Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Anderson

  1. Another useful reference - The Rabat Plan of Action https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/freedomopinion/articles19-20/pages/index.aspx
  2. https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/ns-oh-god-how-is-this-legal
  3. I suggest to put money into guaranteeing that it's illegal for police to use expired tear gas, electroshock weapons and resort to torture or inhuman, degrading treatment. Give them mental and psychological check ups. Lots of police become biased when working in the field too much. To the point when they don't see innocent people anymore - dumping innocents into party wagons and breaking lives every day. The way police currently operates, makes them barely more tolerable than criminals. Sometimes organized crime wins since they try to maintain at least some principles - otherwise organized crime wouldn't survive. Despite that, there isn't anything good about organized crime. The reason this comparison comes up in general is because both worry more about their image than what they're actually up to.
  4. I can't say 100% about the common law system, but generally malicious intent as part of the subjective element of crime does not require a confession. Even if one pleads not guilty, malicious intent can still be found if evidence points at it. There's many studies: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/655135/IPOL_STU(2020)655135_EN.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/gdc/gdcovop/2014360654/2014360654.pdf https://scm.bz/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=https%3A%2F%2Fscm.bz%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F04%2FHate_Speech_Report_EN_03.pdf&download=true&print=true&openfile=false https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedzqth56hl3l2t7vfj6bvc2layq4g5kvcjerkf7iqnsbag6uibwlg?filename=Anne Weber - Manual on Hate Speech-Council of Europe Publishing (2009).pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10677-019-10002-0.pdf Banning hate speech helps both parties of the conflict. Otherwise the voices of those who commit, spread and encourage violence are amplified. There was violence against police and there was police brutality. It happens every day, especially at almost every riot. So, what's bad about defunding the police?
  5. Porn is art. Now this is next gen police abuse - using copyright to block access to information. Unexpected consequences for copyrasts.
  6. Decriminalization of homosexuality, of drug consumption and other progressive movements go in tandem with the adoption of hate speech laws to protect and safeguard these achievements. Else, all of these efforts would have been only half steps. We already see how democracy is eroding, rule of law goes down a slippery slope in Poland, Hungary, Russia, Turkey.
  7. True. At the same time all laws require a degree of abstraction in order to be applied correctly. In principle all laws require a "good faith human analysis". That's why homosexuality criminalization laws eventually became obsolete and at the end they were repealed when society wouldn't resist it too much anymore. It's an evolutionary process. Something changes, disappears, other things remain the same.
  8. I think context depends not only on the book, speech but also it implies a certain social context in each region. So if Germans hate on Jews too much you can ban something to cool things down. Then when Jews get integrated better in society you can relax the ban. Hate speech laws probably shouldn't be indefinite either. Sadly I guess that'll happen when there won't be shootings in Palestine anymore. Not too soon. Laws themselves sometimes discriminate and provoke hate speech, hate crimes against minorities. For example the restriction to wear a niqab that conceals the entire body and face in a courtroom prevented the applicant from appearing before court as summoned. Therefore she was fined. This constituted a violation the applicant's right to manifest her religion. It is also a form of intersection discrimination based on gender and religion. It's hypocritical too because you don't see these rules applied to people who wear masks and who also conceal their faces. Double standards. At the time masks weren't mandatory but I wonder what are the latest developments on this in France. Sonia Yaker v. France https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsjvfIjqiI84ZFd1DNP1S9EJKqYIhlmL6rhNwXcqOYJuUH9VE6Tyb9XTHWEHhF9nf4xnwrkTHOoRf0UGeTt71ldOVTOS8UARQkjHV6izalS45LLW1wZ11zTW1%2bfp4LoonzA%3d%3d
  9. Anderson

