4 ms·

Thank you for pointing out this blog post. I used NFS for many years but moved away a while ago for opportunistic reasons. However, after reading that post, I

Thank you for pointing out this blog post. I used NFS for many years but moved away a while ago for opportunistic reasons. However, after reading that post, I will make every effort to go back to them. "Freedom of speech" does not include hate speech or racist speech or any speech advocating against a group of people in my worldview, and I therefore agree 100% with NFS's stance. All freedoms have limits, agreed to by reasonable people living in a reasonable society. Freedom of speech,is only 'controversial' to people who think limits on racist speech and the like is unreasonable.

busymom0 6y ago
Politically incorrect things get labelled "racist" now a days. I, as a brown immigrant, get to criticize my home country all I want. I can call my home country corrupt, filthy, polluted, no regards for women rights, gay rights, caste system, rapes etc and be totally okay as long as the other person knows I am brown. But suddenly if a white person or someone with the wrong "political affilitation" says the same things about my home country - they get labelled racist/xenophobic etc when they are speaking the truth. If I made a website criticizing the corruption or filth or disregard for women or gay rights in my home country, NFS would take down my site - probably until I dox myself and show that it's a brown person running it - then it might become okay. Political correctness such as this is exactly why the good people in my home country suffer the most. All so that someone in western world or the elite class in my home country can feel morally superior. And I hate to bring my skin color in a debate but that's the only way to explain how political correctness is making things worse for good people back home.
- hamburglar 6y ago
  White people are allowed to criticize the country in the exact same way here too. That’s not the type of stuff we are talking about.
- misterkrabs 6y ago
  > Political correctness such as this is exactly why the good people in my home country suffer the most. I think it might be income inequality that makes the good people in your home country suffer the most - but I don't want to assert this because I'm (probably) not from your home country and don't know it quite like you do.
- chriswarbo 6y ago
  > I, as a brown immigrant, get to criticize my home country all I want. Countries are not people, so criticism of a country cannot be racist (it's a category error). Criticism of people of a country could be racist, but that's a different thing. Criticism of the government/establishment of a country could be racist, but again that's a different thing. Unfortunately these three separate things often get conflated and mixed up.
  - tasogare 6y ago
    > countries are not people, so criticism of a country cannot be racist Then how do you explain those reactions? [1] "I'm sorry, but there's no other word one can use but racist". GP is totally right, nowadays any remote criticism -- and I'm speaking of the factual ones, not the injurious kind mentioned before -- of a foreign country (except China, Russia and NK for some reason) by white people is labeled racist. And of course, people of color are allowed to speak anything they want against European countries, and spread hate speech mostly without any issue (granted one rapper is condamned from time to time... for instance Nick Conrad after singing "hang the whites" [2]). [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/12/politics/trump-shithole-countries-reaction-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/12/politics/trump-shithole-c... [2] https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/ces-rappeurs-qui-defrayent-la-chronique-judiciaire-18-09-2020-8387397.php https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/ces-rappeurs-qui-defr...
    - rovr138 6y ago
      A bit of context, > "I'm sorry, but there's no other word one can use but racist," Colville said, responding to reporters at a news conference in Geneva, Switzerland. "You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as 'shitholes' whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome." You missed that second part. Looks like they’re talking about dismissing the people of those countries just because they are from, what they consider, a ‘shithole’ country/continent.
    - chriswarbo 6y ago
      I did not specify who was conflating/mixing-up these distinct topics, or for what purpose. Racists often conflate countries/governments/populations, which is what Trump did with his "shithole countries" comments. He was referring to the people of those countries, i.e. the pool which immigrants would be members of (or, in his delusional mind, "sent by"). Note that if a country itself were a 'shithole', say for example a war-torn region like Yemen or Syria, that would only help the case for immigrants from that country; since the place they're fleeing is so bad. > GP is totally right, nowadays any remote criticism -- and I'm speaking of the factual ones, not the injurious kind mentioned before -- of a foreign country (except China, Russia and NK for some reason) by white people is labeled racist. Citations and examples please (also for the China/Russia/NK criticism; I suspect you're also conflating criticism-of-government/people with criticism-of-country) > And of course, people of color are allowed to speak anything they want against European countries What complete and utter total bollocks. Have you never encountered the thought-terminating cliche of "if you don't like it then leave", or its more overtly-racist cousin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_back_to_where_you_came_from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_back_to_where_you_came_from ? > and spread hate speech mostly without any issue I find this use of the word "mostly" to be mostly questionable.
