531–540 of 870 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ban the car --- either don't let them use it online, or don't show it to others. If an account gets a threshold number of cars banned, don't let them use customized cars online. If they're spouting hate on chat, ban them from chat too.
That's just a more detailed explanation of the process of banning someone for using swastikas in a game.
"Don't let them use customized cars" is extremely different from "ban them".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you never been to rural NY? The Confederate flag flies all over the place there, and I rather suspect that very few of those flying it are doing so because of Southern heritage.
> Have you never been to rural NY? The Confederate flag flies all over the place there Many times, and I can earnestly say I've never seen that. Nor in rural Pennsylvania for that matter, which I would otherwise characterize as slightly less sophisticated than NY. Are there racists in that region? Certainly. But I can't recall ever seeing somebody in those states flying the confederate flag. I'm sure it's happened be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Except that it’s not a public space and the harm is far less than a beating. As in "you can't speak any more, because your website is offline". A gag is the offline equivalent. > Think of it like going to a coffee shop I believe that example would be more accurate if we all lived in company towns, where no public space exists and your presence, and speech, is merely tolerated under normal circumstances, but you hav…
> > Except that it’s not a public space and the harm is far less than a beating. > As in "you can't speak any more, because your website is offline". A gag is the offline equivalent. Again, a private company choosing not to use their resources to support your speech is not a gag. You are still free to pick any one of thousands of other options and you are free, even encouraged, read their terms before signing any con…
Right, again, there aren't thousands of other options. If you want to host your site, you need a domain. That limits yourself to a hand full of registrars. And you need somebody to transmit traffic, if you hold any kind of controversial opinion, you need DDOS-protection. That leaves you with another hand full of corporations. Otherwise you're offline, as in, unable to speak.
> People have chosen for decades to register their own domains to avoid needing to update addresses and outside of uncommon legal situations this will avoid needing to do so.
How do you handle email on your domain when the registrar decides to drop your domain? And why shouldn't it, it's a private company, it can do whatever the hell it pleases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may have been made up, but I'm willing to bet that a not insignificant portion of people who are _now_ making it aren't doing so to make a point of saying "everything is just fine". My town had an issue with a cop posing out with a bunch of 3%ers at their gun store. This is in the PNW, and the owner of the store, born and raised in the PNW, has a Confederate flag neck tattoo. This was during some street protests.…
Note that all symbols are their meaning are made up. To say "this gesture is a symbol of X" is to say "people made up that this gesture is a symbol of X."
I don't like it when folks say such things, but I understand it. Instead, what many folks seem to be saying is that based on one thing they can tell what the person is like inside. It's an amazingly-broad generalization and people seem to be enormously confident of themselves when they make it. I can look at your shoe or color of your shirt and conclude that you are a bad person inside.
I don't find that to be especially rational, but what is one to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From Wikipedia on the act: > On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individu…
> interim guidelines Implying they already expect to reevaluate this decision? While this statement sounds reasonable at face value, these kind of important distinctions really need to be codified in law, not left up to prosecutorial discretion. Vague speech laws plus a great degree of prosecutorial discretion is exactly how a lot of brutal regimes oppress dissenters while justifying their actions.
Sure, but it's also how a lot of non-brutal regimes keep laws from growing out of control with silly edge cases.
If you are harassing someone, law enforcement doesn't have to consult the legislated list of 23,784 actions that constitute harassment. That seems reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there pictures of these subway swastikas? (no, of course not.)
Yeah, it was even in Gothamist. So I'm sure it is also in NYPost and Daily News.
Found this on Gothamist. Can you point to the swastika?
Or is this a different NYC Subway campaign for The Man in The High Castle?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a complete non-sequitur It's quite literally not a non-sequitur. The parity of reasoning in both cases is clear: they are the same argument, I just swapped the details. Every good regulation is intended to address some negative externality. Before a regulation is enacted, people point out the negative externalities and how they're harmful and that we should do something about them. Maybe they have some idea wh…
I don't think that laws that dictate companies how they have to manage their property are inherently bad. > Consumer protection law should protect consumers, not their convenience. My comment was targeted at the claim that mild censorship on privately owned platforms should be regulated in such a fashion, because their users depend on it. If you sign up for something, you should know what you sign up for. It's perfec…
If this incident happened in a vacuum, I would agree. Unfortunately that isn't the case. The censorship ranges from mild to extreme these days, and now even the mild cases drive the wedge deeper. The unrest in the US is only just beginning I think.
Anyway, the post to which I initially replied is a common response to private censorship, and the irony of arguing that private companies should be able to do anything with their private property apparently escapes most people who make it. "Oh, private property, right. So let's eliminate the minimum wage then, because that money they wouldn't otherwise pay to fill a role is the corporation's private property. No? Is private property suddenly not the only thing that matters?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Nazi flag was in much longer actual use than the Confederate flags. If anything, the Nazi flag has a more legitimate "heritage" defense than the Confederate one.
But are you counting the years the Confederate flag has spent after being adopted? I think the fundamental argument here is this: clearly the Confederate flag has been spoiled -- the racists won out and now people associate the flag more with racists than Southern/rural pride. What should happen? There are people who I think have a legitimate non-racist benign claim to the flag but they're now in the minority and bei…
That pretty much sums up most modern sociopolitical discouse right there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the coverage I saw was people horrified at the constitutional implications of the military being turned on US citizens, on US soil, by order of the president.
I mean, there just aren't any constitutional implications - it happened in 1992 with no lasting repercussions.
The First Amendment does not protect riots, but it does protect protests outside the White House.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an argument for banning swastikas, not banning anyone who displays a swastika. And before you say "come on, swastikas are pretty extreme", remember the moral panic we just went through when 4chan trolls convinced people that the OK hand sign was a "one-sided version ofna White Power" sign and got people fired from their jobs for making the sign.
It may have been made up, but I'm willing to bet that a not insignificant portion of people who are _now_ making it aren't doing so to make a point of saying "everything is just fine". My town had an issue with a cop posing out with a bunch of 3%ers at their gun store. This is in the PNW, and the owner of the store, born and raised in the PNW, has a Confederate flag neck tattoo. This was during some street protests.…
Absolutely. But the corollary is that every time someone claims that something (a flag, a gesture, a tradition) is racist, then it actually transforms it into something racist. Because at that point you're forced to abandon it or consciously make a statement that you don't care about being considered racist.
If next year someone comes up saying that Santa Claus is racist, then dressing as Santa Claus becomes a statement, that you want it or not. This is a huge power that is easily abused.