But back to the point: I’d say I am by and large not particularly bigoted. Still, I’d be lying if I said I have never laughed at off-color jokes. No matter how progressive or anti-racist you are something is going to break through. That is what makes it such a powerful tool for less scrupulous actors. You find what a person or community is willing to tolerate, then you either peel off people in private or push boundaries out loud and slowly drive a wedge into the community.
I side with Matt Taibbi on this one.
They arent innocent researchers being prosecuted by the evil baddies. I'll take my downvotes for having wrongthink.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/foreign-cen...
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/germany...
I'm sure that these organizations do some good work in removing actual threatening content but often it's also used to censor views that their operatives find objectionable simply because it doesn't concord with their own beliefs.
Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
> the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.
I don't think there is "one line" drawn by a single person, there are multiple entities here drawing their own lines wherever they want. In some governments, the lines have already been drawn between what is hate speech or not.
Chiefly, the subjective definition beyond "speech someone hates". Social media is trending towards establishing lockstep opinions and smushing disagreement. Using such labels is effective in cowing dissent.
It's tempting to objectively label something as bad through a subjective process, as appeals to authority are powerful. Your point about diverging lines being drawn highlights the importance of skepticism of these appeals.
Not the commenter you are respoinding to, but the link they shared explained that some of the 'hate speech’ that gets flagged is not anything that would rise to the level of ‘hate speech’ in many other jurisdictions. One of the examples cited was a person prosecuted for calling a politician a “professional moron”. The politician in question had had 700 people investigated for insulting them online in such a fashion; another politician had made more than 500 similar complaints.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with labeling some speech ‘hate speech’ and punishing the speaker even if it is indeed hateful because inevitably such laws will be used by people I don’t agree with to limit expression well beyond ‘hate speech’. Yet even if a case might be made for limiting some speech (denial of the Holocaust, for example) I don’t think that there is a strong case for limiting my ability to call a politician a moron, professional or otherwise.
I don't care that Musk turned Twitter into a Nazi safe haven, I just left.
DJT has no right to any coverage, prizes, diplomas and so on, he's just another politician and worse than most. The fact that he's democratically elected is a blemish on the USA just like Wilders is on NL.
> And if they still think this is ridiculous take can summon Trump to any European court.
Ok, so you're really just trolling. Goodbye.
Another prime example of advanced conservative thinking, for them it's always:
wrong + wrong == right
Maybe, it's just twice as wrong, no? Maybe, being "not happy [with] what these people have done to him" doesn't automatically make someone's actions right? How about twice as wrong again?
I simply think it is not right to basically destroy the life of someone without even a court judgement that he did something illegal. He definitely does not fall in the category of hate speech or trying to stir uproar. I think free speech is important for a living democracy. And that includes people with opposing views.
Thinks the British were responsible for the Bucha massacre?
An ex-colonel spouting propaganda from Europes current greatest threat to peace feels like it deserves to get treated on a different level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud
Also worth follow up reading on the swiss intelligence agencies, start with the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_intelligence_agencies#St...
I think too many people forget that for the Swiss neutrality doesn't mean the same thing as it does for say the Irish, Swiss Neutrality is about exploiting both sides, and I hope to god someone important remembers that this time round.
Europe is currently at war, some people just haven't realised it yet apparently.
Im not even going to touch on the swiss further, for only the truly incorruptible would colloborate with Nazis.
As I'd assume from your comments you consider yourself truly incorruptible. So does that mean collaboration with the Nazis is acceptable for you? Which actually would be a Russian demand to eradicate nazism in Ukraine?
Are you European? Then let me ask you why don't you join the war if you think the Ukrainians are an ally? Ally against what? Russia conquering the rest of Europe? Germany being next?
I am a friend of the Ukrainians, I have Ukrainian friends and I don't want them to die. I am not a friend of the Ukrainian government nor of people who think this war should continue nor of people who force others to participate in a war they don't want to participate in. The truth is that most Ukrainians don't want to participate in this war. Why not let them decide freely if they want to join the army? Why so many left Ukraine while it was possible? Why are so many soldiers deserting? Why do people get shot at the borders trying to leave Ukraine?
