Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Taliban are amassing for war


Kurshok
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:

Report it to who? This isn't Twitter. I've never seen the mods here remove anything unless it's obvious spam or includes links to illegal content.

Depends where you live. In the US (where I assume the OP is, given that he mentions voting for Biden), insults and swear words are most definitely free speech protected by the First Amendment. In the UK the protection is much weaker, but swearing and insults are not generally unlawful unless you are actually considered to be "stirring up hatred" of particular protected groups (so criticising Muhammad is lawful but "all Muslims are pigshit" is legally risky). I have heard that mere insults can be unlawful in Germany but I don't know the exact extent of that law or how it is enforced in practice.

I didn't say all muslims are pigshit. I said their belief systems are. Its primitive nonsense that makes people who would otherwise be good and compassionate into brainwashed stooges of a long-dead warlord, willing to disown their own daughters for refusing to dress in a body bag or kill their own children for being an apostate in a so-called honour killing. Yes, not every muslim is an extremist, but society's current "live and let live" attitude towards letting Muslims deal with their own society-within-a-society is resulting in people being harassed and even worse. Lest we forget the child grooming gangs of the UK, where the police were afraid to stop the rape of actual children for fear of angry Muslims starting a race riot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kurshok said:

I am autistic. Was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, which was later lumped in with High Functioning Autist.

And you chose this forum to be a victim / witness of your episodes because...?

I'd rather see TDM-related topics in the recent activity list 😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, peter_spy said:

And you chose this forum to be a victim / witness of your episodes because...?

I'd rather see TDM-related topics in the recent activity list 😕

I figured off-topic would be a place to talk with people about current events. We "gamers" are the most intelligent about smart stuff like that, according to most internet people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, there is no "we, the gamers" as a defined, coherent group. It's a myth that was dispelled decades ago. "Gamers" are as smart and coherent as "book-readers" or simply, people, so not really.

And, by pouring your panicked and hateful thoughts over the forums, i.e. wishing someone had their throats slit, you made this discussion not smart from the get-go.

Last but not least, long rants about current politics are like talking about the weather. It's something we have almost no control over, and by definition, i.e. by living in the current times, we have the least information available. Talking about past history is interesting, because e.g. academics and researchers made certain facts come to light, and politicians or other groups that have tried their best to keep some facts secret are long dead. Ranting about current politics is more like old man yelling at clouds.

Again, why don't you choose some news site or forums as an outlet, instead of a niche hobby-based forums?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kurshok said:

I didn't say all muslims are pigshit. I said their belief systems are. Its primitive nonsense that makes people who would otherwise be good and compassionate into brainwashed stooges of a long-dead warlord, willing to disown their own daughters for refusing to dress in a body bag or kill their own children for being an apostate in a so-called honour killing. Yes, not every muslim is an extremist, but society's current "live and let live" attitude towards letting Muslims deal with their own society-within-a-society is resulting in people being harassed and even worse. Lest we forget the child grooming gangs of the UK, where the police were afraid to stop the rape of actual children for fear of angry Muslims starting a race riot.

Your exact words were "Sunni or Shiite, they're all a load of pigshit for praising a child-molesting, mass murdering, borderline retarded warlord like Muhammad." This is targeted at muslims, not their belief system. You give their belief system as a reason, why you target them, but the statement stands. As I said, around these topics, it is very important to be precise with your statements.

Regarding the "is this hate speech" question: you can dislike and criticise the religion and acts done in its name all you want. That is, in my opinion, even very welcome. However, a statement like "I'd support sending troops in to slit their throats like the fucking Islamofascist pigs they are." is an invitation for violence and thus is hate speech. As I said: I would not shut this thread down (and in contrast to peter_spy find stuff like that worth discussing, this being the "off-topic" section, which explicitly states "You can post almost anything in here"), given that it actually stays an objective discussion (as far as this is possible) and not turns into another platform for hate speech and persecution.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Destined To make myself clear, I'm not for shutting down all political discussions here (as you correctly noted, this is offtopic after all). Nor do I believe in "keep politics out of our games" crap, (quite the opposite, actually). The last paragraph was just my opinion on such discussions, that's why I prefer to read them (from time to time) rather than take part.

