31–40 of 49 posts
Hard to see how this won't slide down the slippery slope of banning all "offensive" content...at what point do you say we are OK with this particular group being offended but not others? Perhaps when the mainstream media starts agitating over it...
Hard to see how this won't slide down the slippery slope of banning all "offensive" content...at what point do you say we are OK with this particular group being offended but not others? Perhaps when the mainstream media starts agitating over it...
At least you invoked the name of the logical fallacy. And it's more than just offense in this case. Sexual assault is a very serious and terrible thing to have happen. Joking about it legitimizes and normalizes it, contributing to incidents. I imagine it's the same thing as with hate speech: it could prompt acts of violence toward people of the targeted group.
At what point do you let people share ideas freely without holding them responsible for what "might happen"? When can a joke "just be a joke"?
Hard to see how this won't slide down the slippery slope of banning all "offensive" content...at what point do you say we are OK with this particular group being offended but not others? Perhaps when the mainstream media starts agitating over it...
Whenever I start to worry about this I remember that Canada has laws against hate speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada but doesn't seem to have slipped down any slopes.
Many consider this case to be a prime example of excessive application of hate speech laws against speech that was clearly not "hateful".
Hard to see how this won't slide down the slippery slope of banning all "offensive" content...at what point do you say we are OK with this particular group being offended but not others? Perhaps when the mainstream media starts agitating over it...
- Hate speech or symbol
- Spam or scam
- Graphic violence
- Drug use
- Nudity or pornography
That is not trampling the First Amendment. There are plenty of other hate forums where people who are afraid of a slippery slope can freely enjoy and share rape jokes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least you invoked the name of the logical fallacy. And it's more than just offense in this case. Sexual assault is a very serious and terrible thing to have happen. Joking about it legitimizes and normalizes it, contributing to incidents. I imagine it's the same thing as with hate speech: it could prompt acts of violence toward people of the targeted group.
> Sexual assault is a very serious Are videos where people actually get hurt[1], not just their feelings, also banned from Facebook? Or are those less serious? I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that? [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuaaPoLu1Q&t=44s (unpleasant to watch)
Are you seriours, how would you even attempt to prove something like that?
Funny that everyone agrees that overtly racist/anti-semitic (and recently) homophobic images on social sites are wrong, but banning rape jokes is somehow taking things too far.
This is (I would guess) a direct response to something that occurred last week. There was a "photo meme" being passed around on facebook, showing a photo of a girl with her mouth taped, with the caption "tape her and rape her". Someone made a screenshot of this, with an add for Audible on the page. A shitstorm ensued, with people blaming Audible and/or Facebook for showing an ad next to such an image (it's rather har…
Useful background info, thanks. > it's rather hard to parse a meme photo for what text is actually written on the image, right? Actually it's trivial, but I suspect it's just not being done because most pictures on facebook don't have text so why would facebook bother?
EDIT: ah, no, it just scrapes QuickMeme's UI for the entered text. Oh well...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sexual assault is a very serious Are videos where people actually get hurt[1], not just their feelings, also banned from Facebook? Or are those less serious? I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that? [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuaaPoLu1Q&t=44s (unpleasant to watch)
>I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that? Are you seriours, how would you even attempt to prove something like that? Funny that everyone agrees that overtly racist/anti-semitic (and recently) homophobic images on social sites are wrong, but banning rape jokes is somehow taking things too far.
I don't understand why Facebook needs to block content. If I don't like what people are posting I can just unfriend them.
> I don't understand why Facebook needs to block content. It may not need to, but it decided to do so years ago. And when breastfeeding or breast cancer groups get blocked or partially censored, it's hard to understand why rape apology groups are allowed to remain.
I don't even have a Facebook account, but is this real? Do people join groups to defend their "right to rape"? That's beyond disgusting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sexual assault is a very serious Are videos where people actually get hurt[1], not just their feelings, also banned from Facebook? Or are those less serious? I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that? [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuaaPoLu1Q&t=44s (unpleasant to watch)
>I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that? Are you seriours, how would you even attempt to prove something like that? Funny that everyone agrees that overtly racist/anti-semitic (and recently) homophobic images on social sites are wrong, but banning rape jokes is somehow taking things too far.
How do we measure whether access to pornography increases the number of sexual assaults? We rely on the natural experiments: measure the consumption of pornography in the area and correlate it with crime rates. For more reliable results, we look at changes in time, or control for other factors.
> images on social sites are wrong
I don't use Facebook and they can ban whatever they want. The more stuff they ban, the quicker will their grip on the web fade.
What I find weird is the disconnect from physical reality. Speech that makes people uncomfortable is banned but videos showing people being assaulted, hit with a plank are not? Or are they?
