361–368 of 368 posts
Mmmm...yes....truly those backwards conservatives don't have any real news. /me swirls whiskey and tips fedora Seriously, do you even recognize how condescending you sound?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11661014 and marked it off-topic.
You're not wrong, mind you--it just goes to show that community discussions are often sculpted and managed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would, but your response is so aggressive I think I'll pass this time.
If you would, then you would have. You didn't the first time I asked, or the second, why pretend you would the third time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try looking it up first.
Please don't perpetuate spats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair
Which was a release of wrong information that demonised refugees for supposedly throwing their children into the water to blackmail the Howard government into letting them into Australia. This was released by Peter Reith, but it was subsequently revealed it was nothing of the sort, but it helped create a moral panic that boosted the electoral prospects of the Howard government, who subsequently won. It wasn't checked carefully by media organizations who ran the story - so it indeed got out of hand.
Which answered his question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't perpetuate spats.
Sorry. It's just that a Google search would have taken him to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair Which was a release of wrong information that demonised refugees for supposedly throwing their children into the water to blackmail the Howard government into letting them into Australia. This was released by Peter Reith, but it was subsequently revealed it was nothing of the sort, but it help…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry. It's just that a Google search would have taken him to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair Which was a release of wrong information that demonised refugees for supposedly throwing their children into the water to blackmail the Howard government into letting them into Australia. This was released by Peter Reith, but it was subsequently revealed it was nothing of the sort, but it help…
A google search did take me to that, which doesn't answer my question at all. A false story is not a story getting out of hand. It is a false story. And it doesn't address the main question of "how out of hand does a story need to be to make censorship good?".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry. It's just that a Google search would have taken him to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair Which was a release of wrong information that demonised refugees for supposedly throwing their children into the water to blackmail the Howard government into letting them into Australia. This was released by Peter Reith, but it was subsequently revealed it was nothing of the sort, but it help…
A google search did take me to that, which doesn't answer my question at all. A false story is not a story getting out of hand. It is a false story. And it doesn't address the main question of "how out of hand does a story need to be to make censorship good?".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'extremely far out there'? thefire.org - An org dedicated to freedom of speech on campus, founded by University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and Boston civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate. Spiked - a 15 year old UK publication with staff from the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator. Mediaite - a popular and left-leaning online news source that aggregates mainstream news sources. Come off it. A br…
Anyone concerned about the truth would have investigated those articles with recent information and found them to be thoroughly debunked as hyperbolic claims with a good bit of nuance to them. But you didn't, because you're not. You linked to "credible" sources, with some weird standard of credibility which I'm not even sure you believe yourself.