6 ms·

Disgusting and hypocritical. Given that the ADL already has outsized censorship abilities on Google and Twitter amongst other platforms, everyone should read th

Disgusting and hypocritical. Given that the ADL already has outsized censorship abilities on Google and Twitter amongst other platforms, everyone should read the transcript to see how self-righteous and presumptuous Cohen is and their aligned vision of controlling what information you are allowed to access: https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-address-at-adls-2019-never-is-now-summit-on-anti-semitism https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-... This coming from the guy who played Borat and Bruno- it was ok when he did it, because he is on the right side of history you see.

eranima 7y ago
If by "controlling what information you're allowed to access" you mean removing hate speech, then yeah they have the right and the duty to do that. I really wonder why you're against that.
- late2part 7y ago
  Maybe it's because the definition of hate speech is subjective.
  - QuanticSausage 7y ago
    Maybe you shouldn't limit what other people say because of your subjective views. Moreso if you define hate speech as "The incomfortable truth that I don't want to hear" and not "insults or objectively proved deceit"
  - QuanticSausage 7y ago
    I'm such a dumbass. I wanted to reply to the comment above this one in the comment hierarchy.
- 0x445442 7y ago
  There's no such thing as "hate" speech. The label is a tool to suppress speech the accusers don't agree with and I've never encountered anyone who uses the term to do so objectively.
  - huntertwo 7y ago
    That's quite the claim and I don't really think it's defensible. Hate speech definitely exists. Your claim is equivalent to saying there exists no speech meant to demean or harm others based on race, gender, religion, etc. Why does this kind of speech need to be protected from removal? Surely we wouldn't tolerate it in this forum, why should it be tolerated in others?
    - core-questions 7y ago
      > Hate speech definitely exists. In the USA, it does not exist, in the sense that freedom of speech is absolute, even when you're demeaning or "harming" others with your words. The only way in which it is limited is when it is directly inciting action as a call to violence. In Canada, hate speech laws exist, but again are designed around the case where a reasonable person would view the speaker as making credible threats and inciting violence. Neither country prohibits you from saying mean things about groups you don't like. Certainly neither country prohibits you from saying true-but-uncomfortable, even scientifically backed things that are banned outright on most platforms for being hateful.
    - commandlinefan 7y ago
      > Hate speech definitely exists. There’s plenty of stuff that you and I would both look at and say, “yep, that’s definitely hate speech”. There’s lots of stuff that I might call hate speech under any definition of it but you might think is perfectly reasonable. Since you’re defending censoring hate speech, I suspect there’s even more stuff that you would call hate speech but I would think is perfectly reasonable. And as we’ve seen over and over again, once you allow for censorship/cancellation based on “hate”, the definition of “hate” grows without bound.
    - 0x445442 7y ago
      Speech that's meant to demean or harm others? Who judges the intentions and what criteria is used to make that determination? I find the claim that there are not clear double standards within this context to be indefensible. Is wearing a MAGA hat in public hate speech? Is telling someone their opinion doesn't count because of "white privileged" or "the patriarchy" hate speech? What about calling evangelical's red neck climate change deniers? You see, I've never encountered anyone that's vocal in this realm to apply their own standards logically and objectively.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Duty, according to whom?
  - riversflow 7y ago
    Couldn’t agree more. I find the defense of Cohen here bewildering, and the fact that you are downvoted sad. My take: 1)It is a failing of our public education system if hate speech is a problem. 2)There is a significant difference between targeted hate speech and generalized hate speech, also between speech in public and private.(not to say its ever a good quality) 2b) Private speech should never be controlled under any circumstance. It’s simply unethical. 3)Just because you deliver messages between people doesn’t mean you need to preform SIG/INT on it.
    - throwaway-sbc 7y ago
      In his speech, Cohen said that 2/3 of millennials don't know what Auschwitz is [0]. Our public education system already failed (or so it seems). [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/auschwitz-us-millennials-not-know-nazi-concentration-camp-a8302476.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/auschwitz-...
      - riversflow 7y ago
        Sorry. I don’t buy that study. I can’t believe that statistic from personal experience, and find the conducting authority partial. And nothing is stoping us from educating adults, ever heard of The Ad Council?
        oska 7y ago