I do object the level of discussion Kurshok sets in his topics though (and, this is not the first time this happens). In my opinion, he's not that far from e.g. Outlooker. I guess they are being banned elsewhere rather quickly, so at some point forums like these remain their only place to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Destined said:

Your exact words were "Sunni or Shiite, they're all a load of pigshit for praising a child-molesting, mass murdering, borderline retarded warlord like Muhammad." This is targeted at muslims, not their belief system. You give their belief system as a reason, why you target them, but the statement stands. As I said, around these topics, it is very important to be precise with your statements.

Regarding the "is this hate speech" question: you can dislike and criticise the religion and acts done in its name all you want. That is, in my opinion, even very welcome. However, a statement like "I'd support sending troops in to slit their throats like the fucking Islamofascist pigs they are." is an invitation for violence and thus is hate speech. As I said: I would not shut this thread down (and in contrast to peter_spy find stuff like that worth discussing, this being the "off-topic" section, which explicitly states "You can post almost anything in here"), given that it actually stays an objective discussion (as far as this is possible) and not turns into another platform for hate speech and persecution.

I was talking about the Taliban and Islamic Theocratic leaders, not the common folk, when I referred to throatslitting. I am very much in the "violent secular revolt" category for dealing with those who try to force religion down people's throats. Furthermore, I'll admit I misspelled "Shia" in reference to Sunni and Shia Islam, instead as Shiite, a practitioner of Shia. That one's on me.

Edited by Kurshok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, peter_spy said:

First of all, there is no "we, the gamers" as a defined, coherent group. It's a myth that was dispelled decades ago. "Gamers" are as smart and coherent as "book-readers" or simply, people, so not really.

And, by pouring your panicked and hateful thoughts over the forums, i.e. wishing someone had their throats slit, you made this discussion not smart from the get-go.

Last but not least, long rants about current politics are like talking about the weather. It's something we have almost no control over, and by definition, i.e. by living in the current times, we have the least information available. Talking about past history is interesting, because e.g. academics and researchers made certain facts come to light, and politicians or other groups that have tried their best to keep some facts secret are long dead. Ranting about current politics is more like old man yelling at clouds.

Again, why don't you choose some news site or forums as an outlet, instead of a niche hobby-based forums?

Instantly, when I read the topic title and author, I was like "oh no, it's gonna be one of those again". 😄

Sorry @Kurshok, but your threads are always hard to follow and borderline hate-speech. Thanks @Destined for taking the time to analyze this thread and calling Kurshok out. I usually just skip these threads these days... 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, nbohr1more said:

Financial institutions ( banks, credit card companies, paypal, etc ) are now acting on behalf of their clients so if "offense" material is hosted anywhere that a propaganda team "concerned citizens" can find it and point at it then they will contact those institutions and have them disable the financial accounts of the site hosts.

True, but so far I haven't heard of this resulting in the shutdown of random web forums, other than those specifically dedicated to extremism like Daily Stormer.

14 hours ago, Anderson said:

Hate speech is a legit legal, human rights doctrine: https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech

Sorry I have no idea what a "legit legal, human rights doctrine" is. The Council of Europe is not a worldwide lawmaking body and their propaganda and PR material (which is all the link contains) is not legal fact. What I posted earlier is 100% correct. There is no concept of "hate speech" in US law under the First Amendment, and the existence of the concept varies considerably amongst other countries (even those in Europe). In fact your own link says so explicitly:

Quote

Hate speech has no particular definition in international human rights; it is a term used to describe broad discourse that is extremely negative and constitutes a threat to social peace.

