441–450 of 744 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WW2.
WW2 wasn't caused by white supremacy, it was caused by nationalism. It was part of the Reich's propaganda to say that they were waging war against the jews (and socialists and communists…), but they were doing this because they though that Germany was superior to its neighbor and was fit to conquer and rule them.
You ever been to a legit protest? Have you been near the police line at a protest when there are thousands of protesters and hundreds of police officers and tensions are high and really not nice stuff is being said all around? And the police officers just stand there at the ready. (Sometimes they don’t and they antagonize protestors or just plain assault then, but my experience has been that is the exception.) I have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> White supremacy is a much bigger deal with a worse tail risk than Islamic extremism. Wait... you're saying that white supremacy is worse than islamic extremism? Is you opinion perhaps a manifestation of your perspective? I'm sure there are some people in Syria, Afghanistan, etc... that would disagree with you. BTW, I'm not saying one is worse than the other, just that they are both bad, both a problem, and both sho…
White supremacy was the cause for the worst wars of the 20th century. A white nationalist uprising in Europe would be deadlier (again) than Islamic extremists taking over most middle eastern nations due to the resources that will be available to them.
You're not pro-LGBT if you think trans women aren't women.
This isn't my opinion. I will happily call people by whatever pronoun they wish to be called. That's just common decency in my opinion. That comment was in reference to this story, it looks like I got the quote wrong: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/journalist-sues-twitter-... I think there's a difference between how we should recognise someone socially and the reality of an individual's biology. What's worrying…
I find the trend of "this fact/data is not to be discussed" to be particularly disturbing.
Muhammed being a pedophile/child molester by modern definitions is pretty damn clear in the Quran. Saying we can't discuss it is very odd.
There are significant differences in racial crime and academic stats in the US. The causes can be debated - the existence of a difference less so.
And for a less controversial parallel to the previous... there are major differences in gendered crime stats in the US. Again, the causes can be debated - but a difference most definitely exists.
Under what standard is "racial crime differences are a forbidden discussion" reasonable where "gendered crime differences are a forbidden discussion" is not? What level of fact are we willing to memoryhole if it ends up politically inconvenient?
I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea. At first I thought NPR and the like were cowards for removing theirs. It's bad enough that NYT can be pretty biased on its own, but the comment sections are always full of low-tier thinking that just push whatever narrative is currently in the Overton window. What I find distressing is how people remark that a telecom and advertising gia…
I was shocked when news sites started publishing comments as a matter of course. They worked so hard to research and create a 2000 word article that accurately reflects the world (in accordance to their editorial guidelines) using their good name - and then let fReEtHiNkErChAd and 2020BloodInTheStreets chime in at the end. It would be OK if they strictly moderated the comments, but few sites seem to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not, but then I don't think it's a like to like comparison, youtube is more of a broadcast system than anything, it's closer to TV or Newspapers were pre youtube and nobody has the automatic right to TV airtime or to be printed in a newspaper.
It's not close to TV, in any way shape or form other than the fact that it's a video on a screen. Regular people don't put things on TV. That has always been a privilege for the very rich, or for local governments in the case of public access TV. Either way, not something regular people have access to. It's closer to pamphlets than newspapers, in that regular people can make and distribute pamphlets, whereas regular…
Because to use your analagy, to send out your pamphlets you must know your audience already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be willing to say Islamic extremism is worse than white supremacy.
One difference is that radical Islam basically just wants you to convert. White supremacy doesn't really present that option.
Note that it's not extreme views (like my adherence to the FSF). Nope, we're talking about "videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies". As much as I don't like censorship, views that advocate for extermination of other people can rightly fuck off.
YouTube gets to decide what a "bigoted ideology" is. That's a sweeping term that can be used as a catch-all for videos they don't like. I think that this will be bad for the platform overall -- an increase in censorship is never good.
Increases in curation (private censorship of one’s own offering) are very frequently good.
Whether the paying customers are consumers or advertisers, quality of curation is typically on of the main things they are paying for in content platforms. It’s true that there has been some effort to substitute algorithmic recommendation engines providing a consumer-specific view in place of curation, but it's also pretty clear that even the best of those is not viewed as an adequate solution by significant segments of the market.
I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea. At first I thought NPR and the like were cowards for removing theirs. It's bad enough that NYT can be pretty biased on its own, but the comment sections are always full of low-tier thinking that just push whatever narrative is currently in the Overton window. What I find distressing is how people remark that a telecom and advertising gia…
Is a privately owned museum a "public square"? Or a sports stadium owned by a private company? Or a Cinema? Or a threatre? No, neither is youtube. It's a place the public visit not a piece of public infrastructure. Repeating "public square" over and over again does not make it so.
I think a key insight in discussions like this is realising that “public square” is as more of a function rather than a state of ownership.
IMO if your company becomes big enough to obtain the function as a public square, you should be prepared to be required to act as one.
Legislation isn’t there yet, but just like privacy and data-ownership is getting more legislative attention these days, I wouldn’t be surprised if things like this are subject to regulation within 5-10 years.
As this infinitely repeated discussion shows, it’s clearly a problem which needs to be solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't my opinion. I will happily call people by whatever pronoun they wish to be called. That's just common decency in my opinion. That comment was in reference to this story, it looks like I got the quote wrong: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/journalist-sues-twitter-... I think there's a difference between how we should recognise someone socially and the reality of an individual's biology. What's worrying…
"In reality, you're not a woman, we're just pretending because we're polite" isn't a very pro-trans stance.