The unimportant news thread

[drogulus]

Every time someone questions whether an authority should "allow" "hate speech," you just ask them to define what it is. It's far to subjective to be something that can be used to limit freedom of speech, period.

     It really isn't as a practical matter. The company where you work will enforce the same standards as other companies do, give or take. Do you have a theory of "shared subjectivity"?

[SimonNZ]

Theres nothing "subjective" about death threats. And if you're supporting them as as a freedom of speech issue...

[Ken B]

Ricky Gervais in the news! https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/11/ricky-laughs-at-newsnews-of-huge.html

[greg]

Theres nothing "subjective" about death threats. And if you're supporting them as as a freedom of speech issue...

That was a side note, so nope. The people who go on about protecting freedom of speech as well can separate that as the limits, recognizing that threats to violence shouldn't be protected.

I was just pointing out that death threats are par for the course when you become internet-famous. They're not even worth of being mentioned unless it ends up affecting you IRL.

[SimonNZ]

Its a bit late if it "ends up affecting you IRL". And are you really happy living in a world where death threats are considered just "par for the course"? (Apparently you are).

All the platforms should have a policy of banning any member who makes even one.

Also: part of that Greta kids complaint was that they were also making death threats to her sister. Still okay?

[greg]

Its a bit late if it "ends up affecting you IRL". And are you really happy living in a world where death threats are considered just "par for the course"? (Apparently you are).

All the platforms should have a policy of banning any member who makes even one.

Also: part of that Greta kids complaint was that they were also making death threats to her sister. Still okay?

How are you even interpreting that I'm happy about people making death threats?

And no, did I ever say they shouldn't be banned? I'm only saying that is very normal for people to get death threats with so much exposure. It would be like the president (any president) complaining about getting death threats. Regular people that talk about video games on youtube get death threats. 

She's the one intermingling death threats (objective threats) with hate speech (subjective) in the same sentence, which is dangerous. Equate the two together and you are creating a road where people accept their own speech to be restricted, leading to something that won't be good. Which I shouldn't have to explain, it should be obvious.

(though about the death threats, she's still a kid I think (not sure of her age), so it could be a shock still, so I will give her that)

[zamyrabyrd]

Who carries around a bow and arrow to shoot cows with?

https://freedomheadlines.com/the-latest/watch-as-they-slaughter-a-cow-in-a-home-depot-parking-lot-after-escaping-halal-market-video/

A young cow escaped slaughter at a Connecticut meat market — only to have its throat slit in public in Home Depot parking lot, according to a new report. The gory scene prompted the closure of the Saba meat store in Bloomfield, which kept livestock on its premises to be prepared in accordance with Islamic law, NBC Connecticut reported.

The cow dashed out of Saba on Saturday and ran across the street to the hardware store — with employee Badr Musaed and a contractor Andy Morrison hot on its trail. Morrison, who was doing renovation work at the meat store and was armed with a bow and arrow, tried to help Musaed corral the cow while the local police also responded.

Dash camera footage obtained by NBC shows the officer trying to box the bovine in with his cruiser — and Morrison attempting to shoot it with his weapon.

"As the cow ran towards the employees, Morrison shot at the cow, however he missed and the arrow struck the wall of the Home Depot," the police report said.

Suddenly, Musaed whipped out a foot-long knife and slit the cow's throat as other Saba employees wrangled the animal.

[drogulus]

How are you even interpreting that I'm happy about people making death threats?

And no, did I ever say they shouldn't be banned? I'm only saying that is very normal for people to get death threats with so much exposure. It would be like the president (any president) complaining about getting death threats. Regular people that talk about video games on youtube get death threats. 

She's the one intermingling death threats (objective threats) with hate speech (subjective) in the same sentence, which is dangerous. Equate the two together and you are creating a road where people accept their own speech to be restricted, leading to something that won't be good. Which I shouldn't have to explain, it should be obvious.

(though about the death threats, she's still a kid I think (not sure of her age), so it could be a shock still, so I will give her that)

     I don't accept death threats and I'm happy to apply an incitement to violence standard. I'm not bothered by the fact that the arbitrariness of legal or policy distinctions is unavoidable. It's a practical problem, not solved by a resort to an objective externality. That's an infinite regression. Whose subjective impression of an external objective standard is the right one?

[Ken B]

     I don't accept death threats and I'm happy to apply an incitement to violence standard. I'm not bothered by the fact that the arbitrariness of legal or policy distinctions is unavoidable. It's a practical problem, not solved by a resort to an objective externality. That's an infinite regression. Whose subjective impression of an external objective standard is the right one?

Word salad.
Thunberg isn't actually asking that Facebook remove death threats. Facebook already does. She is complaining about criticism that she asserts "result" in death threats. She is asking rather for the squelching of other things that she calls "conspiracy theories" and "lies" including those about "countless others".

