Alex Jones content removed from Facebook, Youtube, Apple

dark crystal

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't know, when someone is routinely posting tweets like the one below and has a platform built on fake news and hatred , I don't see much of a difference. I don't trust small groups of people with enormous power making decisions on what qualifies as hate speech and what qualifies as fake news and I don't believe Jones was pulled off 5 platforms in 12 hours due to "hate speech", in my view it was a coordinated effort. This is a day and age where the NYT's can openly hire a racist and make excuses for her so you can probably understand where I'm coming from. When you start banning individuals you open up a scary precedent.

https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1010658220950487040

But that Tweet isn't anything resembling hate speech. Can't you see the difference? Besides, as already stated, Twitter hasn't banned him anyhow.


I made my stance clear on the Sarah Yeong thread that I believe the NY times made a huge error hiring her, as her tweeting history is blatantly racist. Going forward they won't have a leg to stand on whenever Trump tweets something moronic/ offensive/ inflammatory if they have someone up to the same lark writing for them.

In Jones' case, surely the fact he's being sued by parents who lost their young children in a mass shooting he stated was a hoax, would make you question this guy's basic moral decency, no? If not, it's quite clear he just makes horrible sh!t up just to inflame and ignite division, hate and paranoia. If you want to ingest that poison, you can easily go to his website and listen to it to your heart's content. This isn't like Gerry Adams voice being muted in the 1980's. His speech is free and widely available, just not on certain platforms.

Billy86

2 Scoops wrote: »

Recently in the space of a few weeks there's been what I consider a coordinated effort pushing for them to be banned. That's probably why it's happened now.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/facebook-pledge-to-eliminate-false-information-is-itself-fake-news

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07/14/facebook-wants-to-cut-down-on-misinformation-so-why-isnt-it-doing-anything-about-infowars/?utm_term=.3c58102924aa

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/media/facebook-infowars/index.html

My guess is it has more to do with his attempting to label the guy investigating Trump pa's a pedophile, and more importantly... threatening to murder him over politics. Which is otherwise known as terrorism.

mcmoustache

Grayson wrote: »

Are there a lot of people saying kill all whites? I don't think I've ever heard of it.

Like every opinion in the world, you can be sure that it has been expressed on the Internet. South African twitter probably has a heap of it.

I'm not sure how common it is since I don't follow those types but Sarah Jeong, who was recently added to the NYT editorial board, was in the news in the last few days for a bunch of racist anti-white tweets.

mcmoustache

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah cos that really stacks up to the stuff that Jones puts online. And, again, that is twitter. this banning has nothing to do with twitter. twitter has not banned jones.

Ah look, he's doing his best. It's not easy to find someone with as large an audience as Jones who also says anything remotely as legally questionable. It's a tough job to go out there and attempt to "both-sides" every issue when reality is against you so you should give him some credit.

Ipso

dark crystal wrote: »

But that Tweet isn't anything resembling hate speech. Can't you see the difference? Besides, as already stated, Twitter hasn't banned him anyhow.


I made my stance clear on the Sarah Yeong thread that I believe the NY times made a huge error hiring her, as her tweeting history is blatantly racist. Going forward they won't have a leg to stand on whenever Trump tweets something moronic/ offensive/ inflammatory if they have someone up to the same lark writing for them.

In Jones' case, surely the fact he's being sued by parents who lost their young children in a mass shooting he stated was a hoax, would make you question this guy's basic moral decency, no? If not, it's quite clear he just makes horrible sh!t up just to inflame and ignite division, hate and paranoia. If you want to ingest that poison, you can easily go to his website and listen to it to your heart's content. This isn't like Gerry Adams voice being muted in the 1980's. His speech is free and widely available, just not on certain platforms.

Yes, but this will most likely backfire.
In a perfect world, Jones would be bouncing of a rubber wall somewhere with one o f those nice jackets that has its arms going behind its back.
But unfortunately there are a lot of complete and utter deranged morons who lap his nonsense up.
He even had a presidential candidate go on his show.

2 Scoops

dark crystal wrote: »

If you want to ingest that poison, you can easily go to his website and listen to it to your heart's content.

I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election.

Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may not qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.

https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk )

In Jones' case, surely the fact he's being sued by parents who lost their young children in a mass shooting he stated was a hoax, would make you question this guy's basic moral decency, no?

I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I think you should allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.

