3 ms·

Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a terrorist assault? And how do you measure the effect racist and terrorist speech has

Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a terrorist assault? And how do you measure the effect racist and terrorist speech has on these assaults? And who decides for us what's ok to watch and what's not? And once you decide it's ok to censor, well, we all know where that leads.

meowface 11y ago
>Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a terrorist assault? I think both are incredibly low odds, but globally, the chance of dying in a terrorist assault is probably higher. Most racist media does not advocate violence or death towards minorities; just discrimination and isolation, typically. For example, probably one of the most popular racist websites out there is http://www.dailystormer.com http://www.dailystormer.com, and they have a large disclaimer: >We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable. Anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned, permanently. You can find similar disclaimers on websites like Stormfront. But lectures from people like al-Awlaki? They're both more powerful messages, because they're objective directives ("God DEMANDS you do this"), and directly call for violence towards non-Muslims. I think both send awful messages, but the latter is worse for society in general.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > globally Sure, globally that's probably true. It's a bit more complicated because some of the terrorist groups are openly racist. > You can find similar disclaimers on websites like Stormfront. That's partly because of the years of right wing terrorism happening in the brought considerable attention to sites like Stormfront. When you have the FBI listing your members on the top-ten list you either put up warnings or go underground. But even so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)#Controver... > According to a 2014 two-year study by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)'s Intelligence Report, registered Stormfront users have been disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and mass killings since the site was put up in 1995. In the five years leading up to 2014, Stormfront members murdered nearly 100 people.[23][24][25][26] Of these, 77 were massacred by one Stormfront user, Anders Breivik, a Norwegian terrorist who perpetrated the 2011 Norway attacks.[27] It seems the disclaimer doesn't do much.
  - meowface 11y ago
    That's fair. Racist attacks are definitely a big problem. But these are racist members of racist websites mostly acting of their own initiative, and not reading violent instructions or declarations from the website. In contrast, Islamic extremist websites do specifically tell people to kill people. That's why censorship of those resources could be a bit more justified.

meowface 11y ago

>Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a terrorist assault? I think both are incredibly low odds, but globally, the chance of dying in a terrorist assault is probably higher. Most racist media does not advocate violence or death towards minorities; just discrimination and isolation, typically. For example, probably one of the most popular racist websites out there is http://www.dailystormer.com http://www.dailystormer.com, and they have a large disclaimer: >We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable. Anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned, permanently. You can find similar disclaimers on websites like Stormfront. But lectures from people like al-Awlaki? They're both more powerful messages, because they're objective directives ("God DEMANDS you do this"), and directly call for violence towards non-Muslims. I think both send awful messages, but the latter is worse for society in general.

DanBC 11y ago
> globally Sure, globally that's probably true. It's a bit more complicated because some of the terrorist groups are openly racist. > You can find similar disclaimers on websites like Stormfront. That's partly because of the years of right wing terrorism happening in the brought considerable attention to sites like Stormfront. When you have the FBI listing your members on the top-ten list you either put up warnings or go underground. But even so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)#Controver... > According to a 2014 two-year study by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)'s Intelligence Report, registered Stormfront users have been disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and mass killings since the site was put up in 1995. In the five years leading up to 2014, Stormfront members murdered nearly 100 people.[23][24][25][26] Of these, 77 were massacred by one Stormfront user, Anders Breivik, a Norwegian terrorist who perpetrated the 2011 Norway attacks.[27] It seems the disclaimer doesn't do much.
- meowface 11y ago
  That's fair. Racist attacks are definitely a big problem. But these are racist members of racist websites mostly acting of their own initiative, and not reading violent instructions or declarations from the website. In contrast, Islamic extremist websites do specifically tell people to kill people. That's why censorship of those resources could be a bit more justified.