It's a colloquial, everyday term used to describe different things by different people. It has no precise legal definition.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be for closing or deleting threads such as these on sight, not least to prevent everyone trying to engage with it from getting dragged through the dirt. I don't even think this is primarily a matter of free speech in the sense of being able to express an opinion, but of upholding an acceptable standard of discourse in our community.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kurshok said:

I figured off-topic would be a place to talk with people about current events. We "gamers" are the most intelligent about smart stuff like that, according to most internet people.

Still sounds as trolling (you're trolling "us gamers" being "smartass aspies like me" and other stereotypical aspects according to "internet people" - other gamers ).

I repeat: the real goal of the thread is pure trolling using "Simplified Islam" as a lever/trap.

-> trying to engage with it from getting dragged through the dirt

Exactly: let's bring havoc: "you're so smart and intelligent!!111" + "slit throats!!111 kill them all!!!1111"

Edited by lowenz
  • Sad 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lowenz said:

Still sounds as trolling (you're trolling "us gamers" being "smartass aspies like me" and other stereotypical aspects).

I repeat: the real goal of the thread is pure trolling using "Simplified Islam" as a lever/trap.

-> trying to engage with it from getting dragged through the dirt

Exactly

I'm not trolling. I'm just critical of Islam due to a mixture of its hateful beliefs, the nastiness of its founder, and the mindboggling amount of mental acrobatics people are willing to go through to not only defend what they would otherwise find indefensible (sexism, theocratic authoritarianism, homophobia) as long as it's done in the name of Islam, along with the childish actions of screeching like recently castrated eunuchs for "CENSOR HIM! HE SPOKE OUT AGAINST MUHAMMAD! HERETIC! HERETIC!!!"

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, STiFU said:

Instantly, when I read the topic title and author, I was like "oh no, it's gonna be one of those again". 😄

Sorry @Kurshok, but your threads are always hard to follow and borderline hate-speech. Thanks @Destined for taking the time to analyze this thread and calling Kurshok out for his hate-speech. I usually just skip these threads these days... 

Criticism of religion isn't hate speech. If I were calling for the extermination of all Muslims, that would count as hate speech. All I'm saying is that Islam is fundamentally flawed and that organized Islam is a plague on the human race in regards to human rights abuses and the silencing of dissent and human rights via acts of organized murder and terrorism, and that non-Islamic countries of the world need to reject the endless excuses the Islamic communities of the world vomit forth, take a critical look at Islam and Muhammad, and set to work dismantling the power of Islam in the political world. No more setting up "community within a community" where daughters and wives are beaten and murdered for apostasy or refusal of wearing a veil, no more endlessly demonizing people who speak out against the hateful beliefs of Islam. Islam needs to be bitch-slapped into the 21st century and forced to endure the same criticisms and reforms other religions have been made to go through. If Islam is unable to survive being held to the same standards as other religions, such as not being allowed to execute apostates, then that's tough titty.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OrbWeaver said:

Sorry I have no idea what a "legit legal, human rights doctrine" is. The Council of Europe is not a worldwide lawmaking body and their propaganda and PR material (which is all the link contains) is not legal fact. What I posted earlier is 100% correct. There is no concept of "hate speech" in US law under the First Amendment, and the existence of the concept varies considerably amongst other countries (even those in Europe). In fact your own link says so explicitly:

It's a colloquial, everyday term used to describe different things by different people. It has no precise legal definition.

Ofc they are not a worldwide lawmaking body. But they contribute heavily alongside the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court of Human Rights to the same goal.

Neither can solely the US dictate what free speech means. Our standards human rights have an evolutive interpretation. The European Convention on Human Rights is a "living instrument" to be viewed in light of present-day conditions. The strict method of interpreting the US Constitution from the POV of the "founding fathers" keeps us in the 18'th century.

