6 ms·

Was your page full of actual hate speech such as "exterminate the jews" or was it full of "hate speech" such as criticizing politicians who happen to be minorit

Was your page full of actual hate speech such as "exterminate the jews" or was it full of "hate speech" such as criticizing politicians who happen to be minorities? Same question regarding fake news: was your page full of actual fake news suh as "Elon Musk has died", or was it full of political speech you don't like, such as "wearing masks is not worth the inconvenience"?

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
- mikevm 5y ago
danans 5y ago
Your definition of hate speech is irrelevant. Whatever the GP saw was enough for them that they made a decision to remove their personal exposure, which is their right. They aren't censoring you or anyone else by making that choice.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  Sure. And if GP genuinely believes that what they saw was actual hate speech and fake news, they may (or may not) feel like they want to explain that yes it actually was that. At least that's how I usually respond when I see outrageous lies being spread.
laumars 5y ago
Unfortunately most of the arguments against wearing masks are petty and bullshit given that the inconvenience of wearing one is insignificant for most people. Sure, if you have genuine health concerns wearing one then don’t. But most of the people that moaned about it were really just moaning about being told what to do. I had one mum in my kids school quoting the Magna Carta as a reason not to wear masks, which is simply ridiculous. And others claim that long term use of thermometers could be damaging to kids health, which completely misses the fact that such devices are entirely passive instruments. That was the point I quit Facebook. I realised my time was too valuable to read so much stupid.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago
  (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially)
  - laumars 5y ago
    I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it. You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And “mindless drivel” is exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, public health and such like. > (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially) I really didn’t. I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged.
    - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
      > I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it. Nobody here is advocating that you must continue reading Facebook. I'm not on Facebook. I don't advocate anyone else to go on Facebook either. > You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And that’s exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, and such like. Nobody is forcing you to expose yourself to political opinions that are contrary to your political opinions. People are entirely free to stay in their own little bubbles if they choose to do so, but they should also be free to discuss major political decisions, such as mask mandates, if that's what they want to do.
    - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
      > > (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially) > I really didn’t. This is a flat out lie. Please stop spreading disinformation. > I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged. Your comment originally described unwanted political speech, but implied that the speech was actually fake news. I called you out on that, my comment was roughly "That is a good description of political speech. It is not a description of hate speech or fake news". Then you edited your comment to add in a description of fake news. Specifically, you added this: "And others claim that long term use of thermometers could be damaging to kids health, which completely misses the fact that such devices are entirely passive instruments." This anecdote is a good description of fake news. So now my comment appears as if I claimed that this fake news is not fake news. So you essentially edited your comment to make me appear like a conspiracy nut. And now you're lying about what you did.
dandare 5y ago
actual hate speech is very subjective term. #killAllMen was trending on Twitter. Saying all white people are racist is considered progressive.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Saying all white people are racist is considered progressive. By whom? Not progressives. It is a standard right-wing a way of attempting to distract from actual progressive statements like “white people, including those who aren't personally racist, are privileged by institutional racism” or “White identity is grounded in racism”.
  - dandare 5y ago
    Yes, by progressives - and don't start the "no true scotsman" fallacy please. Also, your second statement maybe applies to the US, but there are many countries where white people are not the majority, or where there were virtually no other races than white. Saying that e.g. Norwegians or Italians are privileged by institutional racism is absurd. I am from a post-communist country that was always 99.9% white, saying that “White identity is grounded in racism” is absurd and of course totally racist.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Also, your second statement maybe applies to the US, Since we are discussing a distinct American center-left faction’s position on domestic group relations, I don't know why you'd think the positions ought to apply to conditions elsewhere.
      - dandare 5y ago
        No, we are not. Progressivism spread from the US to the whole world long time ago. There is literally a party called Progressive Party where I am from that even adopted the "white male privilege" narrative even though, as I said, my country never had any racial minorities (other than jews, if you consider it ethnoreligion a race) or colonial history. It would be comical if it wasn't tragic. If you are talking about a whole race of people, but you actually mean only a specific subset, then it is up to you to define the context, not up to the reader. (And even in that case you will still probably end up with a racist generalisation.)