Grayson

mcmoustache wrote: »

Like every opinion in the world, you can be sure that it has been expressed on the Internet. South African twitter probably has a heap of it.

I'm not sure how common it is since I don't follow those types but Sarah Jeong, who was recently added to the NYT editorial board, was in the news in the last few days for a bunch of racist anti-white tweets.

You said people kill all blacks is hate speech but kill all whites isn't. So you've never seen an occasion where someone said kill all white, never mind where it was tolerated?

How can you say that kill all whites is tolerated whereas kill all blacks isn't?

As for Sarah Jeong, that's whatabouttery since she didn't call for any group of people to be killed, and she was responding to trolls mimicking their own language. She never said any racist views except when already presented with that language.

As opposed to your example which was kill all whites/blacks or even what Alex Jones did when he said burn all drag queens.

batgoat

Man who is responsible for calling parents of Sandy Hook victims "actors" gets thrown off social media. Many families can't even visit their children's graves because of this ****. By serving his content, it's enabling him to create further scenarios like that and wrecking further vulnerable people's lives. Good riddance to him.

dark crystal

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election.

Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.

https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk )



I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I believe you allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.

I do understand your concerns, however I feel divisive rhetoric and hate speech has begun to inherently damage not just American Society, but it's also begun to infect much of the Western World.


The politics of hate and division, us against them etc. is doing so much harm, I can't properly express it. I genuinely feel like I'm back in the thirties and we haven't learned a god damn thing about what speech like this can do to a whole generation of people. Spreading hate like the rage virus in 28 Days Later. That, for me, sets a far more dangerous precedent than this hateful troll being booted off Facebook to be perfectly honest.

Conservatives should look at themselves long and hard if they consider someone like Alex Jones a martyr for their cause.

2 Scoops

Grayson wrote: »

You said people kill all blacks is hate speech but kill all whites isn't. So you've never seen an occasion where someone said kill all white, never mind where it was tolerated?

The NYT's literally just hired someone to their editorial board whose shared those views repeatably.

Call Me Jimmy

What about celebrating the decline of a population of people Grayson? Literally doing a song and dance in a video titled "Hey Brown Muslims White Christians, Your Time Is Almost Up!!!". None other than the Young Turks, so they should be gone?! video removed even? anything?

This is going to get out of hand real quick, I can't believe people are so naive. See Jeong, both sides are going to go mad getting each other censored and we all suffer.

2 Scoops

Just to add, if we're specifically talking about hate speech and applying the same standards, why are sites like Salon allowed to promote these type of articles on facebook without any repercussions?

https://www.salon.com/2015/12/22/white_men_must_be_stopped_the_very_future_of_the_planet_depends_on_it_partner/

"White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it
For 500 years, they’ve exploited their fellow man and plundered the planet. It’s time they rein themselves in"

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election.

Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may not qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.

https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk )

Come on, man. Saying "Fúck Trump" is hardly hate speech. If that's the closest thing you can find on the left to Alex Jones, fine, go ahead and beat to death that site that very few have even heard of, let alone take seriously.

2 Scoops wrote: »

I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I think you should allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.

Strangely enough, there has been a systemic anti conservative bias on social media. It's somewhat indirect. At a simple level, if enough people report a tweet that contains something like "those lazy nig*ers ...", then it comes to the attention of moderators. If the user who made that post has a history of such posts, they get banned.

This unfairly targets conservatives since this kind of language tends to be used more by people who identify as conservative than say, antifa, or whatever the "both-sides" equivalent of a nazi/klan collective is. The result of all this, is that all those conservatives who like to discuss things like hanging nig*ers or gassing k*kes end up feeling unfairly targeted.

batgoat

The actual banning of him might be related to the fact he's being sued by the Sandy Hook parents.. I fully support a platform banning a conspiracy site that has literally wrecked the lives of families who had children massacred. It's completely within their rights and you can't claim to be a news site when you make claims like that. It's not exactly a one off either, it's what the site has always done..

De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner have moved seven times since their son was killed in a school shooting in an effort to avoid the continuous death threats and other harassment. They now live hundreds of miles from Noah's grave.

“I would love to go see my son’s grave and I don’t get to do that," De La Rosa told The Times.
https://www.bustle.com/p/these-sandy-hook-parents-cant-even-visit-their-sons-grave-because-of-harassment-9958926

Grayson

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't watch it and only noticed it because it gained mainstream attention during the 2016 election.

