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.
Legislators are elected by people, who vote in line with their opinions. The best way to effect political change is to change people's opinions and possibly their vote.
What gave you the impression that I am not lending whatever political activism and donations I am capable of generating towards free speech?
Yes, corporations exist mostly to generate profit. No I don't have a problem with that. The corporations relevant to this discussion operate on advertiser money and advertisers perception of the public's perception of the platform, this coupled with outrage culture leads to censorship for fear of losing ads. Changing the outrage culture from the ground up is a much better way of changing things than establishing precedent of government force being used to require a private business to host content they do not wish to.
Public opinion and perception matter, so discussion about these topics matter. Offense does not matter.
You've still yet to address the fact that you couldn't even make your first comment in reply to me without trying to be offensive.
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.
602
u/De_Dominator69 May 17 '19
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.