baobabKoodaa 5y ago

mikevm 5y ago

danans 5y ago

Your definition of hate speech is irrelevant. Whatever the GP saw was enough for them that they made a decision to remove their personal exposure, which is their right. They aren't censoring you or anyone else by making that choice.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
Sure. And if GP genuinely believes that what they saw was actual hate speech and fake news, they may (or may not) feel like they want to explain that yes it actually was that. At least that's how I usually respond when I see outrageous lies being spread.

laumars 5y ago

Unfortunately most of the arguments against wearing masks are petty and bullshit given that the inconvenience of wearing one is insignificant for most people. Sure, if you have genuine health concerns wearing one then don’t. But most of the people that moaned about it were really just moaning about being told what to do. I had one mum in my kids school quoting the Magna Carta as a reason not to wear masks, which is simply ridiculous. And others claim that long term use of thermometers could be damaging to kids health, which completely misses the fact that such devices are entirely passive instruments. That was the point I quit Facebook. I realised my time was too valuable to read so much stupid.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
(removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially)
- laumars 5y ago
  I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it. You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And “mindless drivel” is exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, public health and such like. > (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially) I really didn’t. I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > I couldn’t give a crap how you might choose to describe it. It’s still too much stupidity to be worth my effort reading. So I chose to stop reading it. Nobody here is advocating that you must continue reading Facebook. I'm not on Facebook. I don't advocate anyone else to go on Facebook either. > You cannot force intelligent people to read your mindless drivel just because you consider it “political”. And that’s exactly how I viewed the baseless debates against masks, vaccines, and such like. Nobody is forcing you to expose yourself to political opinions that are contrary to your political opinions. People are entirely free to stay in their own little bubbles if they choose to do so, but they should also be free to discuss major political decisions, such as mask mandates, if that's what they want to do.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > > (removed because parent comment edited their comment substantially) > I really didn’t. This is a flat out lie. Please stop spreading disinformation. > I just added some personal anecdotes in a subsequent paragraph to describe why I personally quit Facebook. The body of what you replied to was unchanged. Your comment originally described unwanted political speech, but implied that the speech was actually fake news. I called you out on that, my comment was roughly "That is a good description of political speech. It is not a description of hate speech or fake news". Then you edited your comment to add in a description of fake news. Specifically, you added this: "And others claim that long term use of thermometers could be damaging to kids health, which completely misses the fact that such devices are entirely passive instruments." This anecdote is a good description of fake news. So now my comment appears as if I claimed that this fake news is not fake news. So you essentially edited your comment to make me appear like a conspiracy nut. And now you're lying about what you did.

dandare 5y ago

actual hate speech is very subjective term. #killAllMen was trending on Twitter. Saying all white people are racist is considered progressive.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Saying all white people are racist is considered progressive. By whom? Not progressives. It is a standard right-wing a way of attempting to distract from actual progressive statements like “white people, including those who aren't personally racist, are privileged by institutional racism” or “White identity is grounded in racism”.
- dandare 5y ago
  Yes, by progressives - and don't start the "no true scotsman" fallacy please. Also, your second statement maybe applies to the US, but there are many countries where white people are not the majority, or where there were virtually no other races than white. Saying that e.g. Norwegians or Italians are privileged by institutional racism is absurd. I am from a post-communist country that was always 99.9% white, saying that “White identity is grounded in racism” is absurd and of course totally racist.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Also, your second statement maybe applies to the US, Since we are discussing a distinct American center-left faction’s position on domestic group relations, I don't know why you'd think the positions ought to apply to conditions elsewhere.
    - dandare 5y ago
      No, we are not. Progressivism spread from the US to the whole world long time ago. There is literally a party called Progressive Party where I am from that even adopted the "white male privilege" narrative even though, as I said, my country never had any racial minorities (other than jews, if you consider it ethnoreligion a race) or colonial history. It would be comical if it wasn't tragic. If you are talking about a whole race of people, but you actually mean only a specific subset, then it is up to you to define the context, not up to the reader. (And even in that case you will still probably end up with a racist generalisation.)