Buzzfeed & SJWs help to ban GEN Zer Soph

[zenkai]

So... we're not talking about the OP, we're talking about Forbidden topics? Cool!

[Endus]

It was disingenuous hand-waving and didn't even attempt to grapple with the argument or data.

The argument and data were bullshit propaganda.

That's all the "grappling" a hate-speech site deserves.

Are you suggesting there are any other groups that even come close to these numbers?

"Those numbers" are complete horseshit to begin with. That's the point.

The entire idea of trying to justify hatemongering against a religious group because of the actions of a few extremists is such horseshit it deserves nothing but denigration and contempt.

[derpkitteh]

Exactly as asinine and prejudiced, to hopefully make the point, that claiming "Christianity" is the cause of abortion clinic bombings in the USA. Or white supremacy in the USA. Or anti-gay hate speech and hate crimes, in the USA. And so on.

but... it is the cause of abortion clinic bombings and anti-gay shit in the us. not white supremacy, that has nothing to do with christianity and anyone that thinks so is working directly counter to what the bible says.

you can moralize all you want, but the ideology itself directly tells you to do X thing to Y people. if something directly tells you to do something, it is at fault if you go through with that. gay people, cheating wives, other religions, none of this is suffered to live under abrahamic faith, either judaism, christianity, or islam.

idk what kind of fucking backward bizzaro reality we're living in when something saying "kill that gay guy" doesn't actually tell them to do it.

[Kathandira]

snip

Decided to watch the video finally. The guy in the video is anti-semitic, homophobic, and sensationalist. I regret every moment I spent listening to his rant.

[Cizr]

Let's break it down, shall? Here's the whole statement:

The start of, "I've known your address since last summer," While not an implicit threat, it is the kind of threatening speech people use to scare other people.
And then we see "I don't care if I live." which is very suggestive of someone willing to go to extremes.
Next we see, "Why should I care if you live or your children?" Again, very much threatening speech, even towards Susan's children.
"You've got about seven minutes to draft up a will." Now here's the first genuine threat. Why do people need wills? To make their last wishes known when they die. Susan is being told she has seven minutes before she dies.
"I'm coming for you, and it ain't gonna be pretty." Does this really need further explanation? Or did you just want confirmation she actually said it?

Yes I saw this but where is video of her saying it?

[Endus]

So then how can someone be Islamophobic in the first place, Endus?

Are you expecting me to rationalize an objectively irrational point of view, or something?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It was disingenuous hand-waving and didn't even attempt to grapple with the argument or data. Even if one grants that the site is propagandistic in nature, the data is not a matter of opinion, it's either veridical or not. If you have relevant evidence to the contrary then I would be glad to see it, likewise if you know of a more neutral source that lists this data then I would be happy to use this to make my argument instead.



Are you suggesting there are any other groups that even come close to these numbers? There have been thousands upon thousands of Islamist atrocities since 9/11. It is self-evidently orders of magnitude higher than any other group you could list on a global scale, and so to even talk about comparisons is obscene.

The obsession with neutrality in the face of these realities is an unfailing sign of moral confusion and grotesque ignorance.

The data is most defiantly a matter of opinion as non of it is sourced. The site literally backs up nothing and when questioned they say in there QA that it’s because story’s can change which is a bull excuse.

[Orbitus]

Decided to watch the video finally. The guy in the video is anti-semitic, homophobic, and sensationalist. I regret every moment I spent listening to his rant.

Yeah, when I heard that he started talking shit about the Bernstein fellow, less than a minute in, I turned it off. Doesn't surprise me that the right wingers are cheering him and this little alt-right white supremacist darling on.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes I saw this but where is video of her saying it?

Youtube took it down. How can you not understand this?

[Endus]

No, I'm expecting you to rationalize the description of Islamophobia if the of Islamophobia makes no sense based on your view of Religion being so loose and variable that you can't even really call people with alterations of Islam believers in Islam.

I didn't say the latter thing.

I said trying to describe "Islam" beyond the broadest strokes is nearly impossible due to the variations among its followers.

[WowClassic]

The argument and data were bullshit propaganda.

That's all the "grappling" a hate-speech site deserves.

"Those numbers" are complete horseshit to begin with. That's the point.

The entire idea of trying to justify hatemongering against a religious group because of the actions of a few extremists is such horseshit it deserves nothing but denigration and contempt.

I mean just screaming "hate" isn't the most convincing argument, although I know it's fashionable these days. I'm surprised you haven't used the world Islamaphobe a few times already though. I can see you are utterly unreachable, but your opinions are ignorant and harmful to our culture so I'll just leave this here for anyone that actually might be open-minded on these questions:

[CamdenQ]

Any chance of some context or actual information to make a judgement or you just trying to peddle some outrage to people who don't understand that Free Speech means fuck all on private platforms?

Actually, in America at least Free Speech means quite a lot on private platforms, because a platform does not have editorial control over the information that travels across it, but also don't have liability for it. This way, if someone says something libelous/slanderous on the platform, those running the platform cannot be sued.

Publishers do have editorial control, but they have greater liability as well. If a publisher's product is used to spread libelous/slanderous material, the publisher is liable right along with the author.

Now, both platforms and publishers are liable if they allow illegal materials to be transmitted across their product, such as incitement to violence or child pornography (the platform is not liable if they can show that they did not allow this, and they take action against it any time they're made aware of it).

The problem with websites like YouTube and Twitter is that they're claiming to be platforms, like you claimed for them, but they're acting like publishers anyway.