If you are so afraid of Russia, then go there yourself and fight. Why are you still posting on HN? Give those that don't want to die the freedom to not do so. Go yourself and fight yourself. As long as it is others dying for you, your convictions your words are cheapest of cheap.
Always remember: those who are keen to continue a war are not the ones who have to continue fighting it. I can't eat as much as I want to vomit if I see exile Ukrainians demonstrating to continue the war. Why don't they return but let those die that didn't have the means to escape?
You've then proceeded to make a whole host of other assumptions about me rather than engage with any of the points, so I'm not really going to engage with any of them other than also agreeing that the war should end, and should have ended a long time ago. But do I think Ukraine should cede territory to Russia to end the war? Why embolden the beast? We've tried appeasement many times before, it always plays out the same way.
War is not the answer, but Ukraine didnt pick this fight. Im frankly embarrassed by the state of support most european nations have shown them. Not all support needs to be about violence, but far too many of us were too slow to implement too little sanctions on the aggressor.
Anyways the minutia of the ukraine / russia conflict is largely off-topic. The real point is that Russia are the aggressor in Europe right now, and so a european ex-colonel with lots of experience in the intelligence services spouting russian propaganda every occassion they get is probably a collaborator, so I dont see it as anymore unreasonable for the EU to sanction them than say the Russian oligarchs.
I beg your pardon! You said Europeans are at war currently -please don't deny it, it is up there- and being myself European and not being aware of it, I wondered why you are not participating in it then but rather have other people die for your convictions?
So how did I not engage with your points and how is that an assumption? You just stated it!
If you think I didn't engage, then please ask me questions! I asked 9 questions and you didn't bother to answer one of them. Until then I continue to believe that the most fervent supporters of war are those that wont ever participate in them.
Whenever I hear "Ukraine" I personally hear the "fascist, corrupt leadership with golden toilets to sh*t in" and the suffering population who has to endure it. And I know plenty of Ukrainians and am friends with them.
Is that a conspiracy theory in the sense of “some crazy low-status nonsense that no one should pay attention to”, or a conspiracy theory in the sense of “a theory about a private arrangement between multiple actors”?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-wh...
I don't see how anyone call it a conspiracy theory any more.
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/election-excl...
Come to think of it, I’m not sure I understand anymore, either. I really do feel like we’re entering a post-ideological tribal era. Ideological stances change minute to minute, mostly according to “who and whom.”
If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
What this allows: - Hate speech (non-violent) - Holocaust/genocide denial - Blasphemy and religious mockery - Insulting leaders, judges, and the state - Burning flags and national symbols - Abstract praise of extremist ideologies - Offensive political misinformation - Harsh personal insults (non-defamatory) - Publishing leaked material - Advocacy of civil disobedience in the abstract
An outsider many view that as going "too far", but you limit one, it's the path to limiting them all.
My natural sympathies lie with this position, but is it evidence based? At least currently, more problems seem to be caused by disinformation and hate speech than are caused by government censorship (at least in the US and EU).
That’s not to say that the dangers associated with disinformation and hate speech necessarily justify censoring them (any more than the dangers associated with alcohol necessarily justified prohibition), but if the argument for an absolutist stance on free speech is going to be the consequentialist argument that it’s the less dangerous option, then this has to be evaluated empirically.
Because if you're wrong & the current US administration was elected for other reasons than disinformation and hate speech, which could very well be more symptoms than cause, then our situation would be worse, not better.
Don't forget that our current laws & regulations would have been enough to stop Trump's election if not for Merrick Garland & the Supreme Court.
Figuratively, American politics works like a pendulum. Attempts to weaken the First Amendment are like placing an obstacle directly in the path of that pendulum.
Let’s hope Rubio cranks it up harder.