Facebook Signs European Union Pledge To Suppress Loosely Defined ‘Hate Speech’ And Promote ‘Counter Narratives’

i know we don't usually like bringing up politics here but given how many people use and rely on social media these days, i figured this news was worth sharing.

oh and it's not just facebook despite the articles title. Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft are also involved in this.

i wonder what they consider to be hate speech. and do i even want to know where this talk of re-educating people will lead to?

some people must simply despise the concept of free speech. :/

EUSSR when

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FFVWEQnSM

bleh. I like how the racists are the ones protecting free speech <this isn't sarcasm, some of the quotes are from racists and they are protecting free speech>.

It's interesting how people think that this has never happened in the past and that "only now are we becoming like 1984". All governments have routinely censored and guided public opinion in the past. Since the advent of the internet their ability to do this has being severely dampened all the while their ability to monitor has increased.

Previously governments hired, bribed and coursed journalists to print the official narratives. Media publications who didn't play along had their licences removed and suffered legal consequences of laws past to keep public opinion in-line.

We are all under a disillusion of nostalgia.

CuteCoughDeath said:
bleh. I like how the racists are the ones protecting free speech

Just because someone's a bigot in one regard doesn't mean he's wrong on a different issue. Stopped clock.

Also, Facebook flat-out lies about what's trending.

The way Facebook presents news makes them just about the most sensationalist medium imaginable. Unfortunately, that's just what a lot of people are looking for.

I am going to quote myself from a couple of years ago on this one:
"Even idiots have free speech."

My feewings, they need protection!

I mean I'm all for free speech but I don't see the problem here.

Facebook and Google are allowed to filter their content as they see fit.

If they don't want what they consider "hate speech" on their website they are allowed to block it.

Bobcat said:
I mean I'm all for free speech but I don't see the problem here.

Facebook and Google are allowed to filter their content as they see fit.

If they don't want what they consider "hate speech" on their website they are allowed to block it.

I agree.

My only problem with that though is that they should clearly define what is grounds for them blocking something though. Nothing is worse than a purely subjective and loosely defined system of law/rules.

http://www.infowars.com/facebook-twitter-banning-free-speech-to-form-virtual-superstate/

So far we've got Breitbart.com and Infowars.com as sources in here. I'm going to, personally, need way better sources before I get uppity about this.

Even then though, as Bobcat said, this isn't really a matter of free speech. This is private companies doing what they want. Stopping them, if anything, would be a great incursion upon liberty.

If you care about freedom of speech, you want to know something that's actually forbidden in many countries? Holocaust denial. Sometimes denial of other genocides. Also sometimes displaying of Nazi symbols.

Whenever I hear someone complaining about individuals or companies censoring things, I always wonder, when all the staunch defenders of freedom of speech start to speak up, why aren't they also protesting actual prohibitions imposed by governments themselves - that is to say, actual restrictions on freedom of speech?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an important topic. I just think most people don't understand it and also may have a bit of hypocrisy going on in what they choose to defend.

Good luck to them enforcing it upon 1.1 billion users, I'd love to see them try that. To hell with censorship, we all know it's for no one but pantywaists. I'm all for freedom of speech, but there has to be a line/limit to how far it goes on one's personal level.

Hate Speech *is* Free Speech. End of discussion. Take away one, and you've already taken away the other.

The whole concept of Free Speech centers around protecting people from being prosecuted by the government for saying something that is unpopular but doesn't directly harm other people. Libel and slander against individuals directly harms other people, which is why it isn't protected speech. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater can cause a panic in the theater, in which people end up getting hurt, possibly killed, in the mad rush to get the hell out of the theater, so yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech.

But saying "I hate Jews" or "ur a faggot" or "transsexuals are mental cases who need to be locked up," though they do qualify as hate speech and are extremely unpopular in this day and age, don't cause direct harm to individuals and therefore *are* protected speech. This Commission's idea (provided this is even true given the sources cited) is dangerous to far more than just racists, homophobes, or transphobes. With such vague wording as was mentioned in the article they could pretty much define anything they want as "hate speech" and have it banned. Disagree with a popular religion? Hate speech. Point out an inconvenient truth to a corrupt politician? Hate speech. Criticize a law because it doesn't make any sense? Hate speech. Basically, anything that makes people uncomfortable can be banned legally as hate speech. People are right to be concerned, if this is actually truly happening (as Clawdragons above pointed out, Breitbart and Infowars aren't exactly the most reputable sources available).

