Live data from Hacker News

German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

reuters.com

251–260 of 284 posts

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#251
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's perfectly fine to have an opinion about an ideology, like: "I don't believe in the Bible/Christianity, etc.". A statement like that only makes a judgement about yourself which is of course your right. If you dislike something, there's usually a fear underneath that. People who dislike Christianity on a deeper level are probably afraid that if everyone was Christian X would happen. Sometimes that's realistic,…

Addressing some weird off topic bits: - Not believing in the bible is different from saying Christianity is harmful. - I agree it sounds harsh to say one dislikes Scientologists or Muslims or Stuffed crust pizza lovers. However that doesn't address the fact that you implied doing one of these was racist, when none of these are races and all are beliefs. And responding to the point you made: > When we judge others we'…

You're right, discrimination against a religious group is not racism. I don't know the exact word, maybe bigoted?

To follow my own advice: I feel scared when a judgement is made about a group of people because I'm scared of examples in history where races, religions, genders, nationalities or sexual orientations were judged as a group with disturbing consequences. I feel scared when people project their fears onto other groups because I'm scared of how they might act on those fears against innocent people. I'm scared that I can't really know or trust someone who isn't honest with themselves about what they're afraid of. I feel sad when people have to deal with judgements against them based on how they were born or raised because it doesn't seem fair or kind to me. I feel angry when people focus on the behavior of one group when other groups also have that behavior because it feels hypocritical to me to not also stand up to the other groups. I feel sad when people make judgements about a group of people based on what other people have said or reported because I've gained friendships with people who I used to judge but who I've now learned to approach with curiosity. I feel scared when people make judgements about individuals based on polls because I've seen examples of inaccurate polling and how the phrasing of a question can significantly change the results of a poll and I feel scared because I've never been asked to participate in a poll and I wouldn't want to be judged based on assumptions people might have about attributes that I was born or raised with but don't fully define me like my nationality, gender, religion, etc. I feel scared when people assume that people who identify with a group agree with everything that group says or does because I know that's not true for me and I can't recall meeting anyone who always agrees with any other person or leader and I'm scared that they'll judge me not based on my beliefs but on what they assume my beliefs to be. I feel ignored when people paint me with broad brush strokes because I view myself as an individual and I'm scared that if you're ignoring my individuality by putting me in a box that you don't care about me as a person.

I agree that it's faster to make assumptions about people and statistically you might be right about some of those assumptions. But, my fear is that history is not kind when people start judging other races, religions, political affiliations, genders, etc.

So, in the sense that it sounds like you feel scared about safety for gays because of laws or cultural beliefs that being gay is a crime, I would agree with you and I share that same fear for their safety and freedom. And if you choose to promote gay tolerance in the Philippines because you think it's most needed there, great -- that's your personal way of acting on your fear. But that sounds a lot different to me than "An independent survey says that most Muslims have disturbing beliefs." or "Muslims believe in anti-gay policies." I feel more comfortable saying: "Gay equality is important to me and I'm willing to try to protect them against people who make threats against their safety, so I'm going to the Philippines to try to make the biggest impact I can there.".

So, I guess my question to you is if safety for gays is so important to you, why not promote standing up to anyone who discriminates gays and leave the door open to standing up to a non-Muslim anti-gay person as well?

As a US citizen it was unfortunately not that long ago when a group of men brutally murdered a young boy for being gay. And growing up in high school, "gay" or "faggot" was the most vicious insult against another male. For me, I see disturbing bias against gays right here at home, even today. So, unfortunately I see anti-gay behavior as a human problem that spans cultures and religions.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#252

The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. If you call someone stupid, they could accuse you of a crime, but you're not calling them stupid because of their race. And I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. If they're all keeping their racist opinions to themselves, I might waste a bunch of time being their friends. And I ca…

> I want people who actually are racist to talk, so I know who I don't want to be friends with. I keep seeing this statement, but all i can think is: Fuck, i wish i was lucky enough to have so few racists around me to be able to think i can spare the time and mental health for additional ones. Good for you, be glad you apparently have few to none racists around you, so you don't know what it's like when there's tons…

Small note here: I was told the above reads like sarcasm, and i'd like to state that the lines above the edit are 100% not sarcastic and meant exactly as stated.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#253
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addressing some weird off topic bits: - Not believing in the bible is different from saying Christianity is harmful. - I agree it sounds harsh to say one dislikes Scientologists or Muslims or Stuffed crust pizza lovers. However that doesn't address the fact that you implied doing one of these was racist, when none of these are races and all are beliefs. And responding to the point you made: > When we judge others we'…

You're right, discrimination against a religious group is not racism. I don't know the exact word, maybe bigoted? To follow my own advice: I feel scared when a judgement is made about a group of people because I'm scared of examples in history where races, religions, genders, nationalities or sexual orientations were judged as a group with disturbing consequences. I feel scared when people project their fears onto ot…

Hey there. I can see that we're going to disagree about this, but thanks for your reply and acknowledging my point re: disliking Islam not being racist. I see your point about history, but to me religion is separate because it's not an intrinsic value, whereas the others are. Re: the Philipines I think the people should give up conservative Catholicism much like people should give up Islam.

