Is it wrong to be completely indifferent to hateful speech?

[Freighter]

No such thing as racism against whites. Source: I'm white. Have never, will never be marginalized because of my race. Neither will you. The assertion that the slight racial discomfort we might from time to time face is in any way comparable to what people of color have to deal with is absolutely laughable.

Sorry dude, but saying otherwise is nothing but eye rolling whining.

Racism is racism no matter who is the target.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Tell me about how Huffington Post isn't a biased and completely impartial news source.

Now why would I do that? Huffington Post is just as shitty as your typical tabloid, and as such I don't read it. Good job at attacking your own suggestion though, as Huffington Post is also cited on that site you linked.

[baskev]

Like I don't practice any views on social justice or have any values, but I hear words/terminology like fuck, shit, faggot, tranny, the n-word, and shit so much in my life and for so long on the internet and on the streets that at this point, I'm so desensitized to it that I don't even care or feel anything toward it. I've been criticized for this indifference, though, under claims socially dignified people won't look upon me very well if I don't have any alleged standards.

It is not wrong. You have most likely be desensitize to it. It gets thrown out allot. But also the ones who are the victims of some of the words ( tranny,black,white,asian etc) are going to SJW about it. They are getting to political correct. It makes you care less. If they where sad you would care. But some of these groups act like they have it really bad.
Example: The show runners of Game of THrones are planning to make a serie's about what if the confederacy won the war ( so still have slaves) . A good portion of black people do not like it because its to much like modern days.....( witch its not, they can have jobs, rights, vote rights, money etc etc). But some of them keep saying it. So you get fed up with there pov. And you care less about them in general.

[SherriMayim]

NO YOU!

Seriously, if that is the level you argue on it might be a good idea that you visit that site.
People like you deserve websites like that; anything else would be too much for you to handle.

Now why would I do that? Huffington Post is just as shitty as your typical tabloid, and as such I don't read it. Good job at attacking your own suggestion though, as Huffington Post is also cited on that site you linked.

Your argument was of association, stating that material could be faulty given that it came from sites you deemed faulty. While a fair point and judgement given the nature of those sites, doing a few simple google searches and cross-referencing data would have been helpful in forming your opinion.


Since I can only assume you have some disability which renders you incapable of using a search engine I have decided to be charitable and do a few searches for you.


Tiffany Robinson-Clarke; false accusation of a Police Officer using slurs against her after a traffic stop.

https://www.wxhc.com/?p=27735
https://www.nyspnews.com/article_dis...ticle_id=57124
http://auburnpub.com/news/local/poli...7ea46f2c5.html


Jalen Mitchell; fabricated a story about being assaulted by a White Man, numerous incidents of planting Racist Graffiti as a cry for attention

http://cuchimes.com/02/2017/campus-p...es-fabricated/


Now I know you were harping on The College Fix for being bogus journalism. But this is where being a mentally cognizant human being with an iota of curiosity and a willingness to do an ounce of work comes in handy.

We're gonna go through this article.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/33530/


A woman in a Hijab claims that Two White men stole her car.

We read the snippet, make our assumptions, then find a source.

Easy: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loca...410296485.html

There is little evidence one way or the other, granted she didn't follow through on her cooperation with the police to go ahead and move on with the investigation, so maybe she WAS attacked and didn't want to deal with Racist Patriarchal cops? Either way we can say that this one is unsubstantiated.



Moving on.


This is a good one, Taylor Volk, a bisexual woman, claimed that there was hateful LGBT items posted on her facebook page, emailed to her, and taped to her door.

It'd be horrific if it wasn't for the fact that she did it herself. Now again, healthy skepticism is important for being an informed person in the modern age. Fake news is everywhere. So lets do a little research.


First link is to NBC Chicago

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...lowTwt_CHBrand

Okay, seems plausible. But the second link only goes to their website. Hrm. Lets see what google can pick up on Taylor Volk

Washington Times corroborates this story

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...dent-fabricat/

A Forbes Article doesn't expand on this at all, however cites this story in an article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maureen.../#580c642f7979


I think it's safe to say that this is a real deal situation.


Now that you know how to spot real news from possibly fake news, go on, go out in to the world, and discern for yourself the truths in what is told to us. Be skeptical, but do your own research!

[Teleros]

Elba is the "you're a fucking white male" meme in real life.

So very true.

The thing is though, I think I speak for everyone when I say that all white-majority countries are irredeemably racist, evil, bigoted places, and no minorities will ever be comfortable, let alone welcome, in such places. As such, something Must Be Done to protect all the minority people from our white supremacist societies.

Luckily, I have the solution, in two parts:

1. Deport all minorities from evil racist white countries.
2. Build a wall to stop minorities getting back i- er, I mean whites getting out.

Only then can things begin to improve, right @Elba ?

[SherriMayim]

And what does any of this have to do with you randomly whining about Huffington Post?
Nobody mentioned that site. You just decided to complain about it.

Hit me up when your reading comprehension skills can match the level needed to participate in a forum discussion.