I would like to point out that our harassment and hate speech rules on e6 are pretty much the same, and we don't really have widespread fear about their enforcement.

Clawdragons said:
Don't get me wrong, I think it's an important topic. I just think most people don't understand it and also may have a bit of hypocrisy going on in what they choose to defend.

People have always twisted well-intentioned ideals to make themselves the only ones who benefit from them.

Clawdragons said:
So far we've got Breitbart.com and Infowars.com as sources in here. I'm going to, personally, need way better sources before I get uppity about this.

Even then though, as Bobcat said, this isn't really a matter of free speech. This is private companies doing what they want. Stopping them, if anything, would be a great incursion upon liberty.

If you care about freedom of speech, you want to know something that's actually forbidden in many countries? Holocaust denial. Sometimes denial of other genocides. Also sometimes displaying of Nazi symbols.

Whenever I hear someone complaining about individuals or companies censoring things, I always wonder, when all the staunch defenders of freedom of speech start to speak up, why aren't they also protesting actual prohibitions imposed by governments themselves - that is to say, actual restrictions on freedom of speech?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an important topic. I just think most people don't understand it and also may have a bit of hypocrisy going on in what they choose to defend.

This one.
I have seen people using facebook and google as synonyms to the internet, but they really aren't. Facebook is already catering content according to which users pay them the most and google is removing content about people, because of "right to be forgotten". But that just means that the content isn't available from those particular services, you are still completely free to use other services or put your stuff elsewhere on the internet. If I had popular website, I would also want to decrease the amount of negativity as much as possible, because that negativity will catch on to sites image, which is really bad.

Manasgael said:
*things*

Wow.

You know how certain things work and you've done your reseach on the topic be responding.

I love you, bro/sis.

Honestly I don't approve of Google to begin with. I feel like the way that it caters to its users creates an echo-chamber of sorts, where people try to find information on topics and are only presented with information that conforms to their existing viewpoints.

I wonder, sometimes, if things like the anti-vaccination movement would be as powerful as they are if other search engines which do not offer personally tailored search results were more common (because people trying to research the subject would by and large be presented with accurate information, even if it challenged their viewpoint).

aurel said:
@Clawdragons; Mario69
LOL
Says the guy who frequently deletes posts just because there are negative comments, hide disliked comments, and tries to report people for the smallest things.

SHOTS FIRED

NO CHILL

SAVAGE

Kristal_Candeo said:
Wow.

You know how certain things work and you've done your reseach on the topic be responding.

I love you, bro/sis.

Thank you. :)

Clawdragons said:
Honestly I don't approve of Google to begin with. I feel like the way that it caters to its users creates an echo-chamber of sorts, where people try to find information on topics and are only presented with information that conforms to their existing viewpoints.

I'm the same way when it comes to Google. I do a lot of research on a lot of things and some of them conflict with each other. This causes a huge headache when using Google because it tries to second-guess what I want by looking at my previous searches and assumes I want the opposite opinion on a given thing. Finding actual "scholarly articles" on Google is migraine-inducing sometimes.

Manasgael said:
I'm the same way when it comes to Google. I do a lot of research on a lot of things and some of them conflict with each other. This causes a huge headache when using Google because it tries to second-guess what I want by looking at my previous searches and assumes I want the opposite opinion on a given thing. Finding actual "scholarly articles" on Google is migraine-inducing sometimes.

You want https://scholar.google.de/ for that, they specifically made a sub-search system for this particular usage case.

Clawdragons said:
So far we've got Breitbart.com and Infowars.com as sources in here. I'm going to, personally, need way better sources before I get uppity about this.

Even then though, as Bobcat said, this isn't really a matter of free speech. This is private companies doing what they want. Stopping them, if anything, would be a great incursion upon liberty.

If you care about freedom of speech, you want to know something that's actually forbidden in many countries? Holocaust denial. Sometimes denial of other genocides. Also sometimes displaying of Nazi symbols.

Whenever I hear someone complaining about individuals or companies censoring things, I always wonder, when all the staunch defenders of freedom of speech start to speak up, why aren't they also protesting actual prohibitions imposed by governments themselves - that is to say, actual restrictions on freedom of speech?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an important topic. I just think most people don't understand it and also may have a bit of hypocrisy going on in what they choose to defend.

