Google launches new anti-troll AI to the internet. And trolls troll right back with Operation Google.

[SaladFingers]

6 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

"Have no place in society". We have the right to free speech. It doesn't matter if someone is a neonazi or a racist, he has a right to express his opinion freely and I will defend that no matter what. When you take away that right from some people then you become just as bad as the ideas they express. That is not democracy. Besides, I do not see how having such opinions very public is bad. They will only get ridiculed from sensible people. If the society is affected by such stupid ideas, then the problem lies within the society rather than those ideas.

Couldn't have said it better myself, thumbs up.

[That Norwegian Guy]

Just now, FakezZ said:

Oh come on now. If someone gets angry just by a word, there is seriously something wrong in their head. Or there's nothing in there in the first place.

Oh sure, a century of slavery and slow torture of a people that you just threw your hat in the ring in support of, no - celebration of - by using just 1 word.

 

Right, they have no reason to get angry. None what so ever.

 

I don't know if the vacuum is in your intelligence or your education, but there's a reason why certain words are loaded with meaning, and worth a whole rant of hatred in and by themselves. The pen is mightier than the sword - and a pen that cuts might inspire a sword to cut back.

[SaladFingers]

5 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Because there are plenty of alternatives that aren't solely meant to disparage and incite anger?

 

Name ONE benefit of using the 6-letter N word in place of "black". One single reason.

The "N" word is a cultural thing and is very specific. If you live outside of the US, white,black,yellow,pink,purple or whatever else, it's irrelevant to you. Also, those people that are offended by it are more than happy to use it to address themselves and their friends. So yeah, here's another word: Hypocrisy. 

 

 Words are just words. If I insult you, there are laws that protect you. Sue me. But taking away my right of free speech is dictatorship. In today's world I can simply b1tch about something I don't like and if I do it enough it will be censored. Who's to decide what is allowed to be said and what is not? Random groups that protest about literally anything?

[FakezZ]

5 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Oh sure, a century of slavery and slow torture of a people that you just threw your hat in the ring in support of, no - celebration of - by using just 1 word.

 

Right, they have no reason to get angry. None what so ever.

 

I don't know if the vacuum is in your intelligence or your education, but there's a reason why certain words are loaded with meaning, and worth a whole rant of hatred in and by themselves. The pen is mightier than the sword - and a pen that cuts might inspire a sword to cut back.

Ohhhh yeah because the black people that live now personally experienced slavery and they have a right to be offended. It is like a Greek like me hating the Turks because we were under their command for like 400 years. But that's stupid because they did nothing wrong to me. Just like it is stupid getting angry at a word that has a history from like 200 years ago. Also the pen is mightier than the sword, but I am sure this quote does not mean people that get triggered by a word. More like the ideas that get expressed through words are as powerful as a sword. Thanks for knowing about my intelligence or education and making assumptions without even knowing me. I could say that offended me and your post should be censored, but no thank you I am a sensible person

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Oh sure, a century of slavery and slow torture of a people that you just threw your hat in the ring in support of, no - celebration of - by using just 1 word.

 

Right, they have no reason to get angry. None what so ever.

As much as you want to make it sound outrageous, that's exactly right. You guys tempt me to change my nick to Indian McSpic-Wetback sometimes.

[That Norwegian Guy]

4 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

The "N" word is a cultural thing and is very specific. If you live outside of the US, white,black,yellow,pink,purple or whatever else, it's irrelevant to you.

Ergo decedo fallacy, moving on

4 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

those people that are offended by it are more than happy to use it to address themselves and their friends. So yeah, here's another word: Hypocrisy.

Ecological fallacy, a minority in the minority may use the word in question about their kin, yet not all do and those that do have a different loaded meaning by using the word.

 

8 minutes ago, SaladFingers said:

Words are just words. If I insult you, there are laws that protect you. Sue me. But taking away my right of free speech is dictatorship.

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. Use whatever words you like but be prepared for the consequences. Such as Google filtering you, if a website chooses to plug in such a service. I'm sure there are already cases where online hate speech led to criminal charges. Since users of internet discussion forums often feel like they're anonymous when that isn't always the case, a site that knows it not to be the case for themselves might want to stop its users from putting their foot sideways into their skulls if they can.

[SaladFingers]

9 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. Use whatever words you like but be prepared for the consequences. Such as Google filtering you, if a website chooses to plug in such a service. I'm sure there are already cases where online hate speech led to criminal charges. Since users of internet discussion forums often feel like they're anonymous when that isn't always the case, a site that knows it not to be the case for themselves might want to stop its users from putting their foot sideways into their skulls if they can.

