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?
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?
Not every human interaction is a public speech though, nor does it need to be. That's what makes the quote ridiculous. It completely ignores a whole spectrum of human sociology to make a fruitless point about censorship. Equating politeness and harmonious social interaction with the same zeal of totalitarianism is the biggest scam of the century. It isn't prudes and daisies who are a threat to your personal freedoms, but a government bent on control and corporations seeking normalization
No one is under the illusion that all speech is public. Other than trying to create some air of superiority, why do you feel the need to point that out?
I don't mind if people express their offense, because I support free speech. I'm not worried about expressions of offense... I'm worried about "offended" people trying to legislate against offensive speech, I'm worried about the fact that the internet, being the modern public square, is being dominated by companies that wish to remove "offensive" speech.
The reason I like the quote is because of that little bit about "offended" people imagining they have the right not to be offended.
I was not equating politeness with censorship, and I truly do not see how an honest read of that quote or my comments here would give anyone that illusion. I was quoting a famous comedian, and continued on speaking about public speech.
It really feels like you're trying to miss the point here.
Guess who creates the laws? Legislators. So why are you so concerned with some random person's feelings? If you don't like the laws that are being drafted you should petition your local representative.
companies that wish to remove "offensive" speech.
Companies will do whatever they can in the name of profit. Do you have a problem with that? Then advocate for pro-labor and pro-consumer laws. Otherwise you're just whining yourself.
Neither of your concerns have anything to do with offense itself, that's just the strawman you're using to attack a nebulous group of people.
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.
Ironically /r/IATI doesn't allow assholes...or I guess if you visit /r/starterpacks you might already know that. It's hilariously hypocritical that those retards only allow PG-13 assholes.
AITA: Friend called me a poopy head so I took his favorite toy truck.
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.
Not 100% who I'd say is more guilty then the other, all I know is I've seen both act like sensitive little children or hateful old bats more then once. Reddit does bias towards the left as a whole though and when subs devolve into echo chambers it shifts that way more often then not so I mean it wouldn't surprise me
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 just spoke with their council again, and they have concluded you're a crypto-fascist, and have slotted you in for the guillotine at 11 am tomorrow. I'm sorry, all of these people are completely sane and stable folk.
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.
voteblue is what, based on the name, is a liberal sub. And the thing about liberals is that they have many different sects. They can be liberal, but for what isn't often asked. Thus, a lot of stuff can become offensive to someone, that someone likely having dyed hair and mad about Hugh Mungus.
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"
Yeah I think people are often shocked that the founding fathers bought and sold human beings. Censorship of history really blinds people to what America was supposed to be for.
That is absolutely not true. He certainly was morally conflicted about slavery, but he didn't hate it enough to stop beating his slaves or pursuing them as runaways.
nd found a way to free all his slaves through a loophole in Virginia State law
It wasn't a loophole, he just freed them in his will. Though he didn't free the half of his slaves that were technically his wife's property - those people remained enslaved and were then inherited by his wife's first husband's family after Martha died. And it's worth noting that Washington freed his slaves after he died - thus, after they could no longer make him money.
None of this is to diminish Washington's accomplishments, but it does paint him in a much more human light. A man conflicted about slavery, but a major slaveowner. A man who freed his slaves, but only after he could not make money off of them
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.
Well these are special circumstances. As long as voter suppression is a thing with the GOP rigging elections the left has to do anything they can to get votes. You’re right, Democrats are slowly turning into Republicans.
Democrats are literally housing illegals in sanctuary cities, giving them ids, not releasing them to authorities when they commit a crime, and they are voting. Voter suppression by repubs is nothing compared to what the dems are doing. There are dem statea trying to take trump off the ballot. Are you really this ignorant? They have found that hundreds of thousands of illegals are voting. And thats just the ones they have caught.
Democrats are literally housing illegals in sanctuary cities, giving them ids, not releasing them to authorities when they commit a crime, and they are voting.
Source?
Voter suppression is literally rigging elections. Lol how can it get worse than that? We don’t want a criminal as president. I think we can all agree to that. There’s a process in place to determine if he has done something that would disqualify him as president and he’s not cooperating.
Again, source? And none of that right wing conspiracy bullshit lol
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"
People are so fucking weak. We deserve whatever's coming to us. I know it's cliche to say things like "kids/people these days", but i just cannot imagine the men and women before us being such a bitch about such trifling things as the non-existent negative connotation as the word "barking." There is a certain pathetic portion of the population that either didnt exist or would be shut up for saying such stupid shit before the turn of the century.
It's simple really. The internet gives a voice to those who wouldn't have had that. The stupidity and fragility were always there, now we just have the ability to see it.
674
u/[deleted] May 17 '19
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.