US Congress is investigating this.

Personally I do not like Facebook. If anything I have always believed if you do not like a company's business practices than you should either vote with your dollars or protest the company. They no no doubt have rights just as we do in the states. In other words I hope their rights are not taken away, but their popularity on the other hand.

A major reason this also should anger people is because Google, and Facebook receive government funding and allow terrorist groups around the world to advertise their destructive political agendas.

I would hope Facebook's popularity plummets after lying so much.

I feel like the way that it caters to its users creates an echo-chamber of sorts, where people try to find information on topics and are only presented with information that conforms to their existing viewpoints.

That's exactly what people a lot of people want, though. Everyone is guilty of confirmation bias. If only we'd listened to Metal Gear Solid 2!

Fenrick said:
That's exactly what people a lot of people want, though. Everyone is guilty of confirmation bias. If only we'd listened to Metal Gear Solid 2!

MGS2 dialogue

Colonel: The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards
development of convenient half-truths.
Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you.
Rose: Billions spent on new weapons in order to humanely murder other humans.
Colonel: Rights of criminals are given more respect than the privacy of their victims.
Rose: Although there are people suffering in poverty, huge donations are made to protect endangered species.
Everyone grows up being told the same thing.
Colonel: Be nice to other people.
Rose: But beat out the competition!
Colonel: "You're special." "Believe in yourself and you will succeed."
Rose: But it's obvious from the start that only a few can succeed...
Colonel: You exercise your right to "freedom" and this is the result.
All rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt.
The untested truths spun by different interests continue to churn and accumulate
in the sandbox of political correctness and value systems.
Rose: Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum.
They stay inside their little ponds,
leaking whatever "truth" suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large.
Colonel: The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh.
No one is invalidated, but nobody is right...

Well we can't argue with a meme. Conversation over.(locked)jk

Si_288 said:
Well we can't argue with a meme. Conversation over.(locked)jk

Now there's a pretty meme.

Well I couldn't really care less about this particular case because I dont give a single shit about Facebook, but what if this spreads? Surely, Facebook can't be the only social network to take this up.

Fenrick said:

MGS2 dialogue

Colonel: The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards
development of convenient half-truths.
Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you.
Rose: Billions spent on new weapons in order to humanely murder other humans.
Colonel: Rights of criminals are given more respect than the privacy of their victims.
Rose: Although there are people suffering in poverty, huge donations are made to protect endangered species.
Everyone grows up being told the same thing.
Colonel: Be nice to other people.
Rose: But beat out the competition!
Colonel: "You're special." "Believe in yourself and you will succeed."
Rose: But it's obvious from the start that only a few can succeed...
Colonel: You exercise your right to "freedom" and this is the result.
All rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt.
The untested truths spun by different interests continue to churn and accumulate
in the sandbox of political correctness and value systems.
Rose: Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum.
They stay inside their little ponds,
leaking whatever "truth" suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large.
Colonel: The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh.
No one is invalidated, but nobody is right...

it's surprising how...relevant some of the topics discussed int hat franchise can be to irl politics, no? if you haven't already, you may find the lyrics of the songs for revengeance rather interesting. (check the metal gear wiki ;))

NotMeNotYou said:
You want https://scholar.google.de/ for that, they specifically made a sub-search system for this particular usage case.

Why'd you link the Dutch version? .com is the English version.

I once got temporarily locked out of my Facebook because I said the word "faggot" in a post, in reference to some idiot christians... (the kind that like picketing Target and screaming at customers). I am gay.... I am not allowed to use the word "faggot?"

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
I once got temporarily locked out of my Facebook because I said the word "faggot" in a post, in reference to some idiot christians... (the kind that like picketing Target and screaming at customers). I am gay.... I am not allowed to use the word "faggot?"

That's discriminatory against people who aren't gay--You're saying you're superior to them and therefore allowed to say things they aren't.

If a word would be offensive if "Anybody but the group it applies to says it," it's offensive, period.

Furrin_Gok said:
That's discriminatory against people who aren't gay--You're saying you're superior to them and therefore allowed to say things they aren't.

If a word would be offensive if "Anybody but the group it applies to says it," it's offensive, period.

And yet people who use foul language never get temp banned on Facebook, it's a double standard.