- austinjp 6y ago
  You raise a point that seems to come up increasingly frequently, and it's a good one because it highlights some complexities in the issues. I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I don't believe you're entirely "correct" either :) Some brown people can be racist, including towards other brown people, and including those of the same heritage. (I'm not saying that you are.) Some subset of comments by racists may be categorically true. For example, a racist might decry the appalling rapes and murders that have been reported from India, saying violence towards women in India is a serious and pressing issue. Isolated statements don't necessarily reveal motivations or underpinning beliefs. A blog post might report "truth", but that might be selective, framed and phrased in certain ways, and so on. So a hosting service necessarily needs to make a judgement call regarding acceptable content, and sometimes this will require looking beyond the content itself to discern motivations. The motivations of a writer or broadcaster are key. If someone is writing about corruption and endemic violence in a foreign land, why are they doing this? Is it to call attention to the issue so it might be addressed and fixed? Or is it to build a wall? For what it's worth, I doubt NFS would ban you from writing about the issues you've raised, provided they were constructive. Yes, that's a judgement call, and I think that's inevitable. The issue of white allies (or cis-gendered, or whatever other area is concerned) is tricky, and frankly I think society is going through adolescence with this. Lots of outrage, lots of polarisation, and this is a shame and unhelpful. I agree that rejection of your allies by authorities that haven't attempted to understand the details is actively undermining, even if it's done with apparently good intentions. Personally, I think this sort of thing happens through fear of attracting outrage, misunderstanding the problem, wanting a simple answer to complex problems, pressure to act quickly and show decisiveness, and so on. Unfortunately this stuff is complicated and complex, and requires care and attention. Personally I feel that the underpinning issues here are driven by polarisation, and this is what needs to addressed. Anyone who's writing to encourage collaborative solutions to grievous problems is unlikely to be banned by any hosting provider worth its salt. The sort of provider banning such content isn't contributing to a happier world, so should be avoided.
- tayo42 6y ago
  This is a straw man, legitimate criticism isn't racist and no one says it is. If your idea of criticism is something like using a slur or stereotypes to make an argument then it is not politically correct. What's the criticism you want to give but feel like you can't?
  - boogies 6y ago
    > legitimate criticism isn't racist and no one says it is Free speech means freedom to express “illegitimate” views, “the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered”. No one has reached a universal agreement on what “legitimate” criticism is. Of course there are often prevailing societal opinions, but those change with the society. Eg. the Federalist Papers were largely written by someone who was literally labeled “illegitimate” by society at his time (and were full of slurs, stereotypes, etc.¹). Someone who got killed in a duel — the meaning of civility changes with the civilization. IMO ours is at a fairly high point at the moment (in part because of the value placed on tolerance for differing values), but it’s only a matter of time before it inevitably collapses much like the Greek and Roman ones before it (likely in part because of intolerance for free expression). ¹Eg. stereotyping the Republics of Greece and Italy as “petty” and slurring opponents as “advocates of despotism”. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/9 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/9
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rufus_foreman 6y ago
>> "Freedom of speech" does not include hate speech or racist speech or any speech advocating against a group of people Freedom of speech includes all those things.
totony 6y ago
>All freedoms have limits, agreed to by reasonable people living in a reasonable society. That's a deeply flawed stance. The meaning of "reasonable person" changes so often as to be able to mean anything.
raarts 6y ago
Neither you, nor GP knows what kind of speech exactly they were referring to. You're basing your decision on what you think they mean.

