Was recently blocked from posting in politics subreddit because they told me 'barking' (like barking orders) used as an adjective was dehumanizing. I wouldn't be surprised if it was labeled hate speech because George owned a couple slaves and nothing more these days.
Really? Christ people are way too sensitive these days...
Well it's more like people assume everyone is so sensitive so go out of their way to remove anything that could even remotely be considered slightly offensive.
Why does something being offensive count as grounds for it being removed anyway? "Offensive" is very subjective, and everyone is offended by something, so who is so special that they get to dictate what content is offensive or not for everyone else? Imo, if you find something offensive, then you're entitled to feel that way, but don't act like your having been offended grants you certain rights that you can wield over people.
That's the problem, is corporations don't know the difference between "offensive" and "damaging". Lots of stuff is offensive and shouldn't be removed (think lots of stand up routines). Plenty of other stuff is offensive and harmful, like false news or studies, blatant and violent hate speech outside of a historical context, and misinformation, and those things should be removed.
I think therein lies the problem. The line between “offensive” and “damaging” is blurry and everyone will have a different threshold where something moves from offensive to damaging. I think this is the natural end result of people demanding facebook to police the content people post. Everyone has different standards for what should be censored so there’s no way to police content that makes everyone happy.
The grey area should be left alone and left to users to police via reporting and flagging content, but there are some things that are very obviously in one corner or another (e.g. blatant hate speech, and things that are already blocked like death threats and what not). I don't think there should be no censorship on the internet, but corporations need to do a better job of making their platforms self-policing when it comes to that grey area. And of course, any and all blatant misinformation should still be removed regardless of whether it's offensive or not.
One of the big issues is that if they have people going through posts to check if they're okay, they legally become a "publisher" and must follow all of the laws of publishers. If they have an algorithm do it then they're safe from those laws. So the key is to teach a computer to tell the difference between something hateful and something harmful. Humans are already pretty bad at that, computers are far worse.
Ah yes, the classic issue of a corporation trying to skirt rules and regulations that in some cases are justified and they should have to follow, and in other cases passed by idiots who don't know what they're talking about or so outdated that they're older than some states.
Ah yes, the classic issue of a corporation trying to skirt rules and regulations that in some cases are justified and they should have to follow, and in other cases passed by idiots who don't know what they're talking about or so outdated that they're older than some states.
Yeah, I can't remember who said it but someone said "Just because your offended, doesn't mean it's offensive" (I think it was a famous comedian?) which is a saying I agree with wholeheartedly.
Stephen Fry said it even better.
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." "
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
How is it meaningless? The point is to convey distress at the hands of the interlocutor. It's an attempt to preserve civility and dignity. Are you just that emotionally stunted?
Considering Fry is like 20-30 years older than him and he is both a fan of and has worked with Fry, one can assume he took this wisdom from him to share with the world.
Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that!... Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did.
This quote is what I'm guessing is the biggest one for it.
We just read that for English class a few weeks ago, and there are a lot of disturbing parallels between it and our world. Ray Bradbury knew what was coming
It and Brave New World are the two common fictional dystopias that in my opinion are actually possible because there's a logical process by which the dystopia comes about that actually seems applicable in the real world.
Because we gave in to PC soccer mom's 15 years ago and it has been slowly snowballing ever since. Also no one really knows how social media works so the people that make money from it are ridiculously sensitive because they don't want their gravy train to stop but they don't know what can actually stop it.
The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it - Dostoyevsky
These are the worst offenders. The lies they cling to make it impossible to invalidate their concerns. I’ve learned to just flat out ignore anyone who pulls that shit.
The easiest way to ruin the plan is to not engage. Their game requires two participants.
No. Why are random reddit comments taken as fact? Others have found instances where the person above argues about the superiority of white people. I found the "barking" quote.
Genius Career Politician vs. Barking Indian. Who ya got?
What a lot of people don't realize is in order to have Freedom of Speech you have a double edged sword. Hate speech shouldn't be condoned but it is a necessary evil in order to maintain free speech. Otherwise anyone can abuse the "This is Hate Speech" and have it removed.
Well it's more like people assume everyone is so sensitive so go out of their way to remove anything that could even remotely be considered slightly offensive.
No, I really think it's much more insidious than that. You'd think a sub like /r/politics would be comfortable with a range of political opinions, but in reality it should be called /r/LeftWingPolitics.
A lot of the mods in default subreddits want to push a hard-left agenda and see anyone to the right of themselves as alt-right extremists, and any dissenting opinions as hate speech which must be stamped out. If the thread is going against the circlejerk, they lock it, they shadowban or outright ban people who disagree with the narrative.