Furrin_Gok said:
That's discriminatory against people who aren't gay--You're saying you're superior to them and therefore allowed to say things they aren't.

If a word would be offensive if "Anybody but the group it applies to says it," it's offensive, period.

Nah, I was just saying in my post (which was sharing a video of some of the Target protest nuts) -- "these christian faggots sure are annoying, huh." And >that< got me temp banned / locked out of my FB. Jesus fuck, I hate censorship. I don't give a rat's ass if someone else says faggot, it's the context and the intent which matters. And why can't I call douchebag christian nutter butters "faggots?"

These people are faggots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94IN-skSrUw

Especially imitation Shirley Phelps-Roper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxUeFHUlHT4

I'm taking a word that people like them would normally use on me, to belittle me, and I am reversing it, using it ironically to diminish the power of the word... Lenny Bruce, mutha fuckas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOnkv76rNL4

"It's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness."

Besides... I can't say they're "retards" cuz then some SJW would yell at me that I am being "ableist." But I am a faggot, so I can call them faggot because it's the one word I have the "right" to use, as a dick sucker.

fox_whisper85 said:
And yet people who use foul language never get temp banned on Facebook, it's a double standard.

http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/08/10/fox-facebook-atheists.html

Gelp, gelp, 'murrikuh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUvPIcVb2e8

Yeaaaah, saying that they want to kill / torture all atheists couldn't possibly count as hate speech, right? Lolz.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
And why can't I call douchebag christian nutter butters "faggots?"

Because you're using words that don't actually pertain to them. If you can't refer to them without using irrelevant or incredulously malicious words, don't.

Furrin_Gok said:
Because you're using words that don't actually pertain to them. If you can't refer to them without using irrelevant or incredulously malicious words, don't.

I am not an SJW - I don't play by your rules.
Just as I am not a churchie, and I don't play by their rules.

Live >your< life, follow >your< standards...

I will follow my >own< standards and I will live my >own< life.

I am me. I am not you. Don't force me to >become< you, because it will not work... I will not be assimilated, resistance is not futile. I will not join the SJW Borg Collective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GaUK8ZJseo

"I don't have to like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

Manasgael said:
Hate Speech *is* Free Speech. End of discussion. Take away one, and you've already taken away the other.

The whole concept of Free Speech centers around protecting people from being prosecuted by the government for saying something that is unpopular but doesn't directly harm other people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1mKVYtJMf4
I hope you don't run into this kid / pterodactyl.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
I am not an SJW - I don't play by your rules.
Just as I am not a churchie, and I don't play by their rules.

Live >your< life, follow >your< standards...

I will follow my >own< standards and I will live my >own< life.

I am me. I am not you. Don't force me to >become< you, because it will not work... I will not be assimilated, resistance is not futile. I will not join the SJW Borg Collective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GaUK8ZJseo
.
.
.
"I don't have to like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
.
.
.

Funny. You say you have your own rules and will ignore mine, but you followed mine perfectly fine--Nothing in that post is a highly malicious phrase.

My bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGyKBFCd_u4

Kristal_Candeo said:
However, even though others may continuously refuse to listen to reason and only want to bring about hurt to others because of their own stupidity and ignorance, and such pain can at times only be stopped by a quick dishing of brute force, those people still have the right to express said opinions if they are not actively promoting violence, and their protests are peaceful.

And so long as they are peaceful, I must be too.

I like you... you're smart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahJW6VkNEWE

^Do I strongly disagree with "Brother Dean Saxton's" message? Of course I do. He's a dipshit Biblefag who carries around signs saying women deserve to be raped... he's no better than / no different from Fred Phelps and the Westboro Fucktard Church. Would >I< hit the man upside the head with a baseball bat because the stuff he was preaching offended me?

No.

I prefer a civil discourse / debate over a fight. I'd rather fuck with this dude's head with well planned questions. If there must be violence, I prefer to let >them< make the first move and >THEN< retaliate.

(if it's a preacher-fag, I don't mean if it's a basher, obviously you wanna make the first strike if it's some meat-headed, homophobic basher-faggot who makes it obvious their primary intent is to cause you harm).