Google has no legal grounds to decide what is "okay" to be said and what not in the real world. That being said, sure, it's their own platform, so they get to decide for that, but my whole point is about how today's society keeps moving towards less and less freedom, and somehow it's now alright for big corporations to boss people around based on how they "feel" about specific topics. You can't just "hide" the "bad side" of the world. It is what it is. Controversial or not, all opinions must be heard. Again, Google can do whatever they want with their product, but my response to what they're doing still is: Joke's on them.

 

PS: Hmmm, I don't see any such related fallacies there, but I guess you interpret what I say however it suits you.

[Misanthrope]

33 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. Use whatever words you like but be prepared for the consequences. Such as Google filtering you, if a website chooses to plug in such a service. I'm sure there are already cases where online hate speech led to criminal charges. Since users of internet discussion forums often feel like they're anonymous when that isn't always the case, a site that knows it not to be the case for themselves might want to stop its users from putting their foot sideways into their skulls if they can.

You have every right to be offended by simple words. What it's happening here is that people want to impose their right to be offended unto others, effectively silencing them.

 

Yeah go ahead and claim how Google is a free private enterprise and how it can't be censorship. I'm used to people missing the point which is this: There is a very real, very concrete and very deliberate effort on the part of the Regressive Left to basically police language and force everyone through various means to conform to what they think. If they think something is sexist, something is racist, something is islamophobic, they want it gone from the public view. 

 

People are actively trying to undermine free speech by demanding safe spaces, by being crybullies that sue people, dox people, try to get them fired from their jobs, try to make them outcasts in the eyes of public opinion simply because they don't share their political ideas about merely SAYING the word Niger regardless of context, regardless of the irrational stupidity of some people being allowed to say Niger because they have the right amount of melanine on their skin.

 

I like to excercise my right to critize said behavior and defend the right to be a fucking asshole to whoever I want to fight back against the every increasing desire for others to put their feelings above my freedom.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, LucidMew said:

That sounds like something a historical political figure would say. I would say who it is, but I don't want google to filter it.

So... saying that a goal has merit but the way we are pursuing it is wrong now makes me a nazi?

[VerticalDiscussions]

31 minutes ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

-snip-

The reference of the Pen and the Sword was +5

[SaladFingers]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

...What it's happening here is that people want to impose their right to be offended unto others, effectively silencing them....

 

...If they think something is sexist, something is racist, something is islamophonic, they want it gone from the public view....

 

....People are actively trying to undermine free speech by demanding safe spaces, by being crybullies that sue people, dox people, try to get them fired from their jobs, try to make them outcasts in the eyes of public opinion simply because they don't share their political ideas....

 

I like to excercise my right to critize said behavior and defend the right to be a fucking asshole to whoever I want to fight back against the every increasing desire for others to put their feelings above my freedom.

Well said.

[suicidalfranco]

funny that it's always 4chan the one fighting the good fight 

[Arise_]

1 hour ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Oh sure, a century of slavery and slow torture of a people that you just threw your hat in the ring in support of, no - celebration of - by using just 1 word.

 

Right, they have no reason to get angry. None what so ever.

 

I don't know if the vacuum is in your intelligence or your education, but there's a reason why certain words are loaded with meaning, and worth a whole rant of hatred in and by themselves. The pen is mightier than the sword - and a pen that cuts might inspire a sword to cut back.

Yes, but the black people that are alive today had no part in slavery, I can understand why they might get upset still, but they have no right to dictate what we are allowed to say. I think that censoring things is just infringing on freedom of speech and I understand that what you say can have consequences, but that's not going to stop me from talking how I would like to talk and use words that I want to use.

[No Nrg]

They really need to use this in the Skankhunt42 storyline in this seasons South Park.

 

Matt and Trey read LinusTechTips right?

[Prysin]

4 hours ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Because there are plenty of alternatives that aren't solely meant to disparage and incite anger?

 

Name ONE benefit of using the 6-letter N word in place of "black". One single reason.

Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? The ability to retell history as it was, rather then how we later "wanted it to be"?

 

Also, the N word as it is in modern day was first used by the south african apartheid regime, and yes it was a demeaning word, however there is still several equally bad words depicting other races that is not banned, just frowned upon. So why is one race entitled to more gentle language then others?