busymom0 6y ago

Politically incorrect things get labelled "racist" now a days. I, as a brown immigrant, get to criticize my home country all I want. I can call my home country corrupt, filthy, polluted, no regards for women rights, gay rights, caste system, rapes etc and be totally okay as long as the other person knows I am brown. But suddenly if a white person or someone with the wrong "political affilitation" says the same things about my home country - they get labelled racist/xenophobic etc when they are speaking the truth. If I made a website criticizing the corruption or filth or disregard for women or gay rights in my home country, NFS would take down my site - probably until I dox myself and show that it's a brown person running it - then it might become okay. Political correctness such as this is exactly why the good people in my home country suffer the most. All so that someone in western world or the elite class in my home country can feel morally superior. And I hate to bring my skin color in a debate but that's the only way to explain how political correctness is making things worse for good people back home.

hamburglar 6y ago
White people are allowed to criticize the country in the exact same way here too. That’s not the type of stuff we are talking about.
misterkrabs 6y ago
> Political correctness such as this is exactly why the good people in my home country suffer the most. I think it might be income inequality that makes the good people in your home country suffer the most - but I don't want to assert this because I'm (probably) not from your home country and don't know it quite like you do.
chriswarbo 6y ago
> I, as a brown immigrant, get to criticize my home country all I want. Countries are not people, so criticism of a country cannot be racist (it's a category error). Criticism of people of a country could be racist, but that's a different thing. Criticism of the government/establishment of a country could be racist, but again that's a different thing. Unfortunately these three separate things often get conflated and mixed up.
- tasogare 6y ago
  > countries are not people, so criticism of a country cannot be racist Then how do you explain those reactions? [1] "I'm sorry, but there's no other word one can use but racist". GP is totally right, nowadays any remote criticism -- and I'm speaking of the factual ones, not the injurious kind mentioned before -- of a foreign country (except China, Russia and NK for some reason) by white people is labeled racist. And of course, people of color are allowed to speak anything they want against European countries, and spread hate speech mostly without any issue (granted one rapper is condamned from time to time... for instance Nick Conrad after singing "hang the whites" [2]). [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/12/politics/trump-shithole-countries-reaction-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/12/politics/trump-shithole-c... [2] https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/ces-rappeurs-qui-defrayent-la-chronique-judiciaire-18-09-2020-8387397.php https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/ces-rappeurs-qui-defr...
  - rovr138 6y ago
    A bit of context, > "I'm sorry, but there's no other word one can use but racist," Colville said, responding to reporters at a news conference in Geneva, Switzerland. "You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as 'shitholes' whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome." You missed that second part. Looks like they’re talking about dismissing the people of those countries just because they are from, what they consider, a ‘shithole’ country/continent.
  - chriswarbo 6y ago
    I did not specify who was conflating/mixing-up these distinct topics, or for what purpose. Racists often conflate countries/governments/populations, which is what Trump did with his "shithole countries" comments. He was referring to the people of those countries, i.e. the pool which immigrants would be members of (or, in his delusional mind, "sent by"). Note that if a country itself were a 'shithole', say for example a war-torn region like Yemen or Syria, that would only help the case for immigrants from that country; since the place they're fleeing is so bad. > GP is totally right, nowadays any remote criticism -- and I'm speaking of the factual ones, not the injurious kind mentioned before -- of a foreign country (except China, Russia and NK for some reason) by white people is labeled racist. Citations and examples please (also for the China/Russia/NK criticism; I suspect you're also conflating criticism-of-government/people with criticism-of-country) > And of course, people of color are allowed to speak anything they want against European countries What complete and utter total bollocks. Have you never encountered the thought-terminating cliche of "if you don't like it then leave", or its more overtly-racist cousin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_back_to_where_you_came_from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_back_to_where_you_came_from ? > and spread hate speech mostly without any issue I find this use of the word "mostly" to be mostly questionable.
austinjp 6y ago
You raise a point that seems to come up increasingly frequently, and it's a good one because it highlights some complexities in the issues. I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I don't believe you're entirely "correct" either :) Some brown people can be racist, including towards other brown people, and including those of the same heritage. (I'm not saying that you are.) Some subset of comments by racists may be categorically true. For example, a racist might decry the appalling rapes and murders that have been reported from India, saying violence towards women in India is a serious and pressing issue. Isolated statements don't necessarily reveal motivations or underpinning beliefs. A blog post might report "truth", but that might be selective, framed and phrased in certain ways, and so on. So a hosting service necessarily needs to make a judgement call regarding acceptable content, and sometimes this will require looking beyond the content itself to discern motivations. The motivations of a writer or broadcaster are key. If someone is writing about corruption and endemic violence in a foreign land, why are they doing this? Is it to call attention to the issue so it might be addressed and fixed? Or is it to build a wall? For what it's worth, I doubt NFS would ban you from writing about the issues you've raised, provided they were constructive. Yes, that's a judgement call, and I think that's inevitable. The issue of white allies (or cis-gendered, or whatever other area is concerned) is tricky, and frankly I think society is going through adolescence with this. Lots of outrage, lots of polarisation, and this is a shame and unhelpful. I agree that rejection of your allies by authorities that haven't attempted to understand the details is actively undermining, even if it's done with apparently good intentions. Personally, I think this sort of thing happens through fear of attracting outrage, misunderstanding the problem, wanting a simple answer to complex problems, pressure to act quickly and show decisiveness, and so on. Unfortunately this stuff is complicated and complex, and requires care and attention. Personally I feel that the underpinning issues here are driven by polarisation, and this is what needs to addressed. Anyone who's writing to encourage collaborative solutions to grievous problems is unlikely to be banned by any hosting provider worth its salt. The sort of provider banning such content isn't contributing to a happier world, so should be avoided.
tayo42 6y ago
This is a straw man, legitimate criticism isn't racist and no one says it is. If your idea of criticism is something like using a slur or stereotypes to make an argument then it is not politically correct. What's the criticism you want to give but feel like you can't?
- boogies 6y ago
  > legitimate criticism isn't racist and no one says it is Free speech means freedom to express “illegitimate” views, “the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered”. No one has reached a universal agreement on what “legitimate” criticism is. Of course there are often prevailing societal opinions, but those change with the society. Eg. the Federalist Papers were largely written by someone who was literally labeled “illegitimate” by society at his time (and were full of slurs, stereotypes, etc.¹). Someone who got killed in a duel — the meaning of civility changes with the civilization. IMO ours is at a fairly high point at the moment (in part because of the value placed on tolerance for differing values), but it’s only a matter of time before it inevitably collapses much like the Greek and Roman ones before it (likely in part because of intolerance for free expression). ¹Eg. stereotyping the Republics of Greece and Italy as “petty” and slurring opponents as “advocates of despotism”. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/9 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/9

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rufus_foreman 6y ago

>> "Freedom of speech" does not include hate speech or racist speech or any speech advocating against a group of people Freedom of speech includes all those things.

totony 6y ago

>All freedoms have limits, agreed to by reasonable people living in a reasonable society. That's a deeply flawed stance. The meaning of "reasonable person" changes so often as to be able to mean anything.

raarts 6y ago

Neither you, nor GP knows what kind of speech exactly they were referring to. You're basing your decision on what you think they mean.