In any case, there is already a well established jurisprudence allowing moderation to ensure anonymous user's liability: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155105

 

Agreed that no precise legal definition poses a challenge. But it is not an impediment to identify such cases. Bad laws can be interpreted well by good lawyers. That's why the US doesn't rely on laws but on legal precedent. In Europe soft law does this job well. To this end, fairly good descriptions have been made by international human rights institutions in offering their legal expertise. For example a few extracts from the judgement above:

"48. In his report of 16 May 2011 (A/HRC/17/27) to the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression stated the following.

25.  As such, legitimate types of information which may be restricted include child pornography (to protect the rights of children), hate speech (to protect the rights of affected communities), defamation (to protect the rights and reputation of others against unwarranted attacks), direct and public incitement to commit genocide (to protect the rights of others), and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (to protect the rights of others, such as the right to life).

...

27.  In addition, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that due to the unique characteristics of the Internet, regulations or restrictions which may be deemed legitimate and proportionate for traditional media are often not so with regard to the Internet. For example, in cases of defamation of individuals reputation, given the ability of the individual concerned to exercise his/her right of reply instantly to restore the harm caused, the types of sanctions that are applied to offline defamation may be unnecessary or disproportionate. ...

...

43.  The Special Rapporteur believes that censorship measures should never be delegated to a private entity, and that no one should be held liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author. Indeed, no State should use or force intermediaries to undertake censorship on its behalf ...

...

74.  Intermediaries play a fundamental role in enabling Internet users to enjoy their right to freedom of expression and access to information. Given their unprecedented influence over how and what is circulated on the Internet, States have increasingly sought to exert control over them and to hold them legally liable for failing to prevent access to content deemed to be illegal.

49.  A Joint Declaration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS (Organization of American States) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, adopted on 21 December 2005, stated the following:

No one should be liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author, unless they have either adopted that content as their own or refused to obey a court order to remove that content."

 

and

 

"[16].  Hate speech remains undefined. There is no universally accepted definition of hate speech. The term encompasses a wide array of hateful messages, ranging from offensive, derogatory, abusive and negative stereotyping remarks and comments, to intimidating, inflammatory speech inciting violence against specific individuals and groups. Only the most egregious forms of hate speech, namely those constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, are generally considered unlawful (Report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák (A/HRC/28/64), Human Rights Council, Twenty-eighth session)."

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Kurshok said:

Criticism of religion isn't hate speech. If I were calling for the extermination of all Muslims, that would count as hate speech. All I'm saying is that Islam is fundamentally flawed and that organized Islam is a plague on the human race in regards to human rights abuses and the silencing of dissent and human rights via acts of organized murder and terrorism, and that non-Islamic countries of the world need to reject the endless excuses the Islamic communities of the world vomit forth, take a critical look at Islam and Muhammad, and set to work dismantling the power of Islam in the political world. No more setting up "community within a community" where daughters and wives are beaten and murdered for apostasy or refusal of wearing a veil, no more endlessly demonizing people who speak out against the hateful beliefs of Islam. Islam needs to be bitch-slapped into the 21st century and forced to endure the same criticisms and reforms other religions have been made to go through. If Islam is unable to survive being held to the same standards as other religions, such as not being allowed to execute apostates, then that's tough titty.

If you say it like that, I would agree that it is rather critisism and not hate speech. As I said before for these topics it is a fine line between the two. And while I agree that the atrocities you brought up are definitely backwards and not tolerable from western, liberal standards, the main problem in this case is that you cannot simply "make religions go through" reforms. In my opinion, the only way Islam could be more tempered would be, if you were able to convince their authority figures to accept human rights and tell their followers to do so as well. As you said, this would require a (re-)education of at least a couple of generations and will not be possible for a long while, if at all. At the same time, an intervention from outside would only strengthen the resolve of extremists and create martyrs for them. So a "proper American intervention" as you put it, would not only be useless, but rather counterproductive. Invasions have never helped to crush beliefs. Rather it forced believers to practice their belief in secret and fight against the oppressors.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Springheel said:

I've never heard a definition of "hate speech" that isn't completely subjective and destined to be applied inconsistently. 

