Live data from Hacker News

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

washingtonpost.com

261–270 of 284 posts

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#261
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation, the mass slaughter of the males who fought or would not convert, the looting of property and the selling off into slavery of their women and children." s/is islamic became muslim/was colonial became christian/ "Islamic militancy was going on for hundreds of years before christianity responded in kind." Try a search for the word "crusad…

What specifically should I find enlightening? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades == Middle Eastern situation == In 636 CE, Muslim forces led by the Arab Rashidun Caliphs defeated the Eastern Roman/Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk, conquering Palestine... == Western European situation == The western European idea of the Crusades came in response to the deterioration of the Byzantine Empire caused by a new wave o…

How did the Romans/Byzantines get into Palestine in the first place? "They started it" as a historical excuse is a pretty poor rationalisation. The point is right now, in the current generation and given the current situation what is the best way to proceed.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. First, note that there are roughly three times as many Russians in Finland as there are Somalis: http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2011/vaerak_2011_2012-03-16_ku... Then, look at this: http://www.stat.fi/til/polrik/2011/polrik_2011_2012-04-02_ta... Unfortunately that's only in Finnish, but here are some key words: - "Suomen kansalaiset" = "Finnish citizens". - "Venäjä, entinen Neuvostoliitto" = "Russia, former Sovi…

Worst. Statistics. Interpretation. Ever. You can't assume that other foreigners are somalis. It wouldn't make sense if they were either, because why would they single out estonians and russians, but not somalis? This is a gross error that might fly on another board, but you are totally wrong, and a racist to boot! Downvoted.

Please refer to my lengthy reply to potatolicious.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#263
post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

Strange how here you are, sounding like you're well aware that there are problems with Islam. But when I attempt to point out that Muslim immigrants in particular are over-represented in crime statistics in Europe, you call me a racist.

Somalis are quite militant about Islam, you know.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#264
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically should I find enlightening? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades == Middle Eastern situation == In 636 CE, Muslim forces led by the Arab Rashidun Caliphs defeated the Eastern Roman/Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk, conquering Palestine... == Western European situation == The western European idea of the Crusades came in response to the deterioration of the Byzantine Empire caused by a new wave o…

How did the Romans/Byzantines get into Palestine in the first place? "They started it" as a historical excuse is a pretty poor rationalisation. The point is right now, in the current generation and given the current situation what is the best way to proceed.

[deleted]

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah woah woah. Slow down there, you're trying to take a flying leap across a giant statistical chasm. The logic here is so bad I'm not sure where to start. There's a very bad assumption here, which is that the "other foreigners" category contains only the 13 groups listed, and that membership in none of the others implies membership in the Somalis group. In other words, what you're saying is, in government statistic…

Well, this is certainly an uphill battle.. As I said, I'm no statistician. I can't do science, and I can't do statistics. But that doesn't matter with regard to what I was pointing out. There's a very bad assumption here, which is that the "other foreigners" category contains only the 13 groups listed, and that membership in none of the others implies membership in the Somalis group. Assuming I'm not even pretending…

> "As I said, I'm no statistician. I can't do science, and I can't do statistics. But that doesn't matter with regard to what I was pointing out."

It absolutely does. If you do not have the (sound, defensible) numbers to point it out, what you have are personal anecdotes, not evidence.

So in other words, you believe Somalis rape 34x more than the general population, but you don't actually have proof of it. The fact that you would readily believe that one group rapes a whole 34x more than another group, without skepticism or wanting to verify the facts, reveals a great deal about what you wish to believe.

I highly recommend reading up on statistics, and looking at more stats in general (and not just in relation to crime). When you see a stat like "group A commits crime THIRTY FOUR TIMES more than group B", your skepticism alarm needs to go off. It isn't impossible, but it's also so unlikely demographics-wise that it bears extreme skepticism and checking.

For example, if you look at the very worst neighborhoods in the very worst cities of the US and compare their crime rates to the very best urban areas, the crime rate difference is usually not more than 4-5x. THIRTY FOUR times is such an extreme outlier that frankly I'm shocked you were not skeptical about it.

> "Why would it not be reasonable to assume that if a minority is not on that list, it's an insignificant one?"

Because insignificant numbers accumulate. How many "other" nationalities do you think there exists in your country? There are 130+ countries in existence right now - even if they each contribute very little to your rape statistics, that's a lot of accumulated crime.

You cannot ignore variables unless you have very good reason to. No group can be claimed "insignificant" without reason, not if you want to be anywhere close to impartial and correct.

What you need is the real breakdown of the "others" category, not an inferred one subject to your own biases.

And here's a little riddle for you: if the stats here are organized by significance (see how significant contributing nationalities are separated out?), why aren't the Somalis separated out? You would think that a rate over 34x more than the general population, contributing to a huge portion of rapes in the country, would bear its own column, no?

Your reasoning is specious.

> "Why would membership in none of the others not imply membership in the Somalis group?"

Okay. I've tried to remain civil, but your ignorance and lack of knowledge is so poisonous, and supports a view so vicious, that I cannot.

NO. FOR THE LOVE OF FUCKING GOD READ A BOOK. Educate yourself before making stupid statements up like this.

Do you really believe that in the entire country of Finland there are only thirteen non-Finnish nationalities represented?

Here's a simpler example. There's a parking lot outside with 100 cars. 3 of them are Toyota, 2 of them are Honda, and 95 are "other". In the "other" category there are 5 Chryslers and 5 Fiats.

