In the wake of Pittsburgh massacre, Facebook allegedly sorry for showing "White Supremacist" ADs

[Nowak]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Hatred is simply human nature.

Hatred is taught. You aren't born hating something, like how you aren't born fearing something (aside from the standard primal fears). I wasn't born a claustrophobe, so why would you be born hating blacks?

[Ralphred]

5 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

There's free-speech, but it should never be used as a way to forward a twisted ideology, which also gives me more questions.

• At this rate, is it possible that freedom-of-speech might actually turn into something that causes more harm than good given the whole concerns about supremacy?

Personally, I think that any worldview you have that you think gives you the right to censor anything is twisted, should we censor you for your twisted opinions on restrictions of free speech? The way to fight bad ideas is to expose them to the light of day, explore their failings in a rational manner, and finally douse the flames with better ideas.

 

This is what this forum is about; people come here asking questions, people share experiences and knowledge so others may benefit, and form better ideas as a result.

6 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

• Has society as a whole just degraded to the point where we, quite literally, live in a world full of idiots?

It would be trivial to construct arguments that would support this, but I think it's more likely that the number of idiots in the world is pretty similar, per capita, as it's always been in western industrialised societies. What has changed is the increase in potential ways for people to manifest their idiocy, and more relevantly how it's recorded for the rest of the world to see.

I do see worrying trend in people seemingly not wanting to think for themselves, but, as with careful research you can find accounts of individuals lamenting the breakdown of societal communication going back as least as far as the 17th century, yet we still talk, I'm going to file that observation under "possible nostalgia based paranoia", but still play the "I told you so" card if it turns out to be true...

[Drak3]

Just now, Nowak said:

Hatred is taught.

Hatred and fear of specific things is taught. Hatred itself is human nature, so is fear. We seek out things to hate.

[matrix07012]

4 minutes ago, Nowak said:

 Hatred is taught. You aren't born hating something, like how you aren't born fearing something (aside from the standard primal fears). I wasn't born a claustrophobe, so why would you be born hating blacks?

Hatred is a natural human emotion, but what you hate comes mostly from socialization or negative personal experience.

[Syntaxvgm]

Quote

allegedly sorry

Peak 2018 

[Canada EH]

10 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Facebook

 

10 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Facebook hasn't learned their lesson.

 

 

I did not know anything happened as I dont watch much cable tv anymore, just strictly youtube on the tv or netflix and chill. Facebook will never learn, they are too greedy. I hope the gun craze gets under control and the killing reduces biggly!

[Mihle]

25 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

Hatred is a natural human emotion, but what you hate comes mostly from socialization or negative personal experience.

People should put their hate on stuff like people destroying the nature without another reason than money instead. Or something similar. 

[Canada EH]

42 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Or something

A punching bag is sufficient

[Taf the Ghost]

57 minutes ago, Nowak said:

Hatred is taught. You aren't born hating something, like how you aren't born fearing something (aside from the standard primal fears). I wasn't born a claustrophobe, so why would you be born hating blacks?

Hatred is application of natural self-preservation instincts against objects, ideas or concepts that exist external of the person. It has both proper and improper uses, some in your control and others not. A lot of people hate certain foods because they're actually allergic to them, thus defending themselves from injury. Most people hate heights because of the physical danger of those heights and the fear response those heights cause within them.

 

Hatred is thus learned. The argument, as it plays out, is about application & targets. The disassociated "Hatred is Evil" narrative is, itself, evil and utterly intend to cloud the subject. Further, criticism of currently protected groups or ideas is automatically deemed hatred (thus wrongthink) by significant factions with political clout, which, to a certain extent intentionally, leads to actual hatred between groups because of a complete lack of trust & dishonesty.

 

Hatred ends up being like Fire, Knives and general Weaponry: it needs to be properly applied & controlled, which is a sign of a mature adult. One should never be consumed by hatred, but the complete rejection of it is both a lie and extremely dangerous to oneself. 

[Canada EH]

They caught an African American spray painting a synagoge and is now charged with a hate crime. He will be made an example of by the Judicial system.

[Master Delta Chief]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Humans are permanently and irreversibly hardwired to hate and fear. The only way humans can overcome hatred is to drive ourselves, or be driven, to extinction.

With that kind mentality, yeah... Sounds like some stereotype to me. People can be better. If they never will, I will go in exile far, far away from civilization. 

 

Also regarding the topic: adblock. No more crappy or malicious ads on my screen.

 

[Trik'Stari]

11 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Funny how everyone demanded Gab to cease existing and they literally got f**ked over by the hosting service even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the killer other than him being on Gab (just like he was on other major social platforms), meanwhile Facebook is "sorry" for literally taking money from someone and hosting their white supremacist ads (so they say) and caravan just continues. Makes me vomit...