Besides, these Phelps Phag wannabees thrive on this kind of attention and threats to their well being, makes 'em feel like good little martyrs for Gawwwd.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617160/Anti-gay-preacher-Brother-Dean-Saxton-says-women-deserve-rape-attacked-bat.html

The chick who clunked this dude upside the head with a ballbat is gunna get >herself< some jail time, and make the preacher moron feel like he's doing the right thing cuz it's the end times or some shit and Christians are being FURSECUTED (yes, I just used "fursecuted" in a deliberately ironic fashion).

John 15:18 - If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Bleh... Fucking martyr fetishists.

Anyway, what were we talking about?
Oh yeah, social media and language policing.

Please don't artificially make your posts longer by adding lines that contain nothing but a period.

Oh, but the common practice of making your posts longer by adding lines that contain space is ok?

;)

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617160/Anti-gay-preacher-Brother-Dean-Saxton-says-women-deserve-rape-attacked-bat.html

ok no this is the most fucked up thing I've seen here

you're using the Daily Mail as a source? holy fuck ._.

savageorange said:
Oh, but the common practice of making your posts longer by adding lines that contain space is ok?
;)

post #666664

Joke? Are you saying that people don't add blank lines to posts?

Personally, I find it a lot more readable when they do, than smooshed into one paragraph.

(Did you manually remove the U+00A0 NON BREAKING SPACE characters from that post? If not, it's interesting that the quoting mechanism removed them)

savageorange said:
Joke? Are you saying that people don't add blank lines to posts?

Personally, I find it a lot more readable when they do, than smooshed into one paragraph.

(Did you manually remove the U+00A0 NON BREAKING SPACE characters from that post? If not, it's interesting that the quoting mechanism removed them)

Separating paragraphs is fine and useful, but having multiple empty lines between paragraphs, or every single sentence separated by an empty line, creates pointless clutter.
And I removed them, the quoting mechanism doesn't touch them.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
Yeaaaah, saying that they want to kill / torture all atheists couldn't possibly count as hate speech, right? Lolz.

And calling Christians faggots isn't?

Let me put it this way, if you had a problem with North Korea's arrests of American and other international citizens, you aren't going to say something inflammatory like "I can't believe those damn Asian bastards did this."

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
ok no this is the most fucked up thing I've seen here

you're using the Daily Mail as a source? holy fuck ._.

You do realize the article is on >other< websites besides the dreaded Daily Mail, right? And sure, fixate on that and ignore the other points I was attempting to get across. It's fiiiiiiine. **rolls eyes**

How about Patheos, is that a good enough source? (since the actual video clip and also a news channel clip are not credible enough).

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/05/29/christian-preacher-known-for-saying-women-deserve-rape-assaulted-by-woman-with-a-baseball-bat/

Look at those tweets of pleased validation this guy made after getting grand slammed, lol... see, when we react like this, with anger and violence rather than just mocking and peacefully debating, we give them exactly what they want. Any time they get to say "the LGBT community is violent and intolerant" or "atheists are prone to violence," it just tickles their little Jesus Penis because then they get to make their narrative actually appear legit, and I refuse to do anything that lends credence to that narrative.

http://www.azfamily.com/story/32085153/brother-dean-assault

Fenrick said:
And calling Christians faggots isn't? Let me put it this way, if you had a problem with North Korea's arrests of American and other international citizens, you aren't going to say something inflammatory like "I can't believe those damn Asian bastards did this."

V

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
I'm taking a word that people like them would normally use on me, to belittle me, and I am reversing it, using it ironically to diminish the power of the word...

Pretty good at missing the point, and the intended humor... ain'tcha. ^.^

And sure, you can say "well it isn't funny" and that's fine... but it's funny to me.

Fenrick said:
And calling Christians faggots isn't?

Let me put it this way, if you had a problem with North Korea's arrests of American and other international citizens, you aren't going to say something inflammatory like "I can't believe those damn Asian bastards did this."

It's double standard bullshit, a particular group get bashed and they call others out, but the in turn do the same back. Hypocrisy is rampant and is only going to get worse.

I got my Yahoo! account suspended because I posted on Yahoo answers that "gays are thrown out of their parents homes".

Stupid Yahoo answers admins had better do something about the ridiculous number of trolls on their site rather than banning me.

#DoubleStandards

Jord'an said:
"gays are thrown out of their parents homes"

that is...decreasingly true as time goes on i think. which is a good thing.

savageorange said: Personally, I find it a lot more readable when they do, than smooshed into one paragraph.

