|
Wow you really converted that guy to a progressive point of view. What was your magic master technique?
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Wow you really converted that guy to a progressive point of view. What was your magic master technique? They probably bonded over their shared fear of trans people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:They probably bonded over their shared fear of trans people. Given Marx and Engels were virulent homophobes he's just adopted a 21st century reactionary viewpoint to modernise the brand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:11
|
|
Eimi posted:Also with 4chan my understanding is that the owner has some realization of how horrible the monster they created is, like to my understanding they at least tried to ban gamergate poo poo. Maybe they are just like the Reddit owner and just support "all speech is free speech?" moot did ban that poo poo but mainly because it became a huge pain in the rear end to deal with because people in the GG threads there would report literally everything due to immense paranoia that SJW shills were infiltrating their threads to false flag and ruin the movement. So, much like the Reddit person, he generally thought all speech is free speech. The owner now is Hiroyuki Nishimura, former owner of 2channel. Asides from the fact that Hiroyuki so far has displayed a loose grasp of the English language, Hiroyuki seems to hold the opinion that whatever happens on his site is not really his problem. This is a pretty good article about him, with a few great parts, such as him writing about how 2channel will never die, which it nearly did after it was revealed that he was selling user information. https://www.wired.com/2008/05/mf-hiroyuki/?currentPage=all quote:His online fans may adore him, but 2channel is becoming increasingly controversial. There have been stalking incidents and suicide pacts supposedly planned through the site. (Nico Nico Douga is more supervised: Users must log in, there's a six-page agreement, and Dwango responds to takedown notices.) Nishimura's nonchalant response to complaints and libel suits probably doesn't help. "I used to show up in court," he says. "Then one day I overslept, and nothing happened. So I stopped going." SunAndSpring fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
How do you determine what speech is allowed and not allowed on the internet? There are varying levels of "free speech" rules in different countries. Incitement to illegal activity and/or imminent violence; Defamation and libel; Obscenity; Threats and intimidation; and False advertising. These are the unprotected classes of speech in america, and clearly people violate these all the time online (both far-right folks and liberals). The only way to really police these is to have much stronger ways to identify people online, which creates a lot of other problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:In the recent years, I've noticed that the right-wing has a clearly dominant position when it comes to the use of the internet to sway opinions. Right-wing people are able to form effective brigades to do things like manipulate online polls, negatively review media that disagrees with their views, game systems like Reddit and Google to get right-wing opinions front-page coverage, and more. They also seem to be better at using computers in general, what with the prevalence of bots and DDOSing as tactics used by internet right-wingers. Yet, I haven't noticed any sort of counter-response from the left; nothing is done when, say, alt-right trolls review-bomb a video because it implies that black people are human and not some variety of orc. Is the idea that the right wing is more powerful that you'd expect (given that trump just got elected...)? I say this because I feel like the idea of the "alt-right" as a word is kind of alluding to the idea that "racist" and "sexist" were supposed to mean "old people who will die off", and a new batch of young men joined up unexpectedly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Kilano posted:How do you determine what speech is allowed and not allowed on the internet? There are varying levels of "free speech" rules in different countries. How bad do you think it would be if twitter decided they didn't want to abet in the dissemination of literal Nazi propaganda? I think it would be good if they did that, do you disagree?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:How bad do you think it would be if twitter decided they didn't want to abet in the dissemination of literal Nazi propaganda? I think it would be good if they did that, do you disagree? Yes! I think that would be great. Nazi Propaganda is hate speech and doesnt fall within the realm of protected speech. What about saying you look like a fat monkey should that get me banned?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Kilano posted:Yes! I think that would be great. Nazi Propaganda is hate speech and doesnt fall within the realm of protected speech. Is the "you" in the scenario Michelle Obama? Because in that case, absolutely!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Is the "you" in the scenario Michelle Obama? Because in that case, absolutely! Ok so what if I call my friend a fat monkey and someone else sees it. should I get banned for that too? I'm not trying to make a point other than it is extremely difficult to police the internet
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