        I also don't buy the study. Further, any questioning about knowledge of Auschwitz should also include questioning about knowledge of other 20th century atrocities, such as the British suppression of the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya, the Nanjing Massacre by the Japanese army in China, the Greek, Assyrian and Armenian Genocides under the Ottoman Empire, the Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, the expulsion and killings of Germans at the end of WWII, the Cambodian Genocide by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, the East Timor and West Papua Genocides in Indonesia, the Anfal Genocide in Iraqi Kurdistan, etc. I would guess that Auschwitz is better known than most other 20th century atrocities.
- mcguire 7y ago
  I agree. But I'm not sure why Cohen's career is not hate speech.
  - eranima 7y ago
    Because he's pointing out hate speech by lampooning it. Very different
sharkmerry 7y ago
> Given that the ADL already has outsized censorship abilities on Google and Twitter amongst other platforms Can you explain this? I dont know what censorship ability the ADL has on Google and Twitter?
- core-questions 7y ago
  Then you're not paying attention. The ADL and the SPLC, though the latter is suffering some issues presently, are basically the key arbiters of what is classified as "hate speech" today. FAANG will not go to bat for the free speech rights of anyone the ADL has classified as verboten, because going up against anything the ADL does or says is anti-Semitic.
  - t-writescode 7y ago
    Please no name-calling. I knew about the SBLC but did not know about the ADL. If they’re similar, this is interesting information. May I refer you to this comic? https://www.xkcd.com/1053/ https://www.xkcd.com/1053/
    - core-questions 7y ago
      I'm glad to have made you aware. They wield considerable clout.
  - sharkmerry 7y ago
    Except that he pointed out in this, that tech's arent removing some white supremacy stuff because it would remove politicians when ADL wants them to.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  https://www.cnet.com/news/adl-anti-defamation-league-facebook-twitter-google-hate-speech/ https://www.cnet.com/news/adl-anti-defamation-league-faceboo... >Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft, among others, are joining with the ADL to form a Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab, the companies and the civil rights group said Tuesday. They'll exchange ideas and develop strategies to try to curb hate speech and abuse on the companies' various platforms and across the internet. >"These companies have an added responsibility to do everything within their power to stop hate from flourishing on their watch," ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. "We look forward to tackling this pressing challenge together."
olivermarks 7y ago
I agree. I'm deeply suspicious of Cohen. He has used 'comedy' to trick and ridicule people but taken it to another level by taking statements they make and twisting meanings. A religious jew disguised as a visitor to the US from Kazachstan going to a provincial US bar and singing 'throw the jew down the well' and then subsequently openly ridiculing and shaming the audience for singing along is a form of baiting and hate speech, the sort of thing the ADL should be commenting on. I'm surprised Kazachstan hasn't officially protested this misrepresentation, maybe they have....
- balabaster 7y ago
  I'm normally pretty well versed in dry humour, being a near native speaker of such. But I'm failing to comprehend whether you're being satirical or serious... perhaps I need more tea. Can you clarify?
  - core-questions 7y ago
    Well, you're either employing tactical nihilism or you truly do need more tea. Cohen has shown himself to enjoy manipulating rubes in social contexts where the pressure to perform is present, not entirely dissimilar from how hypnotists work in crowd situations. Rather than letting it be all in good fun, though, Cohen has made people say offensive things, and then uses it to pretend it's what those people really think rather than admitting it's 99% social pressure.
    - sharkmerry 7y ago
      Is your argument that none of the people Sacha has gotten to say things, actually believe those? Its just pressure to perform, so EVERYONE would say things they dont believe if put in the same position?
      - handelaar 7y ago
        That, and he's also arguing that they're all somehow the victims of a hate crime.
deogeo 7y ago
> When Borat got that bar in Arizona to agree that “Jews control everybody’s money and never give it back,” the joke worked because the audience shared the fact that the depiction of Jews as miserly is a conspiracy theory originating in the Middle Ages. [..] If we make that our aim—if we prioritize truth over lies: https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-address-at-adls-2019-never-is-now-summit-on-anti-semitism https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-... Sacha would be wise to start with himself: from 1970 to 2018, there was only 1 year (78-79) during which the Federal Reserve Chair wasn't Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair_of_the_Federal_Reserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair_of_the_Federal_Reserve At ~2% of the US population, someone can calculate how far above random chance this is.
enumjorge 7y ago
What is with all the ad hominem attacks in the comments? What a bizarre thread.
- Mangalor 7y ago
  Some people want to use social media as a propaganda engine. Dismissing all criticism is par for the course.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

eranima 7y ago

If by "controlling what information you're allowed to access" you mean removing hate speech, then yeah they have the right and the duty to do that. I really wonder why you're against that.