Or how twitter does what it does, while ignoring users saying racist things about white people.

 

Like the college professor who advocated white genocide, or the still employed asian woman who works for the NYT and frequently says things like "It's sick how much I enjoy being cruel to old white men".

 

The longer the left ignores their own internalized racism, the worse things will continue to get. You can't fight racism by being racist. You'll only breed more and more racism because... why not?

 

If you respond to a group of people, by calling them racist every time they disagree with you, and raise an entire generation of that group telling them they're inherently racist or inherently benefit from racism.... some of them are eventually going to embrace it because, what alternative do they have when you treat them as though they are racist anyways?

 

The Alt-Right and the resurgence of white supremacists is largely the fault of the left, and the education industry here in the US.

[RejZoR]

@Trik'Stari

It's even more funny considering that Alt Right, in the beginning was just a right that wasn't the same old traditional one we were used to it. Alt Right used to stand for younger conservatives who were kinda following more conservative beliefs, but with an update to current modern times so to speak. The left of course relentlessly called them nazis and racists and of course the actual people of those sorts took over. Now the "alt right" are people like Richard Spencer. It wasn't meant that way in the beginning, but the left helped them shape in all the wrong ways because they were being called all those things.

[Cereal5]

16 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

snip

Hold on let me get this straight... Facebook showed ads that supported killing white people, then apologized, calling the ads "white supremacist ads"?

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Alt Right used to stand for younger conservatives who were kinda following more conservative beliefs, but with an update to current modern times so to speak.

The first and most notable person to use the term and self identify as Alt Right was Paul Gottfried and at the time was not young, not even close. Nor was it an update to current modern times, he is a paleoconservative and he considers that as the original Right and has written books and given speeches on how the Right has changed.

 

Paleoconservatism is a view point similar to that of pre World War II America, a more isolationist and nationalistic ideal.

 

But yes Alt Right was not originally used in the way it is now, it was not used as a term for extreme racists and nationalists or Nazism, Paul Gottfried is Jewish after all and I don't think he would align himself with anything like that ever.

[RejZoR]

Term "Alt right" was also heavily used by Milo Yiannopoulos around Trump's elections (or a bi before). A white gay married to a black dude of Jewish and German roots who's Christian. He drove everyone insane because they couldn't fit him in any box. And he didn't fit into the typical "conservative right wing" box either. he was young and a lot of people around him as well as large base of Trump's voters who aligned right wing, but not in traditional conservative ways known to this date.

[matrix07012]

25 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Term "Alt right" was also heavily used by Milo Yiannopoulos around Trump's elections (or a bi before). A white gay married to a black dude of Jewish and German roots who's Christian. He drove everyone insane because they couldn't fit him in any box. And he didn't fit into the typical "conservative right wing" box either. he was young and a lot of people around him as well as large base of Trump's voters who aligned right wing, but not in traditional conservative ways known to this date.

The meaning of the term changed and crystallized.

[Unixsystem]

18 hours ago, leadeater said:

You can't in either, you will get arrested in both. And no it doesn't need to be a direct threat. You make a speech in public about mass murder, as in support of it, and you will get arrested. You might not actually get charged with a crime but you will be removed, you will be detained and questioned.

 

You turn up with a group of people to make that same speech and yes you might not, I can guarantee someone in the group likely will because the fact is it's harder to deal with a group of people than it is for a single person. And how is it do you think they organized such a gathering of people? Through the failings of being able to do the same thing online then move it from online in to public spaces.

Go look up Madonna at the Women's March. She stood on a stage in front of thousands of like minded people and said that she had had thoughts about blowing up the White House. And that was while standing in front of the White House. 

[Hunter259]

1 hour ago, Waffles13 said:

Go look up Madonna at the Women's March. She stood on a stage in front of thousands of like minded people and said that she had had thoughts about blowing up the White House. And that was while standing in front of the White House. 

So called "Hate Speech" is really only speech that goes against the current lefts social "progressiveness". If people can talk about how bad straight white men are for just being straight white men without being called out for "Hate Speech" then the term has no meaning. Which is true because it's nonsense. Gotta artificially shift that Overton window yo.

[Unixsystem]

18 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

So called "Hate Speech" is really only speech that goes against the current lefts social "progressiveness". If people can talk about how bad straight white men are for just being straight white men without being called out for "Hate Speech" then the term has no meaning. Which is true because it's nonsense. Gotta artificially shift that Overton window yo.