Palmer's site is based on hate and there's many others like it. While it may not qualify as "hate speech" he's still using hate and fake news to make money and that's exactly what Jones was doing.

https://twitter.com/search?q=fu*ck%20from%3Apalmerreport&src=typd&lang=en ( remove the asterisk )



I've never thought Jones was a good person and on a personal level I'm indifferent about him being banned. I don't think a small group of people with biased politic beliefs should have the power to decide what qualifies as fake news and hate speech because that wields huge influence. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future and I believe there is already systematic bias against conservatives on social media. I think you should allow them all and if you don't want to watch then simply don't.

just scrolling through the first page it's just the guy using the work fcuk in tweets. You do realise that swearing isn't hate speech or even hatred?

I don't get how someone can compare someone saying "Fcuk Trump" with what Jones does.

(Note: I'd never heard of Palmer until today but he seems like a bit of loon who touts conspiracy stories. Although his stuff seems rubbish picking on the fact that he uses the work fcuk is really strange)

mcmoustache

Grayson wrote: »

You said people kill all blacks is hate speech but kill all whites isn't. So you've never seen an occasion where someone said kill all white, never mind where it was tolerated?

How can you say that kill all whites is tolerated whereas kill all blacks isn't?

As for Sarah Jeong, that's whatabouttery since she didn't call for any group of people to be killed, and she was responding to trolls mimicking their own language. She never said any racist views except when already presented with that language.

As opposed to your example which was kill all whites/blacks or even what Alex Jones did when he said burn all drag queens.

Well, these people are still on facebook. Information taken from here

The point that I was making was about consistency.

If you're going to suggest to me that anti-black racism is treated in the same way as anti-white racism, I have a bridge to sell you. If you feel that Jeong's racism should be seen as some kind of joke or mimicry, you're a walking demonstration of anti-white and anti-black racism being treated differently.

A Gauteng government official, Velaphi Khumalo, in 2016 stated on Facebook "White people in South Africa deserve to be hacked and killed like Jews. [You] have the same venom. Look at Palestine. [You] must be [burnt] alive and skinned and your [offspring] used as garden fertiliser".[32] A complaint was lodged at the Human Rights Commission and a charge of crimen injuria was laid at the Equality Court, however, as of 2018, no conviction has occurred.[33]

In March 2018 a screenshot of a controversial Facebook post allegedly written by EFF Ekurhuleni leader Mampuru Mampuru surfaced. The post read "We need to unite as black People, there are lessthan 5 million whites in South Africa vs 45 million of us. We can kill all this white within two weeks. We have the army and the police. If those who are killing farmers can do it what are you waiting for. Shoot the boer, kill the farmer." [sic]. Mampuru denies making the statement.[34]

2 Scoops

Grayson wrote: »

just scrolling through the first page it's just the guy using the work fcuk in tweets. You do realise that swearing isn't hate speech or even hatred?

Many of his tweets are based in hate and violent rhetoric. He's no different to Jones in that regard.



I'd love someone to explain how those Salon stories which they regularly publish attacking white people aren't considered hate speech. Their facebook page has 1 million likes and there's MANY sites like Salon promoting the same viewpoints.

"The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe."

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

Many of his tweets are based in hate and violent rhetoric. He's no different to Jones in that regard.



I'd love someone to explain how those Salon stories which they regularly publish attacking white people aren't considered hate speech. Their facebook page has 1 million likes.

I'll repeat, families lives have been further ruined because of claims of families of victims being actors.... You are not comparing like with like and are ignoring what Jones has been doing for years.

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

So the likes of Salon are promoting hate speech?

I don't actually agree there was anything racist about the article you linked to, did you read beyond the title? It's actually pretty well thought out as an article and you'd really have to be searching to be offended. It's also written by a white guy.

2 Scoops

batgoat wrote: »

I'll repeat, families lives have been further ruined because of claims of families of victims being actors.... You are not comparing like with like and are ignoring what Jones has been doing for years.

I haven't said otherwise, I've used it an an example to show there's similar sites to infowars that engage in hate and fake news to make money.

I'm looking for an answer as to what's considered hate speech and what facebook should deem tolerable since they've set the precedent.

2 Scoops

batgoat wrote: »

I don't actually agree there was anything racist about the article you linked to, did you read beyond the title? It's actually pretty well thought out as an article and you'd really have to be searching to be offended. It's also written by a white guy.