late2part 7y ago
Maybe it's because the definition of hate speech is subjective.
- QuanticSausage 7y ago
  Maybe you shouldn't limit what other people say because of your subjective views. Moreso if you define hate speech as "The incomfortable truth that I don't want to hear" and not "insults or objectively proved deceit"
- QuanticSausage 7y ago
  I'm such a dumbass. I wanted to reply to the comment above this one in the comment hierarchy.
0x445442 7y ago
There's no such thing as "hate" speech. The label is a tool to suppress speech the accusers don't agree with and I've never encountered anyone who uses the term to do so objectively.
- huntertwo 7y ago
  That's quite the claim and I don't really think it's defensible. Hate speech definitely exists. Your claim is equivalent to saying there exists no speech meant to demean or harm others based on race, gender, religion, etc. Why does this kind of speech need to be protected from removal? Surely we wouldn't tolerate it in this forum, why should it be tolerated in others?
  - core-questions 7y ago
    > Hate speech definitely exists. In the USA, it does not exist, in the sense that freedom of speech is absolute, even when you're demeaning or "harming" others with your words. The only way in which it is limited is when it is directly inciting action as a call to violence. In Canada, hate speech laws exist, but again are designed around the case where a reasonable person would view the speaker as making credible threats and inciting violence. Neither country prohibits you from saying mean things about groups you don't like. Certainly neither country prohibits you from saying true-but-uncomfortable, even scientifically backed things that are banned outright on most platforms for being hateful.
  - commandlinefan 7y ago
    > Hate speech definitely exists. There’s plenty of stuff that you and I would both look at and say, “yep, that’s definitely hate speech”. There’s lots of stuff that I might call hate speech under any definition of it but you might think is perfectly reasonable. Since you’re defending censoring hate speech, I suspect there’s even more stuff that you would call hate speech but I would think is perfectly reasonable. And as we’ve seen over and over again, once you allow for censorship/cancellation based on “hate”, the definition of “hate” grows without bound.
  - 0x445442 7y ago
    Speech that's meant to demean or harm others? Who judges the intentions and what criteria is used to make that determination? I find the claim that there are not clear double standards within this context to be indefensible. Is wearing a MAGA hat in public hate speech? Is telling someone their opinion doesn't count because of "white privileged" or "the patriarchy" hate speech? What about calling evangelical's red neck climate change deniers? You see, I've never encountered anyone that's vocal in this realm to apply their own standards logically and objectively.
mistermann 7y ago
Duty, according to whom?
- riversflow 7y ago
  Couldn’t agree more. I find the defense of Cohen here bewildering, and the fact that you are downvoted sad. My take: 1)It is a failing of our public education system if hate speech is a problem. 2)There is a significant difference between targeted hate speech and generalized hate speech, also between speech in public and private.(not to say its ever a good quality) 2b) Private speech should never be controlled under any circumstance. It’s simply unethical. 3)Just because you deliver messages between people doesn’t mean you need to preform SIG/INT on it.
  - throwaway-sbc 7y ago
    In his speech, Cohen said that 2/3 of millennials don't know what Auschwitz is [0]. Our public education system already failed (or so it seems). [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/auschwitz-us-millennials-not-know-nazi-concentration-camp-a8302476.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/auschwitz-...
    - riversflow 7y ago
      Sorry. I don’t buy that study. I can’t believe that statistic from personal experience, and find the conducting authority partial. And nothing is stoping us from educating adults, ever heard of The Ad Council?
      - oska 7y ago
        I also don't buy the study. Further, any questioning about knowledge of Auschwitz should also include questioning about knowledge of other 20th century atrocities, such as the British suppression of the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya, the Nanjing Massacre by the Japanese army in China, the Greek, Assyrian and Armenian Genocides under the Ottoman Empire, the Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, the expulsion and killings of Germans at the end of WWII, the Cambodian Genocide by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, the East Timor and West Papua Genocides in Indonesia, the Anfal Genocide in Iraqi Kurdistan, etc. I would guess that Auschwitz is better known than most other 20th century atrocities.
mcguire 7y ago
I agree. But I'm not sure why Cohen's career is not hate speech.
- eranima 7y ago
  Because he's pointing out hate speech by lampooning it. Very different