I guess to people on smart phones it looks bigger than it is? Like, a 5 line paragraph on a PC screen gets turned into like... 11 lines. (I just looked at one of my posts on my phone to test that out). It's still the same amount of text, though.

fox_whisper85 said:
It's double standard bullshit, a particular group get bashed and they call others out, but THEY in turn do the same back. Hypocrisy is rampant and is only going to get worse.

That thing Fenrick tried to say I am doing?
Yeaaaaah.... that's false equivalence.

I'm not an asian person saying "look at those damn asians" out of irony. I'm a gay person calling the loud and annoying christian preachers "faggots" because it's comical and ironic because normally, they would be using that term as a way to make me feel immediate discomfort and as a playground tactic of shutting down discussion (OH YA? WELL UR A FAG!1!1!!), and instead, I am using it on >them< - I am also displaying to them that this word that they >think< has power over me actually has no power over me. I refuse to let it... I have deliberately desensitized myself to it.

I am not sure why this is such a difficult concept for anyone to grasp. Words and slurs get reclaimed all the time. Hell, just look at the furry community, "furfag" used to be a common 4chan insult, and nowadays the more ironic furries have pretty much adopted it as a term of endearment. They have neutralized the term, inoculated it. Same with the "yiff in hell" stuff.

I also stand by my previous Lenny Bruce quote...

"It's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness."

We have two options (and we don't necessarily have to pick one or the other, we can do both at the same time): one is to over-use the word to the point it loses its sting, two is to re-purpose the word so it means something else (remember the South Park episode with the biker people?)

Oh... right, we were talking about "hate speech" on Facebook, my bad. Well - that clip of all the screencapped comments of Fox News watchers saying they wanna kill atheists pretty much proves that you can make whatever threats you want towards people on the Facey-muh-Buks, and as long as you don't say any "bad words" it's totally A-OK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUvPIcVb2e8
...................................................................

treos said:
that is...decreasingly true as time goes on i think. which is a good thing. (about gays getting kicked out of the home at a high frequency)

I wish I would have had parents like >these< (my parents were only mildly religious, not dickweeds like these cunts)... every day would be full of lulz. Of course, they would also be trying to either beat my ass or kick me out, but fucking hell, it would be so fun.

The things I would say and ask, the rational inquiries I would present, would break that woman's brain. <3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPrUW6W331M

Dumbass hicks, the whole lot.

"Gelba-delpa flooble wooble skoop-skoop. Yew ken buhleez in dat dare sky-unce stuffs alls yew wownt tew, awl juss buh-leez in duh werd-o-gawwwwduh. Now go n' fetch yer maw another Keystone Light."

Furrin_Gok said:
Why'd you link the Dutch version? .com is the English version.

is German. .nl is Dutch.

Jord'an said:
I got my Yahoo! account suspended because I posted on Yahoo answers that "gays are thrown out of their parents homes".

Stupid Yahoo answers admins had better do something about the ridiculous number of trolls on their site rather than banning me.

#DoubleStandards

Geez, I was wondering who would ban someone for posting that until I clicked the profile.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
your "section" failed. that DText doesn't seem to work that well here anymore.

the concept of religion is fading over time...and those who continue to cling to it are the ones truly suffering as their world slowly crumbles around them. like i've said before, it'll be interesting to see what the world will be like when humanity eventually outgrows and abandons such beliefs.

though SOME religions put up a harder fight than others. >.>

What do you mean "the section failed?" What is missing... it looks the same on my phone as it does on my PC screen, aside from the change in paragraph height due to it being displayed on a more narrow smart phone screen. Anyway... I like you, Treos. You're cool. I also envy your brevity.

(on my pc monitor, the above text is 3 lines... on phone, it is 6).

"it'll be interesting to see what the world will be like when humanity eventually outgrows and abandons such beliefs."

Dude, read up about The Kardashev Scale and listen to Greydon Square <3

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
but it's funny to me.

The sort of thing that bullies say.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
That thing Fenrick tried to say I am doing?
Yeaaaaah.... that's false equivalence.

Incorrect. You are doing exactly the same thing that you're being accused of, but you're not realizing it.

Furrin_Gok said:
The sort of thing that bullies say.

Yeah. Shut up and put your dick in my mouth, faggot. <3

I see this issue as a possible slippery slope to censoring anything that they don't like. The only way I think that controlling speech online will work is if every country with internet access is on board with the idea...but even then, I personally think it won't work.