Oh right :rolleyes:

What about these then? The word white has been swapped out for black.

Captain Obvious

2 Scoops wrote: »

Many of his tweets are based in hate and violent rhetoric. He's no different to Jones in that regard.

Many of the people Jones attacks are victims or people who have not chosen the aspect of themselves he attacks. You don't choose to be the victim of a crime or transgender. You absolutely choose to be a Trump supporter. That's the difference.

2 Scoops wrote: »

Oh right

What about these then? The word white has been swapped out for black.

Salon is trash

2 Scoops

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Many of the people Jones attacks are victims or people who have not chosen the aspect of themselves he attacks. You don't choose to be the victim of a crime or transgender. You absolutely choose to be a Trump supporter. That's the difference.

I'm not defending Alex Jones, I'm looking for a definite answer as to what's considered hate speech and what isn't and how facebook should implement banning it.

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

Oh right :rolleyes:

What about these then? The word white has been swapped out for black.

Do you normally base the entirety of your opinion on the title of an article? Eg the one you linked to was clear and inoffensive. The effect of infowars is actually tangible though. The various people who have been accused of being 'crisis actors' by Alex Jones have had their lives ruined by Alex Jones. I can show tangible effects that have caused immense and unnecessary damage via infowars. You can't show such tangible effects besides some irritated Trump fans who apparently can't read beyond the title.

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Many of the people Jones attacks are victims or people who have not chosen the aspect of themselves he attacks. You don't choose to be the victim of a crime or transgender. You absolutely choose to be a Trump supporter. That's the difference.




Salon is trash

The science to back up the transgender claim? People can claim to be whatever they want and that is what freedom is all about. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

2 Scoops

batgoat wrote: »

Do you normally base the entirety of your opinion on the title of an article? Eg the one you linked to was clear and inoffensive. The effect of infowars is actually tangible though. The various people who have been accused of being 'crisis actors' by Alex Jones have had their lives ruined by Alex Jones. I can show tangible effects that have caused immense and unnecessary damage via infowars. You can't show such tangible effects besides some irritated Trump fans who apparently can't read beyond the title.

Those Republicans were shot up last year because a man became radicalized listening to Rachel Maddow, what's your point?

My point is that banning Infowars sets a terrible precedent and it's going open a huge can of worms and make political discourse even more hostile because you cannot properly implement a "hate speech" policy because it's definition is too broad and there will always be bias at play. The same thing goes for "fake news".

I'd said what I think, I don't agree with banning them not because I watch infowars, but because it sets a dangerous precedent. If you don't like something don't watch it, doing anything else in an open society is only going to bring problems.

Call Me Jimmy

2 Scoops wrote: »

I'm not defending Alex Jones, I'm looking for a definite answer as to what's considered hate speech and what isn't.

There is none. People on here have been claiming incitement to violence is hate speech. Facebook says 'violent speech' in the midst of page-long wordsalad. It'd be funny if it all wasn't true.

ohnonotgmail

mcmoustache wrote: »

Ah look, he's doing his best. It's not easy to find someone with as large an audience as Jones who also says anything remotely as legally questionable. It's a tough job to go out there and attempt to "both-sides" every issue when reality is against you so you should give him some credit.

you're right, i'm being too harsh

ohnonotgmail

2 Scoops wrote: »

I haven't said otherwise, I've used it an an example to show there's similar sites to infowars that engage in hate and fake news to make money.

I'm looking for an answer as to what's considered hate speech and what facebook should deem tolerable since they've set the precedent.

they are in no way similar to infowars

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

And those Republicans were shot up last year because a man became radicalized listening to Rachel Maddow, what's your point?

My point is that banning Infowars sets a terrible precedent and it's going open a huge can of worms and make political discourse even more hostile.

I'm out.

Eh, he was liberal and was unwell. Just googled it, everyone denounced him including Maddow. While I'm not a fan of Maddow, she clearly held no responsibility in terms of what happened. Jones very much so, holds responsibility for the harassing and violent threats against Sandy Hook families, he claimed they were actors. Not remotely similar. He is currently being sued for it which likely influenced socially media banning Infowars.