Same about defamation, libel laws. But they still exist even if there's a degree of subjectivity to it all. It's not about a mathematically 100% precise definition. Such things do not exist and are impossible. Perfect laws don't exist neither. It's about the principle of tolerance.

Free speech activists advocacy groups usually don't fight for the right thing. What they really want is to say anything while never being held responsible for it. This has nothing in common with constructive dialogue. It's just vanity and pride. Forgetting that we all stand upon the shoulders of giants.

Always be mindful that hate speech is political correctness as it is attempted to be lumped into by politicians. Hate speech is a much more narrow, precise concept.

What I'm saying is - telling the truth doesn't mean that one has to personally attack someone. It can be done without that. Vehement language in an of itself is not a problem. It's when aggression is deliberately directed against an identifiable group of people.

So this is why to me it's obvious that the current trend to promote hate speech laws is a good thing.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Kurshok: You're upset about voting for Biden because he's pulling out of Afghanistan? I hope you realize that Trump also wanted to pull out of Afghanistan, his plans which were already in place were to pull out on September 11. The only difference being, Biden wants to pull out by August 30.

Edited by Jetrell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Anderson said:

Same about defamation, libel laws. But they still exist even if there's a degree of subjectivity to it all. It's not about a mathematically 100% precise definition. Such things do not exist and are impossible. Perfect laws don't exist neither. It's about the principle of tolerance.

You're right, there is a certain parallel between "hate speech" and libel laws, which is why the over-broad drafting of libel laws can be similarly dangerous. In the US, which again is the "gold standard" for freedom of speech, libel is defined very narrowly, and convicting someone of libelling a public figure is extremely difficult. For example, it is not libellous to call someone an idiot, but it is libellous to falsely accuse them of being a convicted child molester.

Under English law, libel and defamation is much easier to prove, and truth isn't even a defence, which means you can be convicted of libel even for saying something that is 100% true, if it is considered to damage the reputation of the plaintiff.

15 hours ago, Anderson said:

Free speech activists advocacy groups usually don't fight for the right thing. What they really want is to say anything while never being held responsible for it.

Depends what you mean by "being held responsible".

What free speech advocates want is the right to say anything without being punished by the government (or other powerful bodies). That is what free speech means: the right to speak freely. Not the right to say only nice things that everybody agrees with.

If "being held responsible" just refers to subsequent criticism and condemnation when you say something ignorant or offensive, then that's perfectly fine. Free speech does not imply the right not to be criticised or called an idiot/bigot/arsehole for what you say.

15 hours ago, Anderson said:

This has nothing in common with constructive dialogue. It's just vanity and pride.

Quite possibly, but irrelevant. Free speech does not require "constructive dialogue", and the motivations of speakers are not a factor. A drunk, a schizophrenic, a raging narcissist, a university professor, a religious fundamentalist and a taxi driver all have exactly the same rights to speak freely, regardless of what they wish to say and why they want to say it.

15 hours ago, Anderson said:

What I'm saying is - telling the truth doesn't mean that one has to personally attack someone. It can be done without that. Vehement language in an of itself is not a problem. It's when aggression is deliberately directed against an identifiable group of people.

Again, true, but irrelevant to the issue of free speech. Personal attacks and aggression fall entirely within the remit of free speech, unpleasant as they may be. And as long as people choose to organise themselves into groups, and use those group identities as a cover to push for political change, other people should have the right to criticise and condemn (even in an insulting manner) the behaviour of those groups.

15 hours ago, Anderson said:

So this is why to me it's obvious that the current trend to promote hate speech laws is a good thing.