sharkmerry 7y ago

> Given that the ADL already has outsized censorship abilities on Google and Twitter amongst other platforms Can you explain this? I dont know what censorship ability the ADL has on Google and Twitter?

core-questions 7y ago
Then you're not paying attention. The ADL and the SPLC, though the latter is suffering some issues presently, are basically the key arbiters of what is classified as "hate speech" today. FAANG will not go to bat for the free speech rights of anyone the ADL has classified as verboten, because going up against anything the ADL does or says is anti-Semitic.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  Please no name-calling. I knew about the SBLC but did not know about the ADL. If they’re similar, this is interesting information. May I refer you to this comic? https://www.xkcd.com/1053/ https://www.xkcd.com/1053/
  - core-questions 7y ago
    I'm glad to have made you aware. They wield considerable clout.
- sharkmerry 7y ago
  Except that he pointed out in this, that tech's arent removing some white supremacy stuff because it would remove politicians when ADL wants them to.
creaghpatr 7y ago
https://www.cnet.com/news/adl-anti-defamation-league-facebook-twitter-google-hate-speech/ https://www.cnet.com/news/adl-anti-defamation-league-faceboo... >Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft, among others, are joining with the ADL to form a Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab, the companies and the civil rights group said Tuesday. They'll exchange ideas and develop strategies to try to curb hate speech and abuse on the companies' various platforms and across the internet. >"These companies have an added responsibility to do everything within their power to stop hate from flourishing on their watch," ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. "We look forward to tackling this pressing challenge together."

olivermarks 7y ago

I agree. I'm deeply suspicious of Cohen. He has used 'comedy' to trick and ridicule people but taken it to another level by taking statements they make and twisting meanings. A religious jew disguised as a visitor to the US from Kazachstan going to a provincial US bar and singing 'throw the jew down the well' and then subsequently openly ridiculing and shaming the audience for singing along is a form of baiting and hate speech, the sort of thing the ADL should be commenting on. I'm surprised Kazachstan hasn't officially protested this misrepresentation, maybe they have....

balabaster 7y ago
I'm normally pretty well versed in dry humour, being a near native speaker of such. But I'm failing to comprehend whether you're being satirical or serious... perhaps I need more tea. Can you clarify?
- core-questions 7y ago
  Well, you're either employing tactical nihilism or you truly do need more tea. Cohen has shown himself to enjoy manipulating rubes in social contexts where the pressure to perform is present, not entirely dissimilar from how hypnotists work in crowd situations. Rather than letting it be all in good fun, though, Cohen has made people say offensive things, and then uses it to pretend it's what those people really think rather than admitting it's 99% social pressure.
  - sharkmerry 7y ago
    Is your argument that none of the people Sacha has gotten to say things, actually believe those? Its just pressure to perform, so EVERYONE would say things they dont believe if put in the same position?
    - handelaar 7y ago
      That, and he's also arguing that they're all somehow the victims of a hate crime.

deogeo 7y ago

> When Borat got that bar in Arizona to agree that “Jews control everybody’s money and never give it back,” the joke worked because the audience shared the fact that the depiction of Jews as miserly is a conspiracy theory originating in the Middle Ages. [..] If we make that our aim—if we prioritize truth over lies: https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-address-at-adls-2019-never-is-now-summit-on-anti-semitism https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-... Sacha would be wise to start with himself: from 1970 to 2018, there was only 1 year (78-79) during which the Federal Reserve Chair wasn't Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair_of_the_Federal_Reserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair_of_the_Federal_Reserve At ~2% of the US population, someone can calculate how far above random chance this is.

enumjorge 7y ago

What is with all the ad hominem attacks in the comments? What a bizarre thread.

Mangalor 7y ago
Some people want to use social media as a propaganda engine. Dismissing all criticism is par for the course.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]