This is why arbitrary definitions are worthless. Rather than saying a threat of slapping is somehow fine vs a threat of death (both threats of physical harm), how about instead we day that threats that show evidence of being legitimate get priority, and threats with no realistic chance of being followed through are generally disregarded. I realize that there is still some gray area there, but that's why you leave matter up to the police to investigate.

 

Social media platforms should not be concerned about banning people who are not committing crimes (shouldn't morally, at least. Legally, they can currently do whatever they want, and whether or not that's ideal is a whole separate debate that isn't really worth getting in to.)

[Hunter259]

1 minute ago, Waffles13 said:

This is why arbitrary definitions are worthless. Rather than saying a threat of slapping is somehow fine vs a threat of death (both threats of physical harm), how about instead we day that threats that show evidence of being legitimate get priority, and threats with no realistic chance of being followed through are generally disregarded. I realize that there is still some gray area there, but that's why you leave matter up to the police to investigate.

 

Social media platforms should not be concerned about banning people who are not committing crimes (shouldn't morally, at least. Legally, they can currently do whatever they want, and whether or not that's ideal is a whole separate debate that isn't really worth getting in to.)

If anything this new banning spree of things that you don't like has given a crazy amount of attention to the things that you wanted silenced. I wouldn't know of half of these nutjobs without it.

[Unixsystem]

15 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

If anything this new banning spree of things that you don't like has given a crazy amount of attention to the things that you wanted silenced. I wouldn't know of half of these nutjobs without it.

You didn't know they existed because they were banned and were forced to congregate outside of the view if every normal social media platform. You now know they exist because they killed a bunch of people. People with extreme (right wing) viewpoints have been banned from social media from years, it wasn't until the Alex Jones thing that it got widespread press, and that's only because Jones is a giant meme. 

 

If they were allowed on Twitter and people saw them on a regular basis, people would know that they exist and could very easily keep an eye on the things that they are saying. 

 

This whole argument seems so be "if I can't see them, they aren't a threat" despite the fact that the only reason we are discussing this is because we couldn't see them, and they were a threat. 

 

Edit: also, what exactly are the things that I "wanted silenced"? I've been arguing this whole time that nothing, no matter how despicable, should be silenced. 

 

I want everyone to see what real Nazis are and how backwards their beliefs are. That's especially true lately where if you oppose illegal immigration, you're a Nazi. If you vote wrong, you're a Nazi. If you support due process, you're a Nazi. If you believe in lower taxes, guess what, Nazi. 

 

The term has gotten so diluted to mean basically anything right of center, that it's competitive plausible for younger people to find themselves agreeing with "Nazi" ideas that aren't anything close to what actual Nazism is. 

[Hunter259]

8 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

You didn't know they existed because they were banned and were forced to congregate outside of the view if every normal social media platform. You now know they exist because they killed a bunch of people. People with extreme (right wing) viewpoints have been banned from social media from years, it wasn't until the Alex Jones thing that it got widespread press, and that's only because Jones is a giant meme. 

 

If they were allowed on Twitter and people saw them on a regular basis, people would know that they exist and could very easily keep an eye on the things that they are saying. 

 

This whole argument seems so be "if I can't see them, they aren't a threat" despite the fact that the only reason we are discussing this is because we couldn't see them, and they were a threat. 

 

Edit: also, what exactly are the things that I "wanted silenced"? I've been arguing this whole time that nothing, no matter how despicable, should be silenced. 

Not directed at you. The "you" in that was meant to be anyone who has been pushing the banning spree.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

Go look up Madonna at the Women's March. She stood on a stage in front of thousands of like minded people and said that she had had thoughts about blowing up the White House. And that was while standing in front of the White House. 

Or that country singer I forget the name of that said he would shoot the president, we can all find examples of both sides doing it and not getting arrested. You trying doing that not at a concert or large gathering as a not high profile person, things will be very different for you.

[Unixsystem]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Or that country singer I forget the name of that said he would shoot the president, we can all find examples of both sides doing it and not getting arrested. You trying doing that not at a concert or large gathering as a not high profile person, things will be very different for you.

So it's okay for rich, influential people to say horrible things in front of massive crowds of fans, but it's not okay for some nobody to say it on Twitter? I'm assuming this isn't your argument, but it seems like an awfully dangerous precedent to set that laws apply differently to different people, or that the rich somehow have more freedom of speech than the rest of us. 

 

Or, the other way I can take your statement, is that because it was a well known individual speaking in front of a crowd who is looking for a good show, that the "threat" in question wasn't actually a credible, realistic threat and was instead just someone being hyperbolic for attention. 

 

Which sounds like an awfully familiar argument.