Well you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. But it seems similarly obvious to me that hate speech laws have not achieved a single benefit to human society, and there is no evidence that even a single violent attack has been prevented by attempts to censor speech. People don't stop hating other people just because you delete their Facebook posts or arrest them for tweeting — in fact authoritarian behaviour by governments seems like a fantastic way to increase levels of hatred (against the government itself, or the people that the government claims to be protecting).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a general problem, present to a greater or lesser degree in any country, with governments breaking their finger on the nose to define what is freedom of expression and what is not. I think we all have different opinions on this issue, but in general it is absolutely clear that one thing is an opinion, if it is objective and verifiable, although certain people may not like it and from uttering lies, defamations intentionally to harm or discredit others, the latter certainly has nothing to do with freedom of expression.
Regarding Islam, this in its origin is no worse than any other religion. But just as in Christianity, there are dozens of different branches, some more liberal and others more strict and orthodox. Defining everyone equally, globalizing them all as rapists and terrorists is certainly a mistake, it is like saying that Christianity is harmful, because there are groups like the KKK.
The other problem in Muslim countries is that they are largely theocratic countries, can anyone imagine in their country that it is governed theocratically by the Catholic Church, which applies the laws of the Bible? Just thinking about it gives me nightmares.
Well, this is what happens in many of these countries, not because of the people, more or less believers, but who are forced to comply with the mandates so as not to run the risk of being stoned, beheaded or lose any limb.
In a Catholic theocracy, the panorama would not be much better, the Vatican to this day has not yet signed the declaration of human rights and has not criticized torture or the death penalty. They pay with Euros, but the Vatican does not belong to the European Union, because it does not meet the requirements to be.

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H2

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:

You're right, there is a certain parallel between "hate speech" and libel laws, which is why the over-broad drafting of libel laws can be similarly dangerous. In the US, which again is the "gold standard" for freedom of speech, libel is defined very narrowly, and convicting someone of libelling a public figure is extremely difficult. For example, it is not libellous to call someone an idiot, but it is libellous to falsely accuse them of being a convicted child molester.

Under English law, libel and defamation is much easier to prove, and truth isn't even a defence, which means you can be convicted of libel even for saying something that is 100% true, if it is considered to damage the reputation of the plaintiff.

Depends what you mean by "being held responsible".

What free speech advocates want is the right to say anything without being punished by the government (or other powerful bodies). That is what free speech means: the right to speak freely. Not the right to say only nice things that everybody agrees with.

If "being held responsible" just refers to subsequent criticism and condemnation when you say something ignorant or offensive, then that's perfectly fine. Free speech does not imply the right not to be criticised or called an idiot/bigot/arsehole for what you say.

Quite possibly, but irrelevant. Free speech does not require "constructive dialogue", and the motivations of speakers are not a factor. A drunk, a schizophrenic, a raging narcissist, a university professor, a religious fundamentalist and a taxi driver all have exactly the same rights to speak freely, regardless of what they wish to say and why they want to say it.

Again, true, but irrelevant to the issue of free speech. Personal attacks and aggression fall entirely within the remit of free speech, unpleasant as they may be. And as long as people choose to organise themselves into groups, and use those group identities as a cover to push for political change, other people should have the right to criticise and condemn (even in an insulting manner) the behaviour of those groups.

Well you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. But it seems similarly obvious to me that hate speech laws have not achieved a single benefit to human society, and there is no evidence that even a single violent attack has been prevented by attempts to censor speech. People don't stop hating other people just because you delete their Facebook posts or arrest them for tweeting — in fact authoritarian behaviour by governments seems like a fantastic way to increase levels of hatred (against the government itself, or the people that the government claims to be protecting).

"Free speech" standards in the US didn't really develop due to the originalism doctrine prevailing with regard to this question up to present. But this can always change if the balance of power shifts to progressives for a period of time. Remember, it's also the same Constitution that proclaims a right to bear arms even though the entire world is moving to restrict and regulate the illegal circulation of firearms.

Hate speech laws can work best against those who already have a platform, an audience willing to defend violence. Common folk don't have that leverage if nobody's listening.

Also, violent speech can easily translate to violent actions if it's tolerated too much. People not only have the right to speak and impart information. They also have the right to cover themselves from disinformation.

