24AM

                by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 16, @09:24AM (#667556) Journal

                rabid aristarchus

                Ungrammatical speech is not speech, either, and is a terror to the literate.

                rabid aristarchoi

                Masculine nominative plural, first declension, not that it is usual to use such with proper names.

                Now write it again, one hundred times.

                --
                #freearistarchus!!!
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 18, @03:30AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 18, @03:30AM (#668409) Journal

              I share all these same concerns. There seems to be an unfair advantage, in that we play by the letter and spirit of the law and they, at their least scummy, play the "literal asshole genie interpretation of the law" game. But what do we do to make sure the disease isn't worse than the cure? Too many on the left are already starting to act like these people, and they're not good at it because it's not their nature.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @06:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, @06:02PM (#667730)

      yep, if what they are saying is so stupid it should be easy to show that. using these tactics just makes them look more legitimate.

(1)