3 ms·

How do you separate those cases from these cases? https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guilty-next-steps/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021

How do you separate those cases from these cases? https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guilty-next-steps/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guil... A deliberately fabricated hate crime to advance what agenda? > What more consensus from broader society does one need than literally telling them that their speech and actions are harmful and they need to stop? Is algorithmic and incentivized actor driven censorship considered consensus? From your perspective you support one thing through censorship but want to deny what consensus tells you in other aspects of reality. Censorship driven echo chambers support some opinions while they crush others. In some respects, we need more confrontation of opinion in society. Too few are forced to question themselves in current times, emboldened by these digital echo chambers, opinion solidified in thoughts and actions. I genuinely hope that we can find a way to end this age of artificial division. Too many agendas being programmed into brains, too little reality driven truth.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
> How do you separate those cases from these cases? > https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guil https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guil... > A deliberately fabricated hate crime to advance what agenda? See, the difference is in one case a person was beat-up, and there's evidence, their life was possibly in danger, and in what you presented you have a hear-say. A false report. The difference is that one has the potential to cause harm, and the other is actual harm caused. > From your perspective you support one thing through censorship but want to deny what consensus tells you in other aspects of reality. From my perspective I fear for my life. This is what is on the line here. Not my ability to commit hate-crimes, not my ability to spew bigotry. Consensus - actual people - on average are understanding. On the other hand, there's a trigger-happy, outrage-addicted, gun-owning, self-proclaimed-terrorist and outright blood-thirsty minority who is angry because the broader society doesn't accept their bigotry. I will repeat, to you, it's some imaginary threat that has the potential to happen 60 steps down the road if you concede that hate-speech is bad for everyone and pushes people to commit atrocities, and to me, it's my life.
- uLogMicheal 3y ago
  Not sure if you meant to reply on an alt... > See, the difference is in one case a person was beat-up, and there's evidence, their life was possibly in danger, and in what you presented you have a hear-say. A false report. The difference is that one has the potential to cause harm, and the other is actual harm caused. Bad actors harm everyone, rights protect against bad actors from breaking true consensus. In that case, they went a step further than a false report and actually staged the crime as well for "evidence". This is not the only occurrence, but one of the most high profile occurrences to have been caught. > From my perspective I fear for my life. This is what is on the line here. Not my ability to commit hate-crimes, not my ability to spew bigotry. Consensus - actual people - on average are understanding. On the other hand, there's a trigger-happy, outrage-addicted, gun-owning, self-proclaimed-terrorist and outright blood-thirsty minority who is angry because the broader society doesn't accept their bigotry. I am sorry you have personally experienced hatred like this. Even with experience, such fears should not fuel oppression of the world. Many are dying daily from war but personal experiences like this supersede actions against that, why? Please at least see the choice and selection biases in this, fear for your life at minimum invokes an emotional component. If you are unsafe there are likely actions you can take outside of intentionally trying to disrupt the rights of everyone else. Without personal compromise? Maybe not. Much as they want to force their opinions into reality, you want to force yours. > I will repeat, to you, it's some imaginary threat that has the potential to happen 60 steps down the road if you concede that hate-speech is bad for everyone and pushes people to commit atrocities, and to me, it's my life. It is not imaginary, it has happened and will continue to happen as long as there is incentive. Hate crimes against minority groups have lessened over time, but I will agree with you in that fear of such has been amplified. Some selectively amplify group positions to intentionally fuel hatred. This serves in two ways, for profit and distraction. Media could not profit from fear unless victims AND threats exist, thus they intentionally amplify opinions that provoke such threats. We cannot solve the hate problem with censorship and removal of rights. The bad actors do not simply disappear because you no longer allow their thoughts in your reality. You have a right to be you up until violence and they have a right to be them up until violence. Many humans still operate from instinct, maybe the solution to hatred is to teach more to separate instinct and approach reality with logic? That would certainly upset our desire driven sales fueled world of individualization.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

> How do you separate those cases from these cases? > https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guil https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/us/jussie-smollett-trial-guil... > A deliberately fabricated hate crime to advance what agenda? See, the difference is in one case a person was beat-up, and there's evidence, their life was possibly in danger, and in what you presented you have a hear-say. A false report. The difference is that one has the potential to cause harm, and the other is actual harm caused. > From your perspective you support one thing through censorship but want to deny what consensus tells you in other aspects of reality. From my perspective I fear for my life. This is what is on the line here. Not my ability to commit hate-crimes, not my ability to spew bigotry. Consensus - actual people - on average are understanding. On the other hand, there's a trigger-happy, outrage-addicted, gun-owning, self-proclaimed-terrorist and outright blood-thirsty minority who is angry because the broader society doesn't accept their bigotry. I will repeat, to you, it's some imaginary threat that has the potential to happen 60 steps down the road if you concede that hate-speech is bad for everyone and pushes people to commit atrocities, and to me, it's my life.

uLogMicheal 3y ago
Not sure if you meant to reply on an alt... > See, the difference is in one case a person was beat-up, and there's evidence, their life was possibly in danger, and in what you presented you have a hear-say. A false report. The difference is that one has the potential to cause harm, and the other is actual harm caused. Bad actors harm everyone, rights protect against bad actors from breaking true consensus. In that case, they went a step further than a false report and actually staged the crime as well for "evidence". This is not the only occurrence, but one of the most high profile occurrences to have been caught. > From my perspective I fear for my life. This is what is on the line here. Not my ability to commit hate-crimes, not my ability to spew bigotry. Consensus - actual people - on average are understanding. On the other hand, there's a trigger-happy, outrage-addicted, gun-owning, self-proclaimed-terrorist and outright blood-thirsty minority who is angry because the broader society doesn't accept their bigotry. I am sorry you have personally experienced hatred like this. Even with experience, such fears should not fuel oppression of the world. Many are dying daily from war but personal experiences like this supersede actions against that, why? Please at least see the choice and selection biases in this, fear for your life at minimum invokes an emotional component. If you are unsafe there are likely actions you can take outside of intentionally trying to disrupt the rights of everyone else. Without personal compromise? Maybe not. Much as they want to force their opinions into reality, you want to force yours. > I will repeat, to you, it's some imaginary threat that has the potential to happen 60 steps down the road if you concede that hate-speech is bad for everyone and pushes people to commit atrocities, and to me, it's my life. It is not imaginary, it has happened and will continue to happen as long as there is incentive. Hate crimes against minority groups have lessened over time, but I will agree with you in that fear of such has been amplified. Some selectively amplify group positions to intentionally fuel hatred. This serves in two ways, for profit and distraction. Media could not profit from fear unless victims AND threats exist, thus they intentionally amplify opinions that provoke such threats. We cannot solve the hate problem with censorship and removal of rights. The bad actors do not simply disappear because you no longer allow their thoughts in your reality. You have a right to be you up until violence and they have a right to be them up until violence. Many humans still operate from instinct, maybe the solution to hatred is to teach more to separate instinct and approach reality with logic? That would certainly upset our desire driven sales fueled world of individualization.