[drogulus]

Word salad.
Thunberg isn't actually asking that Facebook remove death threats. Facebook already does. She is complaining about criticism that she asserts "result" in death threats. She is asking rather for the squelching of other things that she calls "conspiracy theories" and "lies" including those about "countless others".

     If that's the case she'll lose, and that's what should happen. That's the way I deal with all the excesses of the left and right, no acceptable balance will satisfy true believers. That's exactly as my word non-salad says. I'm arguing against Greg and his "subjective" stance. Thunberg is wrong because her standard is poorly reasoned, as it assumes a kind of objective standard that miraculously agrees with her. Can you imagine a teenager thinking like that?

[greg]

     I'm arguing against Greg and his "subjective" stance.

She mentions allowing hate speech and I said that it is subjective. Unless you can define it.

[SimonNZ]

Word salad.
Thunberg isn't actually asking that Facebook remove death threats. Facebook already does. She is complaining about criticism that she asserts "result" in death threats. She is asking rather for the squelching of other things that she calls "conspiracy theories" and "lies" including those about "countless others".

This is all in response to Zuckerberg  lifting the ban of misinformation and blatant falsehoods in political advertising on Facebook, which I believe AOC also grilled him about recently, and which they should be policing and stopping. Attacks and conspiracy theories from these sources are more potentially dangerous as seemingly sanctioned and legitimized by authority figures, rather than those by your average wingnut punters.

Again: I don't think this is covered or excused by a simple "freedom of speech".

[drogulus]

She mentions allowing hate speech and I said that it is subjective. Unless you can define it.

      It will remain only loosely defined in policies, and it's up to negotiation when it comes to particulars. It's like pornography, also restricted. Something can be a little bit hateful or pornful and not get banned. It's not a definition problem. A general definition is the starting point and then you decide what comes under it in practice in a world where people disagree.

[greg]

      and it's up to negotiation when it comes to particulars.
...then you decide...

Well, there's the problem it will end up leading to. You won't decide. Negotiation to authorities inevitably will end up to submission to the authorities. Especially if the government gets more authoritarian.

Something can be a little bit hateful or pornful and not get banned.

But illegal porn is very easily identifiable. That's because it is clearly defined. There should be a clearly defined version of hate speech, but no one has defined it yet.

Literally anything can be porn, that's why it's hard to define. There's people that literally get off on buildings and cars.

Imagine a world where all porn becomes illegal and you are raided because you say something against the government and then they confiscate your car and throw you in jail because some people get off to cars. All because porn doesn't have a clear definition, therefore it can be anything.

A solution is, if people want to make hate speech illegal (or a reason to ban people from facebook or whatever), actually narrow down to what type of hate speech, and from there you can get really specific and define it. That way people at least know if they are breaking the rules/law.

[SimonNZ]

But where do you stand on the issue of Zuckerberg lifting the ban of misinformation and blatant falsehoods in political advertising on Facebook?

[Ken B]

No more free books! End the oppression! https://www.popville.com/2019/10/as-if-my-hangover-wasnt-bad-enough-now-i-need-to-smash-my-head-into-a-wall/

[drogulus]

Well, there's the problem it will end up leading to. You won't decide. Negotiation to authorities inevitably will end up to submission to the authorities. Especially if the government gets more authoritarian.


But illegal porn is very easily identifiable. That's because it is clearly defined. There should be a clearly defined version of hate speech, but no one has defined it yet.

Literally anything can be porn, that's why it's hard to define. There's people that literally get off on buildings and cars.

Imagine a world where all porn becomes illegal and you are raided because you say something against the government and then they confiscate your car and throw you in jail because some people get off to cars. All because porn doesn't have a clear definition, therefore it can be anything.

A solution is, if people want to make hate speech illegal (or a reason to ban people from facebook or whatever), actually narrow down to what type of hate speech, and from there you can get really specific and define it. That way people at least know if they are breaking the rules/law.

     People don't need to be told how to negotiate what counts as hate speech. All they do is argue about what it is until they can agree on something they can live with. Usually nobody is completely satisfied, especially people who think there's an objective standard "out there", like the Forms of Plato.

[JBS]

No, the problem is people who try to suppress opposing view points with the claim that expressing them is hate speech.

Example.  If I say the Bible says homosexual sex is sinful, that in my eyes is expressing a fact. For some people it's not merely a fact, but doctrine handed out by God. But for others, saying it is indulging in hate speech.

[drogulus]

No, the problem is people who try to suppress opposing view points with the claim that expressing them is hate speech.

     Holy books are full of hate speech, and people are clever enough to disown their own viewpoint by saying a book is responsible. It's not possible to not know this, almost everyone has been on the receiving end of this, whether it's ones religion or lack of one.

[JBS]

     Holy books are full of hate speech, and people are clever enough to disown their own viewpoint by saying a book is responsible. It's not possible to not know this, almost everyone has been on the receiving end of this, whether it's ones religion or lack of one.

There, that's hate speech: a broad generalization belied by actual facts. But I think no one in GMG would declare you have no right to express that idea, however untethered to fact it might be.