 

Oh wait, you are going to use the slavery argument, right?
Well, during the slavery era, the correct term was "negro" which is a derivation of the latin word "Niger " , meaning black. It also had undertones of racism tied to it, but it was a "public race name" more then a curse word back then.

Indeed slavery was bad, but the majority of african slaves WAS SOLD TO BRAZIL, NOT THE US. Infact, there was almost three times more WHITE slaves, specifically Irish slaves in the US. You don't see people treating the Irish like their fragile snowflakes. Oh no, they still get ridiculed to this day.

 

The only reason the N word is banned, is because someone, somewhere decided THEY didnt like it. The rest of us has been indoctrined to follow said decision by means of legal repercursions.

 

And seeing as you are Norwegian, you know as well as me that there is A LOT of words that are banned here. "Hottentotter", which is sort of norwegian word of the N word, is banned. DESPITE IT BEING THE LEGITIMATE NAME OF A AFRICAN TRIBE THAT STILL EXISTS.

So we cannot talk about those.

Mulatt, the norwegian word for "latino/half black half white". Also banned and can cause you severe social issues, and legal ones, for using. Despite it being a legitimate description of a shade of skin color. Mulatt is however not considered the "politically correct answer", despite, to my knowledge, not being used as a racial slur in norway.

 

These are but a couple of examples, there are more.

The point is, IT ALL STARTS WITH ONE WORD. And once you successfully ban one of them, there isnt going to take much effort to ban another one.

 

The Internet, for better or worse, is the only true bastion of free speech left. There is no other place on earth, not even antartica, where you can utter every word you know, without severe legal or social repercursions. That is worrying, especially considering that every "western country", and many many others all consider free speech to be a legitimate RIGHT. 

 

Now, i do not condone using these kind of slurs "just because you can", there is a time and place for everything, but i certainly do not condone the intent of censoring everyone in the world.

[AresKrieger]

In my view censorship must always be avoided whenever possible since censorship is so easily abused, and directly contradicts the ideas behind freedom of speech, there are some instances that it is acceptable but those are few and far between.

[Shakaza]

5 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

You have every right to be offended by simple words. What it's happening here is that people want to impose their right to be offended unto others, effectively silencing them.

 

Yeah go ahead and claim how Google is a free private enterprise and how it can't be censorship. I'm used to people missing the point which is this: There is a very real, very concrete and very deliberate effort on the part of the Regressive Left to basically police language and force everyone through various means to conform to what they think. If they think something is sexist, something is racist, something is islamophobic, they want it gone from the public view. 

 

People are actively trying to undermine free speech by demanding safe spaces, by being crybullies that sue people, dox people, try to get them fired from their jobs, try to make them outcasts in the eyes of public opinion simply because they don't share their political ideas about merely SAYING the word Niger regardless of context, regardless of the irrational stupidity of some people being allowed to say Niger because they have the right amount of melanine on their skin.

 

I like to excercise my right to critize said behavior and defend the right to be a fucking asshole to whoever I want to fight back against the every increasing desire for others to put their feelings above my freedom.

I don't like censorship of any kind, and I like people having the ability to feel safe saying what they want without fear of being silenced by someone in a position of power, but I also believe that we should all strive to be kinder and more respectful to those around us, avoiding personal attacks in order to prevent harm from coming to undeserving people, especially those of a tender age, because they haven't found their place in the world yet, and insults can disorient them and inhibit their growth. Therefore, I propose that instead of outright banning words or somesuch, we develop the social expectation that things like that are harmful and should be disapproved of. That way, it's not anyone in a position of power that's blocking you, it's just the community collectively telling you to get out(just like they do for groups such as Neonazis or the Ku Klux Klan) , and since very few people enjoy being socially rejected, the cruel people will eventually conform to our views or find somewhere else that approves of their viewpoints or attitude, which they are welcome to do. Of course, on the internet, since I'd like everyone to be able to maintain their anonymity, it'd probably never happen, and it'd also take a long time in reality as well. 

 

So, basically, you can still say whatever you want, except if you say something bad to someone, it also becomes bad for you, which is how it is for crimes, and how it should be for other harmful interactions between people.

 

And, yes, I know this is wishful thinking. I'd just like to think of a way to protect victims from harm of this fashion without violating the rights of the attacker. This is by no means comprehensive, and I welcome others, especially Misanthrope, to examine and think about this as well and give any constructive criticism it needs to develop into at least a somewhat good idea, or just maybe toss it out with the others.