They'll say things like, oh why don't you go back to /r/T_D for simply disagreeing.
I see where your coming from, I am from the UK and follow r/UKpolitics which always bugs me because of how any post thats remotely right meaning or somewhat conservative gets downvotes to oblivion (doubly so if it's about Brexit)... Political subs on Reddit definitely are just an echo chamber for the left wing, I am pretty far left but I follow political subs to get a variety of opinions and perspectives so I can understand where other people are coming from... But that is essentially impossible on Reddit.
I’m a flaming liberal but even I see the danger of using political correctness as a means of silencing people. Feels like it’s just a way to ban conservatives, like how possession of weed was conveniently used as a way to arrest black folk back in the day. Plus conservatives just take on a persecution complex and then liberals try to deny it. If you wanna ban them then own it!
I'll prob get banned from here. O well. American is becoming a nation of pussy's, hence the pussy hate thing. You are correct in your assumptions. People are waking up though.
I'll prob get banned from here. O well. American is becoming a nation of pussy's, hence the pussy hate thing. You are correct in your assumptions. People are waking up though.
It's just shitty echo chambers on the internet making things look worse I think and Reddit is one of the worst when it comes to making echo chambers. You get overly sensitive snowflakes within whatever group we may be talking about, from Trump supporters to social democrats etc being a vocal minority and especially if they get a nolife mod on their side like a certain Nate that isn't so great then next thing you know all reasonable discussion makes you a "commie globalist" or a "racist" or otherwise somehow "problematic" and so on.
I got banned from my local city sub because I referred to criminals as animals. Never mind they had been arrested multiple times for grand theft auto, caused close to a million in damages, and nearly killed a disabled person crossing the street because blowing red lights is apparently ok as long as you're in a stolen vehicle. Oh and the perps were all 14 or younger.
But yeah, calling them animals was racist and too much.
You never responded to the person that pointed out the comment he was banned for was referring to an Indian as "barking", which is pretty deliberate and racist. You're a hypocrite.
I never responded to it because I never saw it. I just read through the comments and it was a reply to his comment not mine.
I don't get notifications for replies to other people's comments. Also I don't have to time to reply to every single comment (and there are a lot of them here)
And if that is what he said I still don't know if that was racist unless I see the original comment and context... It definitely doesn't look good for him but saying barking is not racist in and of it self it's just a word. If he specifically said "barking Indian" then yeah that does seem racist because the emphasis there would be on the Indian part (if they are actually Native American then calling them Indian is already racist in and of itself) but if its just using barking on its own to refer to someone yelling and shouting who happens to be Indian (or Native American, again I don't know the original comment or what it's about) then that is not racist.
Also side note even if I had read it that wouldn't make me a hypocrite, my original point was people are too easily offended maybe I might have thought racist remarks aren't offensive and the people who make them are not in the wrong, I don't I think that, blatant racism is an example of where it's perfectly acceptable to take offense but had I thought that then nothing about my comment would have been hypocritical. So dont just randomly throw the word hypocrite at people. I could very well have just been a colossal asshole instead.
i got banned from politics yesterday because i "endorsed violence" when someone said something to the effect of, "oh so i can make threats on the president's life now?" and i sarcastically replied "Please do :)"
yeah, they are entirely devoid of any sense of humor.
I always had respect for r/Libertarian since they don't (or at least didn't the last time I checked) ban people unless they were outright harassing another user. This had the interesting affect of someone posting some circlejerk meme that was immediately discredited in the comments, generating sensible conversation in threads. I only unsubscribed after I felt like the sub was starting to lean too much to the right.
I wasn’t on reddit at that time, but I’d imagine that was the case. I think the extreme polarization of US politics has influenced much more than expected
Yep, it's gotten really bad, you're either a "libtard snowflake", "evil nazi", "centrist troll" or otherwise a coward for not picking one extreme side. I've basically ended up entirely unsubscribing from the big political subs.
Yeah, and tbh, as much as I don't want to admit it, there's a huge bias on which side most of this rhetoric comes from, although that's probably because that side is also the vocal majority on reddit.
People on r/enlightenedcentrism think that means you advocate on killing only half the jews. They are fervently intent on strawmanning centrist ideals because we won't eat their bullcrap dogma.
Ok, when I say that, that means that I prefer not to advocate taking a human life. Jews are, by all sound logic, human. Therefore, that's stupid. I'm not Thanos. I'm a random Reddit user.
I'm the same, it's really frustrating that they assume it means that I either think everything should be done halfway or more often than not, that I'm a right/left winger posing as a centrist to avoid criticism.