What you are saying is that this means we have 85 Fords - even though nothing in the data suggests that my breakdown of the "others" is even remotely close to comprehensive - you've assumed that, and conveniently forget that there are more car brands in the world than Toyota, Honda, Chrysler, Fiat, and Ford.

Do you start to understand?

> "It's actually common knowledge here in Finland that Somalis rape a lot of women"

Yet where is your proof? You have offered ZERO evidence. You would think that if Somalis really raped women at a rate OVER THIRTY TIMES the national average, that you can find some iota of evidence? You would think that this would appear as a distinct column in your stats - after all, it points out much smaller national groups!

This is nothing more than your own prejudice and the prejudice of people who share your "common knowledge".

> "It's common knowledge in Sweden too, by the way. In Germany, it's the Turks, and in the Netherlands, it's Moroccans."

This is depressing. You are so blatantly racist but somehow you don't see it for yourself.

What's next. It's common knowledge in Germany too, it's actually the Jews?

This sort of "common knowledge" that can't seem to be backed up by fact (and what you offered is so far from fact I'm not sure what to say) is the most blatant, vicious form of racism. This casual belief that "well of COURSE group A rapes 34x more than everyone else, everyone knows that", yet with no evidence of it. The willingness to believe shocking, mind-boggling things without seeking the slightest shred of proof!

This whole conversation is sickening.

> "There are people who are aware of reality, and then there are Sheeple"

Ahh, I see how this works now. You've chosen to believe something so outrageous that it staggers belief, with no proof whatsoever. The only way you can defend this position is if you convince yourself anyone who disagrees is controlled by the government/media and are "sheeple".

You sir, are the worst kind of racist.

> "Without any mention of the ethnicity, the reader will just assume it was locals who did it."

And you will assume it's Somalis, right? Do you see what you just did yourself?

> "Again, I never claimed to be rigorous with my stats. That's just an assumption by you."

THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

What you are saying: "I'm completely making up these numbers to support my world view, I've never claimed these numbers are correct. BUT LOOK AT THEM, THEY REVEAL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SOMALIS"

So here's what you really must own up to: your beliefs are your own but they are not supported by evidence or reason. You are entitled to your beliefs, however wrong and racist they may be, but do not claim to have evidence for it unless you actually do.

I came into this reply thinking maybe I had you wrong, maybe this is just a gross miscommunication and exercise in statistical awfulness. But no, you are far more racist than I even suspected. For the love of God I hope we never meet.

Sweet merciful [insert all deities here]... You've just completely ruined my morning. You are by far the most racist person I've ever conversed with, and I've seen some racist shit on this side of the ocean. The fact that people like you exist makes me depressed.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#266
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case of t-shirt guy (Barry Thew) is much worse than "4 months for wearing an offensive t-shirt". Turns out he has a history. a) He's a psychiatric patient, on anti-psychotic meds with a history of compulsory in-patient detention, b) His son died in police custody 3 years ago. He also has a series of criminal convictions, most recently for cultivating cannabis, but I'd like to note that there's a really strong ass…

> His son died in police custody 3 years ago I keep reading this, but I haven't yet seen a better citation than "my mates in Manchester say it's true".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jail...

"Stuart Duke, defending, said Thew had been an inpatient at a mental health unit and was still on anti-psychotic medicine, but the judge replied mental health was "not a factor".

He said Thew had a longstanding dispute with Greater Manchester police over the death of his son three years ago"

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#267
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His son died in police custody 3 years ago I keep reading this, but I haven't yet seen a better citation than "my mates in Manchester say it's true".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jail... "Stuart Duke, defending, said Thew had been an inpatient at a mental health unit and was still on anti-psychotic medicine, but the judge replied mental health was "not a factor". He said Thew had a longstanding dispute with Greater Manchester police over the death of his son three years ago"

I've seen that, and other similar vague wordings, but I haven't seen anything trustworthy that said why.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#268
post #238
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some more nooses to hang ourselves with here: http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/law/malcomm.htm Most of this legislation came in under "think of the children" type laws to prevent critical discussion of the warmongering taking place in the last couple of decades (since just before the Gulf War). It's not puritanism, as at least that had some moral basis. This is plain totalitarianism under a fascist banner.…

> It's not puritanism, as at least that had some moral basis. This is plain totalitarianism under a fascist banner. The associated forms of indoctrination and the inevitable propaganda makes people think they should be offended when they see this as "it must be bad", resulting in the cycle continuing. I'm fairly certain it is puritanism. Generally speaking it's the result of people thinking it is an appropriate role…

Parent's point was that Puritanism concerned itself with morality, whereas this modern law is strictly a tool of oppression with no moral component at all (except insofar as morality is made equivalent to religion, and the State is made into an idol).

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one." No, it's neither a practical nor principled stance. It's an act of cowardice, and it's self-destructive. If we want to win the so-called "war on terror" (god I hate that term), then we need to stop being so terrified. The real enemy in the "war" is ourselves: our emotions, our fears, our gut reactions, and our knee-jerk impulses. Terrorists…

>If we want to win the so-called "war on terror" (god I hate that term), then we need to stop being so terrified. But I'm not terrified. I just don't want to get killed for saying something that I probably wasn't inclined to say anyway, so I choose not to say it. I consider it an appeasement, but a reasonable one. We say we don't bargain with hostage takers - but what if the hostage taker demanded a stick of gum. Wou…

Poland was a stick of gum in 1939.
Post reply on HN