But it's cool, I think we have a pretty clear idea of where the other person stands.

Thanks for the polite response and have a lovely evening.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#254
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much better to say "I'm afraid for the safety and lack of equality and freedom for gay people if being gay is illegal." By focusing on Muslims, you're making it personal and ignoring many non-Muslim countries and religions which have anti-gay beliefs. If the gay equality issue is important to you, why are you focused so narrowly on Muslims? Why not simply focus on your core issue which is equality for gays? Maki…

> It's much better to say "I'm afraid for the safety and lack of equality and freedom for gay people if being gay is illegal." By focusing on Muslims, you're making it personal and ignoring many non-Muslim countries and religions which have anti-gay beliefs. No, you're avoiding the root causes because you're afraid to address them, which in turns harms gay people, women, ex-Muslims, atheists and other victims of Isla…

Or, simply confronting violence against gays includes Islam-related violence against gays. I'm simply not excluding other violence against gays from my outrage.

Rather than saying "Islam is bad", it might be better to say "I don't like X about Islam because Y." If you are more specific and give a reason, it's easier for people to hear you. But yes, taking the person out of it does make it easier for people to hear you as well.

I'm more calling into question the feasibility of accurately surveying billions of Muslims worldwide, especially in authoritarian countries where people might not feel free to be honest, or in war torn countries where access is dangerous or impossible. In any event, do you have a citation for this global survey?

I think you make the world better by calling out the problem exactly as you mentioned.

But I would advocate focusing on the problem. I can't think of any human behavior that is universally contained and ubiquitous within a single race or religion. Even if you take the most sensational elements of Islam like stoning someone to death, very few Muslim countries practice that, so it's not ubiquitous. Or, if you call out something so common world-wide as anti-gay laws or behavior, it seems like you're consciously ignoring the billions of non-Muslims who live in governments or follow religions with active discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Religions are so broad and open to interpretation that it's probably statistically impossible not to find anything you agree with (or disagree with) in a major religion. Instead, it sounds like there are specific human behaviors that don't sit well with you and that's totally understandable.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#255
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much better to say "I'm afraid for the safety and lack of equality and freedom for gay people if being gay is illegal." By focusing on Muslims, you're making it personal and ignoring many non-Muslim countries and religions which have anti-gay beliefs. If the gay equality issue is important to you, why are you focused so narrowly on Muslims? Why not simply focus on your core issue which is equality for gays? Maki…

> It's much better to say "I'm afraid for the safety and lack of equality and freedom for gay people if being gay is illegal." By focusing on Muslims, you're making it personal and ignoring many non-Muslim countries and religions which have anti-gay beliefs. No, you're avoiding the root causes because you're afraid to address them, which in turns harms gay people, women, ex-Muslims, atheists and other victims of Isla…

[deleted]

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#256
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that not wanting to be friends with someone because they want your kids to die for being Jewish is necessarily a dickish thing. It's an extreme example, yet an unfortunate practical one today.

Or you could take the route which others have taken, and show them why their ideas are wrong through your actions. There are plenty of examples of extremists being converted through friendship.

>and show them why their ideas are wrong through your actions.

Why are you assuming these people are rational actors?

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with hate speech laws are, it means you can't insult everyone equally. As far as I can tell, that's not true of the German law in question, though if you think it is true of that law (not some abstract hypothetical “hate speech” law straw man), please explain how, citing the relevant provisions of the law and explaining how they produce the unequal results that concern you.

There are lots of quotes in the OP article that side with GP. Without having done research myself I think it’s plausibly true and the article is full of quotes that suggest this is the case. Your tone is hostile and that makes me disinclined to take your view. Overall I would side with GP over you and I’d hope other users who haven’t done research themselves would too. Don’t let your biases inform your opinions!

>Your tone is hostile and that makes me disinclined to take your view.

>Don’t let your biases inform your opinions!

These are not complimentary positions, they're pretty exclusive of each other. Methinks you just wanted to take the high ground with some generic platitude and misdirect the conversation.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#258
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, discrimination against a religious group is not racism. I don't know the exact word, maybe bigoted? To follow my own advice: I feel scared when a judgement is made about a group of people because I'm scared of examples in history where races, religions, genders, nationalities or sexual orientations were judged as a group with disturbing consequences. I feel scared when people project their fears onto ot…

Hey there. I can see that we're going to disagree about this, but thanks for your reply and acknowledging my point re: disliking Islam not being racist. I see your point about history, but to me religion is separate because it's not an intrinsic value, whereas the others are. Re: the Philipines I think the people should give up conservative Catholicism much like people should give up Islam. But it's cool, I think we…

I used to think so too about religion.