If a racist burns a cross alone on a black family's lawn, is he really a racist? Policing the internet is hard. Policing the real world is also hard. Since the internet is still loosely policed, I'd rather lay a groundwork where the people with ultimate authority seek to silence fascists as opposed to people who want to punish minorities because of their minority status.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Kilano posted:Yes! I think that would be great. Nazi Propaganda is hate speech and doesnt fall within the realm of protected speech. So are you upset about twitter banning people for the racist harassment of Leslie Jones? Or are you going to pretend you drew "fat monkey" out of a hat labelled "Innocuous Insults" and are shocked, shocked to find it may have racist undertones?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:So are you upset about twitter banning people for the racist harassment of Leslie Jones? Or are you going to pretend you drew "fat monkey" out of a hat labelled "Innocuous Insults" and are shocked, shocked to find it may have racist undertones? i'm not mad about anything I'm saying that I can't think of a good solution to the issue, and I don't think you can either. There's clear cases where people should be banned, and I think even more where it's not clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
as for the choice of words, of course it has racist undertones. So your going to ban everything that has a racist undertone to it? That would be insurmountable. The only reason that specific case got attention was because of the people involved with it. There's millions of situations that are worse that go ignored. And there's a lot of areas in the world that tolerate that behavior towards certain minority groups. Do we impose our laws of acceptable speech on them? Do we have different rules for spanish speaking, chinese speaking or arabic twitter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Kilano posted:as for the choice of words, of course it has racist undertones. So your going to ban everything that has a racist undertone to it? That would be insurmountable. The only reason that specific case got attention was because of the people involved with it. There's millions of situations that are worse that go ignored. Might as well not police racism as long as the dogwhistles are subtle enough. Also do you really think it's impossible to, I don't know say, hire people who speak other languages? Like oh, nope, best let Chinese twitter hate on uighurs because it's 'acceptable,' what am I even reading right now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Might as well not police racism as long as the dogwhistles are subtle enough. What i'm saying is that there is a lot of different views on what is acceptable speech around the world and it's very challenging to balance what is considered hate speech and what isn't. It's a very complicated issue that you can't just say "well let's ban all the racists" and have it be fixed. I'm not arguing that we should let people say whatever they want, but don't simplify the issue. You could have 100 experts come up with a solution and you would have a 100 solutions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
May as well not do anything. Unmoderated areas like TorChan clearly show the market of ideas at its best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:You just accused the MLK part of the Civil Rights movement as being "Anti-White" I posted that the leaders of the civil rights movement in the 60's were concerned that anti-white rhetoric would alienate white supporters, yes. If you think that's a discrediting statement to the civil rights movement of the 60's, you're going to be very disappointed with Kings sordid relationship with Malcolm X. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Kilano posted:What i'm saying is that there is a lot of different views on what is acceptable speech around the world and it's very challenging to balance what is considered hate speech and what isn't. It's a very complicated issue that you can't just say "well let's ban all the racists" and have it be fixed. That seems very culturally condescending.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Kilano posted:i'm not mad about anything I have a solution, let me walk you through it: 1. Don't be a platform for Nazis, racists, homophobes, or misogynists. And twitter seems to be implementing it! They just need to step it up. Maybe, the reason the alt-right has spread so much is because some people are afraid to call evil bullshit, evil bullshit, and deal with it accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Kilano posted:there's a lot of areas in the world that tolerate that behavior towards certain minority groups. Do we impose our laws of acceptable speech on them? You do realize we're talking about websites and the choice to be a platform for white-supremacists and their ilk, and not forming an army of Thunder Warriors to ride in and impose a single law on all nations, right? Cause it seems like you got confused there for a second!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:I posted that the leaders of the civil rights movement in the 60's were concerned that anti-white rhetoric would alienate white supporters, yes. If you think that's a discrediting statement to the civil rights movement of the 60's, you're going to be very disappointed with Kings sordid relationship with Malcolm X. “White Americans must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society. The comfortable, entrenched, the privileged cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change of the status quo.” “If they continue to use our nonviolence as a cushion for complacency, the wrath of those suffering a long train of abuses will rise.” "In short, white America must honestly and penitently assume the guilt for the black man's inferior status." “And I contend that the cry of ‘black power’ is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.” The narrative that King was the great peacemaker, ever at odds with Malcom X's militancy is a lie. It's far more complex and intricate than that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
And don't forget the classic MLK letter from Birmingham Jail:quote:"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