You can say it opens a precedent as much as you want but Infowars has never been a news outlet. It's a conspiracy site which has claimed FEMA has death camps, 911 was an inside job, all the school massacres are false flags and Obama is from Kenya. Jones is a far right extremist. Not comparable to anyone mainstream on the left, he has always pushed a war mental. Everything will result in martial law was basically his daily claim. Not news, nutjob who is a bit of a scumbag who I hope is financially ruined via the lawsuit.

Franz Von Peppercorn

So Apple didn’t ban the Alex jones app?

I just checked and it’s number 7 in news downloads.

That’s insane.

Captain Obvious

Taytoland wrote: »

The science to back up the transgender claim? People can claim to be whatever they want and that is what freedom is all about. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You want me to prove being transgender is not a choice?

2 Scoops

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You want me to prove being transgender is not a choice?

Just before someone attacks me - I'm not saying this is the case for everyone or anywhere close to it, but there are examples of people legally changing sex for benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-legally-changes-sex-cheaper-car-insurance.html

"A Canadian man in his early 20s was unhappy with the high quote he got from his car insurance company, so he decided to do something about it: legally switch his gender from male to female."

Venom

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

There is none. People on here have been claiming incitement to violence is hate speech. Facebook says 'violent speech' in the midst of page-long wordsalad. It'd be funny if it all wasn't true.

When he had to testify before Congress, Mark Zuckerburg was asked to define what hate speech was and he stated he was unable to do so. How can a company then claim it's in the terms and conditions when the head of said company can't define what it is?

Venom

2 Scoops wrote: »

Just before someone attacks me - I'm not saying this is the case for everyone or anywhere close to it, but there are examples of people legally changing sex for benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-legally-changes-sex-cheaper-car-insurance.html

"A Canadian man in his early 20s was unhappy with the high quote he got from his car insurance company, so he decided to do something about it: legally switch his gender from male to female."

Some balls on that lad, oh wait.........

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

Those Republicans were shot up last year because a man became radicalized listening to Rachel Maddow, what's your point?

Did Maddow incite violence or otherwise take an action that would cause that guy to do that? Or did she report on something that wasn't correct?


I've heard you compare Maddow to Hannity before but this is still an odd one from you.

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You want me to prove being transgender is not a choice?

Yes. XX and XY chromosomes.

riffmongous

suicide_circus wrote: »

oh good, teach me, teach me how I should understand things.

You see satire is a way of ridiculing someone, but in this case Jones would have to be making fun of who exactly? Himself? Crazy conspiracy theorists who are his biggest fans? If jones is mocking these beliefs, then is he actually a liberal himself??

mcmoustache

Alex Jones insists that it's perfectly OK to remove someone from a private platform.

https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1026904850800537600

Outlaw Pete

Yawn. Nobody has a problem with any private platform having rules ffs. They do however take issue with them being partisanly applied, especially when they suggest their ethos is not to do so.

riffmongous

mcmoustache wrote: »

Alex Jones insists that it's perfectly OK to remove someone from a private platform.

https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1026904850800537600

I can imagine Alex himself furiously re-regging there every few hours in order to post as the mods keep banning him :pac:

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yawn. Nobody has a problem with any private platform having rules ffs. They do however take issue with them being partisanly applied, especially when they suggest their ethos is not to do so.

I'm not seeing that. From what I can tell, Jones was being enough of a douche that some private companies no longer wanted to be associated with him.


Now, I get that he has been adopted and legitimised by Republicans in the US and I get that many self-described conservatives dislike when one of their own is being attacked but this is really just a case of private companies protecting their brand by getting rid of a douche.



He's not being picked on for being conservative; he's being picked on because he's a major asshole.

Call Me Jimmy

That is nothing to do with the point I've been making, someone mentioned boards has rules earlier as if that was a counter argument. Of course private companies can ban someone who breaks the rules, the problem is the rules are extremely vague and they have and will be applied for political purposes. It's so obvious and I would have thought impossible to deny in the light of the recent instances with Jeong and the director of the movie. It just so happens in Jeongs case that the people who define humour/satire seemingly agree with her for now. The principle or lack thereof will come back to bite you.

Right-wing activists will use the nebulous policies against the likes of the Young Turks, as I mentioned earlier "White Christians You're Time Is Almost Up!!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhoIeAnUTZA&t=3s. etc. the principle is you are willing to allow each side to shut each other down and giving the tech companies all the power they want. Whereas we could make a stand and instead of justifying it, uniting in making it clear to the those companies that we don't want this. But seemingly a lot of people do want it.