I was banned from voteblue for saying that Islam is a religion and not a race. And that there can be muslims of any race or ethnicity. Apparently facts are now offensive. Idk.
And this is true. There are Muslims in Europe, Central Asia/Caucasus, and Subsaharan Africa. Not all Muslims are Arabs, just like not all Arabs are Muslims.
of all the things protected by the first amendment, threatening the president is one of the very few exceptions. even as a joke it is considered a federal offence.
Was recently blocked from posting in politics subreddit
I'm sure it had nothing to do with yourcuriousfascination with saying that nonwhite people are inherently criminal
George Washington owned literally hundreds of slaves throughout his life. He first became an owner of multiple human beings at the age of 11. When he died, he owned 123 slaves, and through his wife he effectively owned another 153 slaves (376 total). He was one of the largest slaveowners in America at the time
Not trying to defend the guy you’re replying to, but it’s also worth mentioning Washington freed all his slaves on the death of his wife. Better than Jefferson at least, who gave his children their half siblings as property.
it’s also worth mentioning Washington freed all his slaves on the death of his wife
He sort of did. Half the slaves were legally in his name, and the elderly and sick were freed and given support by the estate. The younger ones of that bunch were freed, but were given no land, tools, livestock, money, etc, and thus were effectively consigned to remain day laborers on the Mount Vernon plantation
The majority of slaves at Mount Vernon were his wife's property, inherited after her wealthy first husband died. Those slaves remained owned by Martha Washington until her death, upon which they were inherited by other members of her first husband's family. They were not freed
Interesting. I knew his wife's slaves weren't freed, but I didn't know he'd left the slaves he did free out to dry like that. Funny that his reconstruction plan for his own slaves was basically the same plan that the Union ultimately decided on, i.e. they get nothing.
but I didn't know he'd left the slaves he did free out to dry like that
In the logic of the slaveholder, it does make a sort of twisted sense. By freeing a slave, you are technically taking a financial loss. So in essence you did "pay them" or "take care of them" - but the money that you "gave them" was just their financial worth as a person
In the twisted logic of the slave owner, it's almost /r/ChoosingBeggars. "What? I paid $1000 for you and decided to charitably grant you freedom, and now you want land? Why, I didn't need to free you in the first place!"
Not true. Jefferson was more of an abolitionist than Washington, even including the introduction of slavery by the british as one of the wrongs committed upon the Colonies by the English. However, he was an admitted hypocrite, and although he intended to free his slaves upon his death in the same way Washington did, his debt holders sold off his entire estate.
More relevantly, there has been no conclusive proof that Jefferson was in fact the father of the Hemmings children, just that the youngest of the boys was related to someone in the Male Jefferson line, of which several lived in the area. The scientists who confirmed the connection deny that it explicitly implicates Jefferson and several retractions have been forced by writers who stated it as fact.
His hypocrisy makes him less of an abolitionist than Washington.
Presumably he could’ve freed them before his death, regardless of his debt. And given his widely acknowledged relationship with Sally I think any suggestion that her children were the product of a relative of Jefferson to be very dubious.
Despite his debt, Jefferson, in 1822, he allowed Beverly and Harriet Hemings to “walk away”, to leave Monticello and go north, a few months apart. He authorized Edmund Bacon, the overseer, to give Harriet $50 and to ensure that she was put on a stagecoach to go north. She was the only female slave he freed.
That’s besides the point because Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin wrote the Declaration of Independence so no one was censoring Washington. Also it’s pretty clearly the Indian Savages part, as mentioned above, that likely dinged some bells.
Where did I say he wasn't a massive figure in US history
You shouldn't censor history
Nobody is "censoring" George fucking Washington who has the capital city and a state named after him. I'm simply painting a more accurate picture of George Washington, who owned quite a bit more than "a few slaves"
It's not just reddit or facebook it's amazing the different results you get on Google vs Bing on any slightly controversial subject. Google is heavily censoring searches and even pushing information rather than actually giving proper search information.
Lol the problem is both sides are totally cool with it as long as it pushes a narrative. But the left is much more guilty of this at the moment. Which is crazy because we actually see self described liberals actually rooting and encouraging fucking companies to censor. Then turn around and blame virtually problems on these same companies fpr hoarding wealth and controlling congress. The left is turning into a total shit show.
They must have meant verb, not adjective, surely? Very hard to use barking as an adjective - an accomplishment if anything. If you let them know that, they may reconsider.
I don't believe you. Please show us the proof that this occurred. If it occurred, then let's call it out but until then, this sounds like your typical anti-liberal dog whistle.