[Coffeexbean]

Lol what a stupid post. This is what privilege is lol

[Cizr]

Words are just words. Babies need to grow a thicker skin.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Your argument was of association, stating that material could be faulty given that it came from sites you deemed faulty. While a fair point and judgement given the nature of those sites, doing a few simple google searches and cross-referencing data would have been helpful in forming your opinion.


Since I can only assume you have some disability which renders you incapable of using a search engine I have decided to be charitable and do a few searches for you.

Now that you know how to spot real news from possibly fake news, go on, go out in to the world, and discern for yourself the truths in what is told to us. Be skeptical, but do your own research!

That section of the site has articles numbered up to 312, there are only 260 listed and of those 260 only 205 have citations attached. Of those 205 citations, 38 are from rather suspect sources.

I will make a disclaimer that I didn't count any of the other suspicious sources, other than those I have listed below, so my numbers might be slightly lower than the actual number (I also might've missed a few from the sites I did list, just would rather go to sleep now than double-check my numbers).

The Sun: 1
Breitbart: 6
College Fix: 8
Daily Mail: 1
The Blaze: 2
Daily Caller: 2
NYPost: 1
The Gateway Pundit: 3
Huffington Post: 4
Life Site News: 2
Michelle Malkin: 8

If at least 20% of the content is bullshit, or likely bullshit, it seems rather baffling that you would still try to defend your dubious site. I don't see the purpose of relying on a site claiming to provide useful data, if a significant portion of that data is partially or wholly false; if you have to manually fact-check every article because the individual(s) running the site are too lazy or incompetent to do so, you probably should refrain from using it as a source if you want to retain some credibility.

Maybe you should take the time to do your own research, prior to painting a rather unflattering picture of yourself with your behavior.

[Rennadrel]

Honestly, I have no problem with people using nigger instead of the "n-word". Just don't insult the person with me. Because to me it makes you look like a massive cunt who is using a word with a history of it being used by a group of people to make themselves feel superior. It shows what kind of person you are. Yeah, yeah, freedom of speech, don't be offended, whatever, if you think it is wrong to say nigger insultingly, don't be a coward and say it.

But that is usually why people say it, as a method of insulting someone, especially if the target has drawn ire from an individual.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that there is social acceptance in being a victim, so there's always people on the lookout to be offended by SOMETHING, because then it makes them a sort of hero for surviving it.

In fact there's a website dedicated to indexing these fake hate crimes. It's quite neat.

http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

The whole victim complex some people have is disgusting. I don't really care if someone's feelings are hurt by mere words. Anyone who let's words hurt them to the point where they cannot be functioning members of society, they need to go see a doctor to get their butthurt checked.

Good god though, those fake hate crime stories are hilarious. Campus diversity group gets self owned because they posted racist flyers? Are people really this retarded?

[SherriMayim]

That section of the site has articles numbered up to 312, there are only 260 listed and of those 260 only 205 have citations attached. Of those 205 citations, 38 are from rather suspect sources.

And one of those dubious sources, as you claimed, was fact checked by multiple sources. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I will make a disclaimer that I didn't count any of the other suspicious sources, other than those I have listed below, so my numbers might be slightly lower than the actual number (I also might've missed a few from the sites I did list, just would rather go to sleep now than double-check my numbers).

The Sun: 1
Breitbart: 6
College Fix: 8
Daily Mail: 1
The Blaze: 2
Daily Caller: 2
NYPost: 1
The Gateway Pundit: 3
Huffington Post: 4
Life Site News: 2
Michelle Malkin: 8

If at least 20% of the content is bullshit, or likely bullshit, it seems rather baffling that you would still try to defend your dubious site. I don't see the purpose of relying on a site claiming to provide useful data, if a significant portion of that data is partially or wholly false; if you have to manually fact-check every article because the individual(s) running the site are too lazy or incompetent to do so, you probably should refrain from using it as a source if you want to retain some credibility.

Maybe you should take the time to do your own research, prior to painting a rather unflattering picture of yourself with your behavior.

So let's say 20% of the content from that site is garbage. So you ignore 80% of the evidence?

The unfortunate thing is that there isn't a single news source that is reliable anymore. If fact checking things that you read is too hard for you to do then good golly jeepers let me tell you about President Trump's Pee Tape!

[Protean]

Claims to be desensitized to hate speech. Can't say nigger. Maybe you're not as desensitized as you think you are.

- - - Updated - - -



You're not desensitized then. Offense is never given. Only taken.

Maybe he knows it brings a shitstorm and ban? Being desensitized doesn't mean you don't understand it's wrong. It means you don't care about it anymore, doesn't exclude recognizing something is bad or will give you unwanted trouble.


Maybe you aren't as clever as you think you are?

[TEHPALLYTANK]

And one of those dubious sources, as you claimed, was fact checked by multiple sources. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

So let's say 20% of the content from that site is garbage. So you ignore 80% of the evidence?

The unfortunate thing is that there isn't a single news source that is reliable anymore. If fact checking things that you read is too hard for you to do then good golly jeepers let me tell you about President Trump's Pee Tape!

