5 ms·
Here is another narrative: Attack the business models of companies who produce content we find offensive, politically incorrect, or don't align with our world
by sheraz 10y ago
Here is another narrative:
Attack the business models of companies who produce content we find offensive, politically incorrect, or don't align with our world view -- yet are still protected under the first amendment.
The problem is that Mr Phillips mentioned in the article must lack a sense of humor and/or information literacy if he thought he was reading hate speech. He was reading an opinion / sarcasm piece from Milo, Breitbart's in-house provocateur.
It is such a tiresome narrative that the liberal media outlets continue to trot out their own versions of fake news when they attempt to label breitbart sexist, racist, homophobic, or antisemitic.
It is sites like the nytimes who, through their reporting, have completely defanged the labels of "racist" and "hate speech" to the point that they mean nothing.
Calling women fat and unattractive for their use of birth control is not hate speech. It might be in poor taste, but it is not hate speech. Mr Phillips, the professor quoted in the article, would do well to leave his ivory tower and actually talk to someone from another walk of life. Leave the coddled campus life, head to a bowling alley, and listen to the Thursday league banter. Maybe then, in the cloud of rough and jockular language Mr Phillips and his ilk will see a small piece of the substrate of Americans who tell dirty jokes. Who make fun of their spouses. Who call each other names (often politically incorrect) and do so as members of a tribe.
They read breitbart and Drudge Report because those sites offer an alternative narrative to what comes from regular mass media.
Just because it is a different point of view does not make it fake or hateful or undeserving of ad dollars.
How does this end? My guess is it won't matter in the end. Thankfully.
Breitbarts traffic shows no signs of slowing. That inventory vacated by the brands too weak to ignore these internet-crybullies will be snapped up by the brands who want to reach a conservative readership.
- rgejman 10y ago>Attack the business models of companies who produce content we find offensive, politically incorrect, or don't align with our world view -- yet are still protected under the first amendment. >Just because it is a different point of view does not make it fake or hateful or undeserving of ad dollars. Without quibbling over whether some of their content is hateful (I think it is; you disagree), what's wrong with letting the free market de-value ads run on their network? What's wrong with attacking their business model? Companies don't have to run ads next to headlines like "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" That's the free market at work.
- candiodari 10y agoThat's not what's being done here. We're talking about defunding and banning anyone who has "offensive" opinions. Which is distinctly not limited to attacking feminism. Commenting on the Turkish prime ministers' family oil industry enterprises, for instance, got people banned from things like twitter. Various political actors got banned. Twitter has in fact threatened to ban a presidential candidate. Yes, it was Donald Trump, yes I may even understand why. It is still a bridge too far. Now we're talking about firms refusing to work with one another based on political differences. Is that REALLY the society we want to become ? Besides, this is discrimination. There was a time, not that long ago, that everybody was clamoring against that. According to the Geneva convention definition, what you're suggesting is definitely discrimination.
- rgejman 10y ago>That's not what's being done here. We're talking about defunding and banning anyone who has "offensive" opinions. No we're not. We're talking about reaching out to companies advertising on websites that contain both broadly offensive (e.g. against women) and specifically hateful (e.g. against certain individuals) rhetoric to let them know these ads exist. >Now we're talking about firms refusing to work with one another based on political differences. Is that REALLY the society we want to become ? You don't have to get into bed with people you find rude and offensive. That's a cardinal rule of an open society. Saying "Sir, I find your content offensive and I will not pay you to show ads to your visitors" is discrimination in only the sense that companies can discriminate between whom we want to do business with.
- candiodari 10y ago> is discrimination in only the sense that companies can discriminate between whom we want to do business with. And when the southern bakery refuses to sell to democrats ? The rule is that if you sell to the public you don't get to discriminate. I don't know the details about how that applies in this particular case, but ... It seems an entirely reasonable rule to me.
- jbob2000 10y ago> Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation > Calling women fat and unattractive for their use of birth control is not hate speech Something isn't quite lining up here...
- omonra 10y agoPeople on the first list don't get to choose who they are. People on the second list make a conscious decision to use birth control. Thus the two are different. Same way hating men in general would be misandric. Hating men who do X is not.
- jbob2000 10y agoThe only people who use birth control are women, it's definitely an attack on women to attack birth control. And some women don't get a choice to use birth control, there are medical issues which necessitate stabile hormones. Unless you ask, you have no idea why a women is on birth control.
- sheraz 10y agoCalling someone fat and unattractive is NOT hate speech. Besides, whatever happened to just ignoring it and getting on with one's life? It is this constant cry-bully public outcry and constant whinging that has propelled people like Milo into the daily news cycle.