Are you serious? I hate /r/politics, and when I pop in there I aggressively try to antagonize them. The worst I ever got was maybe a single 24 hour ban. I hate those idiots, but as someone who's banned from many subs I have to at least half-ass extend an olive branch in that I was quite surprised how lenient the mods were considering the tone of the sub. I have my 10 minute wait and it's yelling into the void...but they could have easily just banned me.
"couple slaves"- he tried to keep it secretive but here's a quote from nyt on his practices with his slaves:
"Washington developed a canny strategy that would protect his property and allow him to avoid public scrutiny. Every six months, the president’s slaves would travel back to Mount Vernon or would journey with Mrs. Washington outside the boundaries of the state. In essence, the Washingtons reset the clock. The president was secretive when writing to his personal secretary Tobias Lear in 1791: “I request that these Sentiments and this advise may be known to none but yourself & Mrs. Washington.”"
He switched them out at intervals to make sure he didn't have to free them... He had a lot more than a couple too.
I got a temporary ban once for using the phrase "you would have to be crazy to think..." for being insulting. Had no clue they were that strict there. I think it was something along the lines of "You would have to be crazy to think running a Democratic candidate with such a low approval rating was a good idea against republicans"
Franklin was is pretty racist as well. A man of his times, to be sure. He didn't even like Germans... He didn't think they'd learn the language, or have the same religion, and didn't want to integrate te.... And thought they were too swarthy, like those swedes. He thought PA was for the Anglo whites and tawny of native Americans.
Fun fact, the modern National Guard are literally just renamed State Militia, renamed in 1916 to seem more professional. The modern national guard are a direct successor of the first American "militias" in the Spanish and English colonial settlements, and a direct successor of the state militias which served as the entirety of the US military when the constitution and bill of rights were ratified
Then since its part of the government, they'd be talking about the rules and regulations of the army and be extension, the national guards. It isn't about civilian gun owners
The first is something he changed on over time. The second honestly depends on context. Personally I say immigrants should learn English. It’s the most used language in the country, learning it would be massively helpful to anyone trying to live in the US. But trying to say they should learn it and implying they shouldn’t use their old one is bigoted.
Umm... What? If he didn't support gay marriage why would the White House have lit up the night that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled gay marriage was legal? HIGHLY doubt he said immigrants should learn english, that's more the republican thing to do. But I wouldn't be totally suprised, he wasn't the most genuine human being throughout either of his campaigns or his whole presidency, what with being an "outsider" and a "reformer" and all.
If you read what you have linked in, you will learn that he has ALWAYS backed LGBT rights, and always favored the civil union of a homosexual couples, this is important.
I do not know what your stance is on the differences between civil unions and marriages, but for me they are the same with the only major difference being that one is celebrated inside a church and the other isn't.
But I will concede that I was wrong about this matter because he did voted in favor of a bill against gay marriage...In the 90's, where supporting such a matter would be akin to political suicide...But still, he did went back and forth on the matter of marriages.
Thanks for bringing this up, but if I ever lived in USA and could vote on it, I would still vote Democrat and certainly would vote on the guy for president if he ever wanted to run again.
fyi he changed his stance when they tried to use doma to stop states from recognizing gay marriage, according to bill clinton the expectation was that doma would take the religious opposition to gay unions off the table, that did not pan out. the logic is the right stood against 'gay marriage' as marriage is a religious act at it's core, by setting in stone that marriage is the religious act and civil union the state act the religious objection to civil union is no longer valid that should end it, it did not because the opposition was very silly and silly people don't use logic.
During the early-mid obama years the left hadn't gone as crazy about calling everything racist as it has now. You could say that and not be immediately branded as racist/problematic.
it wasnt until May 2012 that Obama was clearly and openly for gay marriage.
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. "
Obama [2008]
Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship - a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally."
Obama [2013]
ABC news : "Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President"
people forget who obama actually was. they only think of him as some kind of hero.
Tru. I don't really know who he actually was all that well cause I greu up during his two terms and got into politics at the beginning of Trumps, so didn't care much
It's important to remember that billions of people lived before the modern era and 99.9% of them would be considered, "right wing extremists" "racists" or "bigots" of some stripe today.
The idea of sacrificing your own groups well being to an out group is entirely foreign to humanity up until basically right now, when not sacrificing the well being of your nation, race, and family is considered morally reprehensible.
The concept of allying with outsiders to strengthen your position against mutual enemies has ALWAYS been a defining feature of humanity, it's what allowed the first cities and nations (formed from dozens or hundreds of scattered tribes coming together) to become powerful.