This time you've managed to contradict yourself within a single post.

As for the rest of it, I use consciously use heuristic analysis when dealing with data pools that are larger than conveniently possible to verify in a reasonable amount of time. A 20% rate of failure is unacceptably high for me trust in almost any aspect of life, so often it is more than sufficient for me to simply seek out more reliable data. I'm well aware that my standards may seem absurd (and in some cases, indeed are absurd), but that doesn't change them. I don't trust or respect your opinion, because I find your standards far below my tolerance.

Put bluntly, you're too incompetent for me to care beyond my own motivations for poking holes in faulty logic; I'd rather you be more competent at making logical arguments, they're more enjoyable for me to engage in and offer more opportunities for me to learn.

[Darkeon]

When "Hateful Speech" is mislabelled and abused as much as it is today, no, it's not wrong to be completely numb to any claim of such.

I got a feeling you - and those who feel the same as you - wouldn't act in such way when confronted with actual Hateful Speech.

[SherriMayim]

This time you've managed to contradict yourself within a single post.

The dubious source, The College Fix, was the one referenced in that statement. Congratulations, you've managed to prove that your reading comprehension and ability to produce a decent argument is capped at being able to read an article.

As for the rest of it, I use consciously use heuristic analysis when dealing with data pools that are larger than conveniently possible to verify in a reasonable amount of time.

...Except you haven't verified it. Your usage of a heuristic analysis is completely opposite to your statement.

The Heuristic Analysis is basically TRIAL AND ERROR. Yet your method is little more than singling out articles from websites that you distrust and saying they aren't worth vetting because you don't trust the site. That is the OPPOSITE of Trial and Error. A toddler with a fork and an electric socket has more intellectual curiosity than you.

If you were to actually use a Heuristic Analysis your method would have been going to the websites you distrust and fact checking them.

You have literally taken a fundamental learning process and managed to try and excuse your laziness with it.

A 20% rate of failure is unacceptably high for me trust in almost any aspect of life,

Gonna stop you right here real quick. My guess is that if you actually follow this train of logic you're not much into Raiding... or Looking for employment, or, parallel parking. Hell dating must be completely off the table for you as well. ...Especially marriage which has an abysmal failure rate.

so often it is more than sufficient for me to simply seek out more reliable data.

Oh! Reliable data. That sounds delightful. Please link me reliable data refuting the fake racist attacks. I'd love a good source or two. You don't have to do all of them, just a few would be lovely. Then it'd be like you're actually contributing to a conversation rather than being a try-hard intellectual.

I'm well aware that my standards may seem absurd (and in some cases, indeed are absurd), but that doesn't change them.

Nope. Just lazy.

I don't trust or respect your opinion, because I find your standards far below my tolerance.

Man if only I took stock in the opinion of someone who uses fancy terms like a 'Heuristic Analysis' without actually knowing what it means, then you'd REALLY have hurt my feelings. Good try though.

Put bluntly, you're too incompetent for me to care beyond my own motivations for poking holes in faulty logic; I'd rather you be more competent at making logical arguments, they're more enjoyable for me to engage in and offer more opportunities for me to learn.

'


Logical arguments. Logical.. Arguments.

Hrm.

So a Logical Argument would be like.

Me making a statement.

Then backing up my statement with evidence and credible sources to confirm my argument.

And a conclusion to which you can respond by...

Making a statement.

Then backing up your statement with evidence and credible sources.


Or by logical argument you mean.


I make a statement, offer evidence and credible sources.

And then you go "LOLOLOLOL NOPE UR DUM AND I USE HERISTIC METHOD CUZ UR DUM"



Cause that's what you've been offering up so far.

[Fencers]

Not 'wrong', per se. But just seems like you are not much of a person. Having no strong views or values? It begs the existential question; "What's the point of your being, animal?"

At best, you're a shitty human. At worst, you're a shitty human.

[Mistame]

Not 'wrong', per se. But just seems like you are not much of a person. Having no strong views or values? It begs the existential question; "What's the point of your being, animal?"

At best, you're a shitty human. At worst, you're a shitty human.

Saying that someone who doesn't concern themselves with what random people say about other random is a "shitty human" is pretty stupid. There's no rational argument for caring about some random person you don't know getting their "feelings" hurt over words.

[Fencers]

Saying that someone who doesn't concern themselves with what random people say about other random is a "shitty human" is pretty stupid.

That is not at all what the OP here is stating.

There's no rational argument for caring about some random person you don't know getting their "feelings" hurt over words.

I agree. But the OP is not about that- it states the user is desensitized to hate speech as he labels it.

[Mistame]

That is not at all what the OP here is stating.

I agree. But the OP is not about that- it states the user is desensitized to hate speech as he labels it.

Becoming desensitized is the expected outcome when something is overused, especially when it's used incorrectly/out of context.

[Machismo]

I don't get offended by hate speech, or rather, by much of anything at all.

The best part about hate speech, is it helps identify who the assholes and bigots (and what they are bigoted against) are in society.