We could take the opportunity to oppose hate speech laws seeing the way they will be used but no, hate is violence. It's interesting that we couldn't name a single prominent lefty banned from twitter, facebook, youtube or spotify, I'd be interested to here one. Just statistically that should raise some red flags, but maybe some really believe hate can only manifest from the right?

Captain Obvious

2 Scoops wrote: »

Just before someone attacks me - I'm not saying this is the case for everyone or anywhere close to it, but there are examples of people legally changing sex for benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-legally-changes-sex-cheaper-car-insurance.html

"A Canadian man in his early 20s was unhappy with the high quote he got from his car insurance company, so he decided to do something about it: legally switch his gender from male to female."

That would be an example of someone who isn't transgender though.

Taytoland wrote: »

Yes. XX and XY chromosomes.

What do you mean by that?

mcmoustache

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Right-wing activists will use the nebulous policies against the likes of the Young Turks, as I mentioned earlier "White Christians You're Time Is Almost Up!!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhoIeAnUTZA&t=3s. etc. the principle is you are willing to allow each side to shut each other down and giving the tech companies all the power they want. Whereas we could make a stand and instead of justifying it, uniting in making it clear to the those companies that we don't want this. But seemingly a lot of people do want it.

If the young turks is threatening people and slandering the parents of shooting victims, give them the boot. The rules should be blind to politics.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

We could take the opportunity to oppose hate speech laws seeing the way they will be used but no, hate is violence. It's interesting that we couldn't name a single prominent lefty banned from twitter, facebook, youtube or spotify, I'd be interested to here one. Just statistically that should raise some red flags, but maybe some really believe hate can only manifest from the right?

There's plenty of hate on the left, it just seems to be more on the fringes. I pointed out some anti-white racism earlier in the thread so it's definitely out there. There's also leftist anti-semitism, not to be confused with anti-zionism.



There's a small problem with your desire to use statistics, though. If a social media company decides to get nazis and Klan members off their networks, the purge will overwhelmingly affect conservatives in the US. If they want to get rid of antisemitism, it'll be the same although it will also affect Muslims to a very high degree over here in europe. Some assholish behaviour is definitely carried out more by US conservatives than the crusties on the other end of the spectrum.

Taytoland

You have people on US talk shows openly hoping that white people become a minority in the US and using rhetoric which if you put it in reverse would be called racism but no one is shouting for them to be silenced or thrown off air. A lot of this just comes down to what side you are on. If the comments are from your side you would be amazed at how blind people are to it. If it's from the other side they are in uproar about it.

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

You have people on US talk shows openly hoping that white people become a minority in the US and using rhetoric which if you put it in reverse would be called racism but no one is shouting for them to be silenced or thrown off air. A lot of this just comes down to what side you are on. If the comments are from your side you would be amazed at how blind people are to it. If it's from the other side they are in uproar about it.

Pretty fascinating that you guys are entirely ignoring a lawsuit over his treatment of the families of Sandy Hook. Their lives have been ruined even more. It's completely disgusting that you guys are ignoring the pretty terrible things that he is responsible for. The reason he does these thing is to rile up crazy people/conspiracy theorists as they're good for ad revenue and some even buy his bodybuilding pills.

Anthracite

Taytoland wrote: »

You have people on US talk shows openly hoping that white people become a minority in the US and using rhetoric which if you put it in reverse would be called racism

What, if you said that you hoped minorities would become minorities, that would be racism?

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Pretty fascinating that you guys are entirely ignoring a lawsuit over his treatment of the families of Sandy Hook. Their lives have been ruined even more. It's completely disgusting that you guys are ignoring the pretty terrible things that he is responsible for. The reason he does these thing is to rile up crazy people/conspiracy theorists as they're good for ad revenue and some even buy his bodybuilding pills.

I have already said that is wrong. But it's opening a can of worms. It's not just fringe elements who push conspiracy theories. I see plenty of it from US tv shows.

mcmoustache

Taytoland wrote: »

If the comments are from your side you would be amazed at how blind people are to it. If it's from the other side they are in uproar about it.

That's the problem right there. It's people viewing these things as though they're in one of two tribes which is nonsense. I try not to do that and I get into arguments with people who identify with both tribes. It's possible to believe that Jeong was making racist statements and at the same time see that Alex Jones was ditched because he was a libelous nutter that companies wouldn't want to be associated with and not as some conservative purge.