If a website has any say in the content being spread on it (beyond obvious things like preventing illegal activity or ensuring that for instance a forum doesn't get off topic), then they need to be held liable when libel/slander is spread on it.

Either YouTube stays out of the debate, or they need to be held accountable for their part in it.

At the end of the day, screaming "private company! private company!" does not absolve these websites of responsibility for their one-sided practices.

That's before we even get into the fact that YouTube especially actively courted many of the content creators they have now demonitized or banned. They advertised their product as a way for them to make money, often contacting the creators directly and soliciting their business personally, and then kicked these people off the site for doing exactly what they had always been doing.

This gets into the "false advertising" legal territory.

[derpkitteh]

No, I'm expecting you to rationalize the description of Islamophobia if the of Islamophobia makes no sense based on your view of Religion being so loose and variable that you can't even really call people with alterations of Islam believers in Islam.

i feel like people like this have never read a single line of any holy text.

i've read the bible from start to finish. there's times it tells you to be peaceful, and times it tells you to be violent. it is a guide for a person to live their life according to god's will. in general, it wants you to be peaceful. but if someone breaks biblical law, it sets punishments for that violation.

it does muddy itself a bit, because you are required to obey the laws of the land, which are usually counter to biblical law. so an abortion clinic bomber IS somewhat breaking his religion's commands. but i can't remember if there's anything comparable to islam's matyrdom in christianity. if there is, then bam, there's your excuse to get to heaven.

[Deadite]

But you continue living in ignorance, come back when you have real proof that Vox is worse than any right leaning source that you can find.

Never said Vox was worse nor do i care about right leaning sites or left leaning sites. I said that Vox is a joke. Did you even read your own link? I noticed you glossed over the description of the strong left bias. Each to their own i guess.

It is odd that the site you link said that 'A factual search reveals that the Daily Signal has not failed a fact check' but its 'Factual Reporting: MIXED' Sound like they are both propagandists. They frame the facts in a way complement their narrative. Both sound like a poor sources to me.

You’re the one whining about and defending it, so...

Since i am doing neither....

[WowClassic]

The data is most defiantly a matter of opinion as non of it is sourced. The site literally backs up nothing and when questioned they say in there QA that it’s because story’s can change which is a bull excuse.

Data is objective and therefore by definition not a matter of opinion, it's either true data or false data. I expect a site run by volunteers to contain some number of inconsistencies or errors, that is a given, but as a general ballpark estimate of the number of global Islamist attacks I have not seen any evidence to suggest it is wildly fabricated or off the mark. I don't need absolute precision to make my case, anyone who looks at the number of people being killed every month by Islamist extremists and doesn't conclude that this is the greatest ideological threat the world faces is an imbecile and a coward in my book.

[unbound]

Never said Vox was worse nor do i care about right leaning sites or left leaning sites. I said that Vox is a joke. Did you even read your own link? I noticed you glossed over the description of the strong left bias. Each to their own i guess.

It is odd that the site you link said that 'A factual search reveals that the Daily Signal has not failed a fact check' but its 'Factual Reporting: MIXED' Sound like they are both propagandists. They frame the facts in a way complement their narrative. Both sound like a poor sources to me.




Since i am doing neither....

rofl

Media Bias Fact Check? You need to learn better sources.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst." Van Zandt describes himself as someone with "more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence." The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Data is objective and therefore by definition not a matter of opinion, it's either true data or false data. I expect a site run by volunteers to contain some number of inconsistencies or errors, that is a given, but as a general ballpark estimate of the number of global Islamist attacks I have not seen any evidence to suggest it is wildly fabricated or off the mark. I don't need absolute precision to make my case, anyone who looks at the number of people being killed every month by Islamist extremists and doesn't conclude that this is the greatest ideological threat the world faces is an imbecile and a coward in my book.

Yes data is objective that’s the whole point, nothing on that site is objective as non of it is backed up by any thing at all. You just as the site are presenting theses things as facts with literally no evidence.

Rather you believe abunch of unverified reports with nothing to back them up is a opinion it’s not data.

[Deadite]

rofl

Media Bias Fact Check? You need to learn better sources.

Tell it to the guy that linked them. I was just responding to him. My only point is that Vox is a joke.

[perkocet]

Again. I point to the litany of death threats in the world of gaming you guys don't seem to be making threads about.

This is a very, very silly point you're trying to make. The 'litany of death threats in the world of gaming' aren't getting threads because those death threats don't include usually the fact that A)they're armed and B)they KNOW YOUR ADDRESS. I see the point you're trying to make, but it's just a bad comparison.

[The Stormbringer]

This is a very, very silly point you're trying to make. The 'litany of death threats in the world of gaming' aren't getting threads because those death threats don't include usually the fact that A)they're armed and B)they KNOW YOUR ADDRESS. I see the point you're trying to make, but it's just a bad comparison.

And also that C) They don't care if they die and D) They don't care if your children die.

[WowClassic]

Yes data is objective that’s the whole point, nothing on that site is objective as non of it is backed up by any thing at all. You just as the site are presenting theses things as facts with literally no evidence.

Rather you believe abunch of unverified reports with nothing to back them up is a opinion it’s not data.

They should link sources but come on, it's pretty easy to verify yourself.

For example I picked an attack at random:

2019.05.16 Chad Ceilia 13 0 Thirteen villagers are slaughtered by Islamic militants.

Google search "Chad Ceilia 13" and their is a whole slew of articles documenting the attack: https://punchng.com/boko-haram-milit...agers-in-chad/

You can do this for as long as you want, as hard as a reality it is to swallow this is the world we live in.