[SeriousDad69]

Leftists love free speech when it suits them, call it hate speech when it doesn't. Google already has a history of trying to influence public opinion by altering search results. SourceFed did a story about Google trying to steer people away from negative Hilary Clinton search results some months ago.

[Misanthrope]

14 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

I don't like censorship of any kind, and I like people having the ability to feel safe saying what they want without fear of being silenced by someone in a position of power, but I also believe that we should all strive to be kinder and more respectful to those around us, avoiding personal attacks in order to prevent harm from coming to undeserving people, especially those of a tender age, because they haven't found their place in the world yet, and insults can disorient them and inhibit their growth. Therefore, I propose that instead of outright banning words or somesuch, we develop the social expectation that things like that are harmful and should be disapproved of. That way, it's not anyone in a position of power that's blocking you, it's just the community collectively telling you to get out(just like they do for groups such as Neonazis or the Ku Klux Klan) , and since very few people enjoy being socially rejected, the cruel people will eventually conform to our views or find somewhere else that approves of their viewpoints or attitude, which they are welcome to do. Of course, on the internet, since I'd like everyone to be able to maintain their anonymity, it'd probably never happen, and it'd also take a long time in reality as well. 

 

So, basically, you can still say whatever you want, except if you say something bad to someone, it also becomes bad for you, which is how it is for crimes, and how it should be for other harmful interactions between people.

 

And, yes, I know this is wishful thinking. I'd just like to think of a way to protect victims from harm of this fashion without violating the rights of the attacker. This is by no means comprehensive, and I welcome others, especially Misanthrope, to examine and think about this as well and give any constructive criticism it needs to develop into at least a somewhat good idea, or just maybe toss it out with the others.

There is no such thing as a victim of a fucking word. A word can only hurt you if you personally let it get to you.

[SurvivorNVL]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

There is no such thing as a victim of a fucking word. A word can only hurt you if you personally let it get to you.

I remember a time when being a victim meant something physically happened to you.  People are weak in the modern era.  People are so caught up in the falsehood of protecting others and having a safer society free of the harsh-realities of words.  Meanwhile in my new city I hear the rioters chanting, "Black cities for black people, white cities for white devils."  I must now take immediate offense at their want for segregation, file a formal complaint, and now--as well, start a patreon, because I feel oppressed! 

[SurvivorNVL]

20 minutes ago, SeriousDad69 said:

Leftists love free speech when it suits them, call it hate speech when it doesn't. Google already has a history of trying to influence public opinion by altering search results. SourceFed did a story about Google trying to steer people away from negative Hilary Clinton search results some months ago.

Google, "European People Art" and "American Inventors".  The search results of today compared to eight months ago--have changed in what they show up.  

[Shakaza]

32 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

There is no such thing as a victim of a fucking word. A word can only hurt you if you personally let it get to you.

When it comes down to it, I'm not really ever concerned with just a word. It's more the people behind the word using it to try to hurt others. It's normally not a problem, since most people can shake it off, and I recommend doing so rather than seeking retribution, because it'll be easier on both of you. Mostly, I'm concerned about younger people, who don't know how to respond properly to these things yet(so teach them!), and especially those suffering from depression, whose minds already interpret pretty much everything as the world being against them, and they don't need anything else driving them closer to the edge(so support them!). The really harmful stuff (actual bullying) generally only happens in real life, but I've seen it happen online from time to time.

 

Some people say that too much sensitivity is the problem, and some people say that too many bullies is the problem, but I say that both need to be dealt with.

 

But, mostly, I agree with you. I'm tired of people being offended by everything. We must also create the social expectation that people should have thicker skin. Let me see if I can find an old Bloom County comic that I like...

[Doobeedoo]

Don't make me attack score you 100/100 K ?!

[laminutederire]

Do you guys know that freedom of speech is a right, and being one means you have obligations implied to it. No freedom of any nature is boundless. You lose your right speak when it's to try and hurt people. In the real world, that's what prison is for. On the Internet, that leads to ban people like keemstar.

What does those two example say to us?

You are free to say whatever you want, but if some things you say aren't in the rules of what you should, then there are consequences to punish you. That's the whole principle of rights.

To finish with another analogy: you have freedom of movement, but if you break in to someone else's house, you go to jail, or if you just wandered and just happen to be there, some other people have the right to kick you out. You're within your freedom to do those things, but not within your rights.

[suicidalfranco]

TFW have been called negro through high school and those assholes are basically brothers to me and I would give my life for them. Still calling me negro to this day and I still don't give a fuck. As Milo would say: Fuck your feelings