In any case, whatever you think your argument is, referencing King to condemn black violence is patriarchal, demeaning and a common tool of white supremacists. Unless that's your intent, don't do it. Black people are not the problem. The system that white people built to maintain oppression of black people is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Black people are not the problem. I love that this is being said in a thread asking about the prominence of far-right viewpoints on the internet. Really hits home where the thread has veered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Run off with the conversation, not physically run away. The guy threatening that if he saw jokes he's teen become a nazi. SunAndSpring posted:My thoughts now are what exactly can be done about this stuff. How do you effectively pressure these omnipresent sites? No way you can loving boycott Google or Twitter or whatever now, there's way too many users, so hitting them in the wallet isn't an option. And how exactly do you get somebody who runs a site like 4chan to realize how ruinous it is to let their users do whatever idiot thing pops into their head? Twitter is mostly powerless because it's a literal free-for-all. From the standpoint of protecting people, it's a horrible idea in the first place. The idea that a company built around "tell the entire world what you're thinking using your real name and keep a publicly-searchable record of it indefinitely" can protect people from harassment is insane. Tesseraction posted:Eh, I'd just summarise that by and large progressivism is winning the overall 'culture war' that reactionaries imagine exists. Obama wasn't wrong to say that the path of progress isn't a straight line but a zigzag. Right-wingers have their time in the sun right now but one of the things about change under democracy is it's rarely large things at once. It takes war or revolution. Trump's admin will suck, but the Republicans will find how hard it is to enact change quickly. Also, the Republicans haven't been enacting change quickly in the first place. They've been gradually taking over statehouses and governorships since 2010 and had accumulated quite a bit of power and advanced quite a bit of their agenda at the state level already. Getting the presidency back is only a fraction of the damage that needs to be undone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:This is mostly true, but I think that there's long-term damage being done that's going to manifest in a few years. The "culture war" in the first place is mainly a matter of the right attempting to make inroads among a younger audience by embracing pop culture, which is a stark departure from the conservatism of decades prior that hated pop culture. Totally! My point was more that while this situation is bad, it's not necessarily a sign of long-term societal regression. America as a whole is tending to liberalise, and so the current new guard of right-wing shitheads will try their best to make as much damage as possible to social safety nets and social cohesion before they're ousted but it will have a backlash that can hopefully re-right the trajectory of America. Whether it's enough to prevent regression in American society I can't say. The rise of the far-right in political parties across Europe is worrying but hardly a dominant political force... yet. The EU pulling its head out of its arse might change things here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:In any case, whatever you think your argument is, referencing King to condemn black violence is patriarchal, demeaning and a common tool of white supremacists. Unless that's your intent, don't do it. Black people are not the problem. The system that white people built to maintain oppression of black people is the problem. To be clear, I don't think the poster I was replying to was a white supremicist or even necessarily right-wing. It's just exactly what King was referring to when it comes to moderates. Rather than look inward, understand privilege and work with minorities for equality, it's far easier to just say "I don't like being made to feel like a racist" when the conversation gets uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:And don't forget the classic MLK letter from Birmingham Jail: This is great, I forgot about this letter
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:America as a whole is tending to liberalise, and so the current new guard of right-wing shitheads will try their best to make as much damage as possible to social safety nets and social cohesion before they're ousted but it will have a backlash that can hopefully re-right the trajectory of America. You also need to consider that the right adapts too. People like Milo are an adaptation away from religion as the linchpin of American conservatism, trade isolationism is an adaptation, and so is the current "culture war" in ways already stated. There will always be people that want to set things back 10+ years, even if the target year moves forward. There's also the problem that progressive activism has perception liabilities in a way that it didn't used to. I remember not long ago when people were saying that there was almost no way for a conservative comedian to exist because punching down isn't funny, etc., but the "hypersensitive millennial" trope has completely changed that, and so has the embrace of consumerism in the form of food trends and "hipsters." The right gets 90% of what it wants if nothing changes, so a climate that allows the left to be easily delegitimized is great news for it. I guess the point is that things will progress, but I'm not counting on a backlash beyond the highly likely Trump-being-giant-fuckup scenario. Dr. Fishopolis posted:It's just exactly what King was referring to when it comes to moderates. However, it's also not where the actual problem is anyway. The problem at the moment is mainly that whites understand "privilege" in economic terms and will only find common cause with a narrative of privilege that includes that. They won't sign up for anything where they only stand to lose, and to that point, King was adamant about finding common cause with labor, to the point of framing it as the same cause. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Really SNL had the answer years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhaKVu7a-xw