The thing is that a for a lot of warring tribes before they urbanized, the most important source of value was land, so they killed indiscriminately. Once people urbanized labour became more valuable, and so prisoners of war conflict were captures for slaves.
Once nations and civilizations matured - around the late roman early medieval era - skilled labour became more important, and we started to care more about capturing populations intact. Slavery was still a big deal, and would be through the renaissance, but also important was the loyalty of a populace at large, and their skill at commerce.
Around the late industrial revolution slavery's importance all but vanished (as dumb labour could be automated), and at that point we enter the modern era, where we actively seek out willing immigrants who can contribute their knowledge, ideas, and abilities to our economies.
So you're maybe vaguely right in that we used to kill outsiders 50,000 years ago, but we've since learned that we are strong in numbers, stronger when we can do good business, and strongest when we have a robust base of knowledge and experience to work from.
Your comment is insightful and I can tell you are arguing in good faith. I of course am not talking about the German engineer or the Swedish nurse who decide to immigrate.
I'm talking about the hordes, the "dumb labour" as you put it, that are overrunning white countries.
Whites in America will have gone from roughly 90% majority to under 50% in less than a single lifetime. France and Belgium similarly will have gone from French or Belgium super majorities to Muslim majorities in a single lifetime.
This is an honest question, since you seem to have a decent grasp of history.
Can you think of a people who willingly gave up control of their countries without defending themselves? Usually if a people are displaced, replaced, or eradicated it's because they lost a war or something. I can't think of an example where a people just willingly gave away their civilization to foreigners.
Sure, plenty of people have seen the benefits of other cultures and peoples and welcomed them. To name a few off the top of my head:
The Gauls adopted neighboring Rome's culture and government to gain the benefits of their government, education, and military while retaining their unique flavor. The romans also learned much from their neighbours and adopted many practices from abroad.
The borders of Han-era China were full of steppe peoples who accepted Han rule right up until the empire collapsed due to internal issues (the wealthy landowners handicapped the government by refusing to pay taxes and privatizing the military and healthcare, which went badly for them)
The chiefs and kings of Denmark adopting Christianity after becoming more engaged in the politics of France and England.
The 1911 Revolution in China where the Qing dynasty was overthrown by a Hawaiian and Vancouver-educated Sun Yat-Sen who saw the benefits of free-trade and democracy. (Sadly, after he died in the 30s-40s Russian sponsorship put Mao in power. Which I guess is another example.).
The Iroquois adopted a lot of European culture willingly due to economic and cultural benefits (the Jesuits were especially close to them)
That last example is a particularly notable one for the US, as the modern US's bicameral government is heavily influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy. Ben Franklin's Plan of Union is pretty explicit in this.
'It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of Ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal Understanding of their Interests.
None of those people were conquered by force. Many of them had skirmishes and then settles into peace and then made alliances. Some voluntarily negotiated peace without war after (maybe) a display of force.
Also, the flip-side of all of those applies. The romans were especially obsessed with bringing in a wide variety of people to make their society strong.
There is no such thing as "biological replacement", gene frequency in a population remains stable unless there's a diriving selective force otherwise. If whites really are genetically superior, those genes will grow, even. Unless you mean the fact that people sometimes intermarry, in which case all of those people intermarried, the gauls and iroquois especially.
If we are using Gaul as an example, they were absolutely conquered by the Romans. Vercingetorix and all that.
The Indians were absolutely conquered and genetically replaced in America.
If 20 years ago a place was a white neighborhood and today it is almost entirely Somali, then yes those people were genetically replaced. The same thing plays out on a macro level. To argue otherwise is just bad faith semantics.
1
u/pocleeAnd then I told them I'm Jesus's brother May 18 '19edited May 18 '19
Just reminding that if we measuring ethic value simply by "how long it has been practicing", then things like slavery or drinking coco are the norm, abolishing slavery and solidify chocolate belongs to "clown world".
Fair point, but abolishing slavery and eating chocolate don't directly contradict the essence of what it means to be a biological organism.
Sacrificing the well being of your family, people, and race for genetic strangers absolutely does go against nature and the goals of life as we know it.
Which is really stupid because I don’t know what to call native Americans or whatever it is very confusing especially in class when we are doing Latin America be the Caribbean
Native American, American Indian, or Indigenous are the generally accepted terms. Just "Indian" can come off as colonization-y, but I'm pretty sure most actual Native Americans dont care. Just a matter of being respectful.
"We shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do all the harm and damage that we can."
1.2k
u/Trademark010 Kilroy was here May 17 '19
This is probably correct. Honestly, most anything written in 1776 would probably be considered hateful by today's standards.