But now I've met some people who believe their religion is bigger than them as an individual. Renouncing it is simply not something they believe they have the power or right to do. Other times, they're born into a religious community and renouncing a religion means losing their community, which can feel like dying or worse. In Muslim majority countries, I can imagine there is a powerful force of not wanting to feel ostracized.

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#259
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

then it seems like word games around a useless dichotomy. if "emotional animals" includes rationality then my point stands. based on how you seem to be stressing the words, i don't know what "pure rationalists" is supposed to mean. > I'm not sure what point the rest of your comment is seeking to make, other than that you don't like my point of view. you blithely inserted another concept to the thread, which is what p…

No it doesn't. 'Pure rationalists' means people who purely rational and never irrational, and I find it hard to believe you couldn't work that out for yourself. The vast majority of people are not pure rationalists, and a good many of them (though I don't know exactly what proportion) are easily swayed by emotional stimuli rather than logic and reason alone. If you place all your reliance on logic and reason then you…

you seemed to say that no people are 'pure rationalists' ("people are emotional animals rather than pure rationalists"). but now you seem to say some people can embody this idea of apparent perfection.

there are extremely few people who exhibit chronic irrational behavior. of those who do, many tend to be institutionalized due to (at least in part) their mental health needs.

being rational doesn't mean you're a cold vulkan logician, and it doesn't mean you're always 'correct' or free of faulty reasoning or other issues. people don't usually get math problems wrong due to irrationality, for example. the average healthy person has their moments, but over time behaves rationally.

i'm not suggesting every single person that exists will be swayed by your reasoning. mostly because to properly sway your most ardent of opponents takes a lot of work, as you usually have to start at a low level, defining terms, identifying assumptions, establish a foundation you can both agree upon, and then build up. (this assumes your reasoning is solid in the first place.)

we can observe the world as a whole: the world is getting better all the time. there is less violence in the world than now than at any point in recorded history (see Pinker; The Better Angels of Our Nature). extreme poverty is much less common than it used to be. there are pockets of conflict, but the world isn't submerged in an eternal sea of chaos.

religious fundamentalists aren't necessarily irrational. many are highly educated and fully functional people, some with phds. if you actually talk to such people, you'll generally find they're operating with different axioms than you are.

to me, i almost feel that you're trying to rationalize grounds for conflict and justify the avoidance of dialogue. if you caricature people you disagree with as emotional animals that simply can't be reasoned with... what does this imply about your options for engaging with them? what does this imply about their options for engaging with you?

Re: German hate speech law tested as Twitter blocks satire account

#260
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want the most vile pieces of shit to have their chance to speak... so that I can talk to them. I can talk to those who will listen. I will combat their ideas. While this idea is admirable, fascist/Nazi dialogue has shown again and again that fascists are not interested in "fair" debate. All they want is a larger audience so they can pass on their views -- and look at America. Do you really think that the hundreds…

> FN has also been known to murder French politicians. Do you have any sources on that? With all the things the media in France is saying about the FN, I don't think they would have missed something so important.

> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Front_National

  Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the racist
  murders committed by some members (see Brahim
  Bouarram thrown in the Seine, and Ibrahim Ali,
  shot), the FN continued its progress and even
  managed to gain some towns in 1995, such as
  Toulon and Orange, where, once more, such mayors
  managed to show their crass incompetence[3] and
  got booted in 2001 by the electors.
Source for Brahim Bouarram mentioning FN: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/paris-crowds-gather-m...

  On May 1, 1995, skinheads rallying with the
  far-right National Front (FN) threw Brahim
  Bouarram, a 29-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan
  descent, into the River Seine and disappeared
  into the crowds. [...] At the time of Bouarram's
  death, Jean-Marie Le Pen described the incident
  as "minor". [...] "The FN is an anti-Semitic,
  racist, xenophobic party," said Abdallah, also of
  the ATMF. "The normalisation of the ideas of the
  NF is worrying us. Even more so, it scares us
  that a large proportion of the army, gendarmerie
  and police vote for Marine Le Pen. We are scared
  for our kids who have brown, black and Arab faces
  when they get stopped by the police."

Source for Ibrahim Ali mentioning FN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ibrahim_Ali

Root Source for Ibrahim Ali mentioning FN: https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/france-shooting-a...

  [Ibrahim Ali] was walking with a group of ten
  other young men in Marseilles' XVth
  arrondissement, when they encountered three
  supporters of Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National
  party, armed with guns, who had been posting
  campaign signs nearby. The latter group opened
  fire on them. Ibrahim Ali was shot in the back.
Post reply on HN