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:After reading this thread, I'd say that I've been convinced that far-right people aren't as big of a problem as they seemed to be when I made this, or at least the alt-right. I still have a big problem with how poo poo like Reddit and Twitter and Google are awful at preventing right-wingers from gaming their systems, however. It seems like they cannot deal with people spamming fake and/or right-wing biased news to the top of the site, and are generally unwilling to deal with terrible fucks like Milo Yabadabbadoopolis unless they piss off a sufficiently famous or rich person. Not to mention how 4chan is able to organize flash mobs to harass people and the site owner does nothing to stop it. The one and only possible answer is strong anti-harassment laws allowing for actual legal consequences for poo poo like death threats and online organized harassment brigades. There are already laws against in-person harassment, but those laws don't really bridge the gap to modern-day harassment and law enforcement is generally reluctant to intervene in cases of harassment from a distance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The one and only possible answer is strong anti-harassment laws allowing for actual legal consequences for poo poo like death threats and online organized harassment brigades. There are already laws against in-person harassment, but those laws don't really bridge the gap to modern-day harassment and law enforcement is generally reluctant to intervene in cases of harassment from a distance. In order to implement these things you would need a way to identify online users. Currently they use things like IP addresses to find individuals, but this requires a significant amount of resources. Which means we would need enhanced identifying procedures from ISP's. I'm not saying it's the wrong direction, just that it would be a very large change and a lot of people aren't comfortable with the government tracking their internet usage. And by laws, are we only discussing US users?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Quite a lot of times, harassed people online know precisely who is harassing them, but local cops aren't exactly computer literate, and if the person is not nearby, existing laws don't make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Quite a lot of times, harassed people online know precisely who is harassing them, but local cops aren't exactly computer literate, and if the person is not nearby, existing laws don't make much sense. Doesn't it stand to reason that if more severe laws are put into place, people are going to avoid breaking them without putting some effort into masking their identity? If we're serious about stopping online harassment through law enforcement, I don't see a way around online ID's
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Kilano posted:Doesn't it stand to reason that if more severe laws are put into place, people are going to avoid breaking them without putting some effort into masking their identity? If we're serious about stopping online harassment through law enforcement, I don't see a way around online ID's Do you mean that if there are laws against online harassment, people will mask their identity? I'd say some of them will but a lot of criminals are morons or insane. We should be able to at least prosecute those whose identities are known, and there should be a basic cyber-police squad who can do a little internet detecting on others. If there were prosecutions for this, even if most people were not caught, it would deter people who were thinking of doing it. There isn't many lulz in doing 18 months for internet rape threats. Most real-life criminals aren't caught, either, at least straight away. A mugger might be mugging for years before he finally gets put away. But when an ordinary person is hard up for cash, they don't think "I could mug a guy" because everyone knows muggers go to jail. Not so with internet harassment. No penalties, no deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Quite a lot of time, harassed people purport to know who is harassing them, but refuse to produce any identifying information or documentation of the harassment of any kind, instead relying on the public declaration of "I was harassed and it was terrible" to accomplish whatever it is they intend to do clearly we need to make death threats double-illegal to encourage folks to go full Ashley Todd
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Quite a lot of time, harassed people purport to know who is harassing them, but refuse to produce any identifying information or documentation of the harassment of any kind, instead relying on the public declaration of "I was harassed and it was terrible" to accomplish whatever it is they intend to do Wouldn't it be great if it could be sorted out in a court of law?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Do you mean that if there are laws against online harassment, people will mask their identity? I'd say some of them will but a lot of criminals are morons or insane. We should be able to at least prosecute those whose identities are known, and there should be a basic cyber-police squad who can do a little internet detecting on others. If there were prosecutions for this, even if most people were not caught, it would deter people who were thinking of doing it. There isn't many lulz in doing 18 months for internet rape threats. Haven't most of the high profile cases been people following a Milo/Right wing nut and harassing a target into oblivion? Most of sit behind throwaway accounts and spew hate. There's the occasional idiot who lists his place of employment on his profile and hometown, but that's more the exception. It stands to reason that the bandwagon harassers can coordinate enough to get everyone to use TOR so that your never really catching the worst of the problem
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Kilano posted:Haven't most of the high profile cases been people following a Milo/Right wing nut and harassing a target into oblivion? Most of sit behind throwaway accounts and spew hate. There's a lot of *low* profile cases out there which you don't hear about where some person harasses their ex online. Those aren't any easier to prosecute than Milo and his gang of fascists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:54
|
|