    Free games

    Without any prior giveaway - Samorost 1 is now free on Steam and GOG. I didn't see any time limits for taking it: https://www.gog.com/game/samorost_1 https://store.steampowered.com/app/1580970/Samorost_1/
  10. They are first and foremost art and history to me. A lot of fictitious events impossible to prove too. Is your argument that just because art contains violence or disturbing content then it should fall under hate speech? We have better candidates such as American Psycho, especially the book. I recommend it strongly. It is anything but. We've already established that context is everything. A thorough, good faith human analysis by independent decision making bodies can correctly identify hate speech - I believe so. It's all about the human factor empowered to apply the long arm of the law.
  11. This approach is not sufficient for hate speech because the latter is applied to current struggles and controversies. and not to extinct conflicts of the past. So the way to balance free speech and freedom of religion, conscience and thought is to ban extremist derivative offshoots from religious, philosophical works. The Bible and Quran written thousands of years ago simply do not produce the same social resonance as modern interpretations of them. Some modern interpretations are hate speech against groups that exist today. None of that means that it's illegal to study these materials for your own private, educational purposes. Nor is it illegal to make art or science based on these materials. All that hate speech is designed to do is make restricted content harder to access and spread.
  12. That's a leading, suggestive question. Wikipedia is no panacea - in spite of this, as a rule, it is provides some good references to start research.
  13. I learned that the best music is some soundtrack playlist. Ideally with timestamps. Clear, loud lyrics also carry the danger of distracting when you start singing along. Unfortunately I needed music all the time to block out undesirable sounds and focus on the task. The nr. 1 rule is that music doesn't become another thing that procrastinates work. Need to get stuff done. Get a draft with at least half the content ready as it is. Then focus on perfectionism when it's almost ready. So it can be any music. Good music does not have a genre.
  14. I am not a guru to give the universal definition of what is hate speech in this forum. States adopt whatever laws they so desire. Possibilities to harmonize laws are always welcome. But we haven't reached that point yet. I've already pointed out that there are numerous recommendations, drafts, projects to accelerate unified regulations and practices in this respect. Make what you will of it. The tendency is unarguably towards criminalizing hate speech. Can't stop it. We don't live in a perfect world. You can't expect everyone to magically agree on a certain policy instantly. That's not how legislative process works. Look at the war on drugs. Decriminalization of drugs is very slow, but it still goes on with mixed success in different countries. Other countries like Russia, on the contrary imposed more severe penalties against drugs users and dealers. Bottom line - a magic wand to fix hate speech does not exist. That's why hate speech laws are the first step to solve the problem. You are correct that the rich use the poor when maneuvering for power. Everybody can make mistakes. Nobody is prescient or without fault. However I don't understand how hate speech should be extrapolated to compare it with censorship in North Korea. In other words, North Korea is lawless. It is only lawful evil in name only. In reality state actors there, like in any dictatorship have absolute discretion - no checks and balances. Every decision can be made arbitrarily. Each arbitrariness reinforces ordinary citizens' situation of being mere bargaining chips for total control over the region. You are mistaken though to see this as some kind of communist conspiracy. Communism is just a label. Eastern Europe is still plagued by old problems from USSR in mentality and so on. Hate speech laws though are progressive norms that can work if implemented correctly by the right people. You can turn any good law into a bad one by using bad faith techniques. For example you can make fake victims of human trafficking to testify against innocent people to make an appearance of super justice. In reality the fake victims were prostitutes who worked for their pimps. That's not justice. But it helps the USAID justify its grants as foreign aid to other countries. But as usual nobody cares. I see where you're coming from. I understand that you want to say enforcing certain laws against the rich - such as money laundering is more important than hate speech laws. I agree with that. More serious crimes should be investigated with priority. But technically it's all about properly implementing public policy and having the right people in power. If you see hate speech laws as an attempt to divide and conquer people based on disagreements between whites and other races... Well, IMHO the way is just to deal with these laws and accepting that the stereotypical straight white male isn't perfect. There's more important stuff than to bother with this. There are still undeniable truths in any joke or stereotype. Regardless how small they may be. For example many Romani are undeducated, illiterate and therefore prone to crime. But that doesn't mean they don't deserve a place in society like many other illegal immigrants.
  15. The easiest thing to do is to look for what hate speech is rather than what it is not. Cherry picking hate speech laws does not address the challenges posed by free speech abuse. Ultimately time will show what is the outcome. Speeches increase aggression not as opposed by other factors. They contribute together with other factors. Hate speech sometimes works for books such as Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler but these rules work as long as these things are in mainstream politics. If Germans acknowledged the swastika 卍 simply as a historcal sign from Asia, probably laws banning propaganda of Nazism wouldn't be so strict anymore. So if you refer to that kind of media than yeah, that's hate speech. We both know that working class people simply don't do that on average. I come from a working class background and most of my friends also have that upbringing. Poverty, a lack of opportunities makes people do funny stuff. You should look more often at migrants who know what real hard life is like. They are also working class. And they can be victims of the white working class. Has been like that since forever when you have no money and influence. I don't see any ideology here. No conspiracy. It's just common sense. Sometimes brain-dead sub-humans are the working class lumpensproletariat, other times its the bourgeoisie rich - especially kids with old money. Everything is relative.
  • Create New...