If Europe starts to censor speech of Europeans, then the same needs to happen to the rest of the world because it's unfair to the Europeans otherwise. And did I mention that this is the Internet? As far as I know, there's no universal rule on what's okay or not okay to say because that requires an arbiter of some sort to have control over the internet.

As for what I think shouldn't be okay to say online is obvious: Slander and Death threats. Because even the US constitution doesn't protect people to use slander and death threats.

treos said:
the concept of religion is fading over time...and those who continue to cling to it are the ones truly suffering as their world slowly crumbles around them. like i've said before, it'll be interesting to see what the world will be like when humanity eventually outgrows and abandons such beliefs.

though SOME religions put up a harder fight than others. >.>

ElctrcBoogalord said:
I see this issue as a possible slippery slope to censoring anything that they don't like.

When we start allowing people to completely shut down speech, or physically attack people based on their feelings and throwing the 1st amendment out the window, that is when we start treading dangerously close to Salman Rushdie getting a fatwa declared against him type of shit...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ADjzZVKXw

Islamic extremists were going to >kill< this man... over a book he wrote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

On the flipside of the religious outrage coin, I wanted to post a link to the rather hilarious comments about this subject (14 year old boy "defaces" Jesus statue) but apparently, the Sodahead website no longer exists, so here's a Patheos link instead.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/10/should-a-14-year-old-pennsylvania-boy-be-punished-for-supposed-desecration-of-a-statue-of-jesus/

The comments back on the Sodahead page were hilarious examples of "fatwa envy."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fatwa_envy

I'm kinda sad Sodahead isn't around anymore, that place was fun. The comments from the butthurt xtian rednecks made me lol, and engaging them in discussion made me lol even more. The kid didn't even damage the statue, he just took a funny picture, but people were all like "CRUCIFY HIM!"

Just remember, folks... if you make "I'm offended" a legal excuse to harm someone, or to shut someone else's freedom of speech down, sooner or later other groups are going to start using your own laws to their benefit. Imagine hyper-religious homophobes, women haters and atheist haters using those SJW-inspired laws for their own purposes.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
What do you mean "the section failed?" What is missing... it looks the same on my phone as it does on my PC screen, aside from the change in paragraph height due to it being displayed on a more narrow smart phone screen. Anyway... I like you, Treos. You're cool. I also envy your brevity.

(on my pc monitor, the above text is 3 lines... on phone, it is 6).

"it'll be interesting to see what the world will be like when humanity eventually outgrows and abandons such beliefs."

Dude, read up about The Kardashev Scale and listen to Greydon Square <3

what i meant was your post is not collapsed in the clickable "section" field like normal (as seen in the example here. despite the dtext being there it's just one big long post.

and never heard of that scale but i'll look into it.

bump...

(ty, /r/SargonofAkkad, for continuing to be just as, if not more, informative than the channel itself.) seems the european commission is now trying to take things a step further with social media. (would've posted this earlier but i forgot about it till just now) The European Commission Wants You To Log Into Social Media Accounts With Govt-Issued ID Cards

I can't stand Sargon, honestly.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:

On the flipside of the religious outrage coin, I wanted to post a link to the rather hilarious comments about this subject (14 year old boy "defaces" Jesus statue) but apparently, the Sodahead website no longer exists, so here's a Patheos link instead.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/10/should-a-14-year-old-pennsylvania-boy-be-punished-for-supposed-desecration-of-a-statue-of-jesus/

The comments back on the Sodahead page were hilarious examples of "fatwa envy."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fatwa_envy

I'm kinda sad Sodahead isn't around anymore, that place was fun. The comments from the butthurt xtian rednecks made me lol, and engaging them in discussion made me lol even more. The kid didn't even damage the statue, he just took a funny picture, but people were all like "CRUCIFY HIM!"

Freedom of speech does not mean you can go onto peoples' private property to mock them.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
Just remember, folks... if you make "I'm offended" a legal excuse to harm someone, or to shut someone else's freedom of speech down, sooner or later other groups are going to start using your own laws to their benefit. Imagine hyper-religious homophobes, women haters and atheist haters using those SJW-inspired laws for their own purposes.

The act doesn't have to be illegal for it to be douchey. If what that kid was doing is okay because it wasn't punished by the law, I guess we have no grounds to complain about the WBC.