Let's also not overlook the irony that the US is also the place where nefarious practices such as "free speech zones" continue to exist. The US also has the strictest and most savage Copyright laws in the world that severely hamper freedom of speech and the right to information. Copyright basically creates patents on information. This trend has unfortunately spread to other countries and has lead to the persecution of The Pirate Bay and many others.

 

I have split feelings about your last point. Sometimes covering up someone may encourage more violence. But on the other hand, neither does letting it slide in public guarantee that there will be debate. There will never be an ideal answer to all challenges in life. But neither can absolute free speech save us here.

I really love Snowden's piece on self-censorship as the most dangerous form of censorship. So, external censorship is not the culprit, really: https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/on-censorship-pt-1

Just pointing out that not a single violent attack has been prevented by external censorship does not mean that we should have ISIS executions and propaganda videos live every time they happen. Human attention span is also very limited. AFAIK an average human can keep in mind about 2-3 things concurrently. Everything else one may overlook or forget if it's not written down. So, frivolous mediocrities are only good at distracting us from what really matters in society's agenda.

I believe that's what hate speech laws are here for. To help find that golden balance between the 2 extremes - invasive censorship and complacency over hostility growing on a fantastic scale. I mean, that's what the internet was always famous for. Infinite rage, holy wars. How much of that is actually worth reading except just for the lulz over human stupidity? After all, polarization in society doesn't lead democracy to good places.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The freedom of each one ends, where it conflicts with the freedom of others. What is essential in a coexistence between people is respect and tolerance for what is different, not so much the opinions and creeds of each one.

The absolute truth does not exist, it is always relative and subjective.

Sys Specs Laptop Lenovo V145 15AST, AMD A9- 9425 Radeon R5 - 5 cores 3,1 GHz  RAM 8Gb, GPU 1+2 Gb -Win10 64 v21H2

Favorite online apps you may like too 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, Anderson said:

Same about defamation, libel laws. But they still exist even if there's a degree of subjectivity to it all. It's not about a mathematically 100% precise definition. Such things do not exist and are impossible. Perfect laws don't exist neither. It's about the principle of tolerance.

 

It depends on the country, obviously, but in North America you don't get sent to prison for defamation or libel...it just means the injured party can sue you, and they actually have to demonstrate damages in many cases.  Hate speech can result in jail time and does not have to involve someone bringing a suit against you.  They're not comparable.

And while perfect laws don't exist, that's not a valid reason to support bad ones.

 

 

20 hours ago, Anderson said:

Free speech activists advocacy groups usually don't fight for the right thing. What they really want is to say anything while never being held responsible for it. This has nothing in common with constructive dialogue. It's just vanity and pride. Forgetting that we all stand upon the shoulders of giants.

 

I tend to ignore it when people tell me what the other side "really wants", since it usually turns out to be inaccurate.  

 

20 hours ago, Anderson said:

Always be mindful that hate speech is political correctness as it is attempted to be lumped into by politicians. Hate speech is a much more narrow, precise concept.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say there.   If you think there is a coherent "precise" definition of hate speech, I'd love to hear it.

 

20 hours ago, Anderson said:

What I'm saying is - telling the truth doesn't mean that one has to personally attack someone. It can be done without that.

 

Yes, personal attacks are impolite and generally counter-productive.  But that doesn't mean they should be illegal. 

 

 

20 hours ago, Anderson said:

So this is why to me it's obvious that the current trend to promote hate speech laws is a good thing.

I don't know what the "why" is.  There are already separate laws (again, in NA, ymmv) against making death threats, inciting violence, or lying about a private citizen in order to damage their reputation/livelihood.  What are "hate speech" laws attempting to protect society from that isn't already covered by these things?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

 

On 7/7/2021 at 4:59 PM, lowenz said:

Iranian islamic revolution doctrine is really pseudomarxism+Islam, with the classic fascist love for the authoritarian rule where "spirit"=people=state+religion in mutual positive feedback.

It's really an islamic spin of Hegel/Plato ideal society model. So the pseudomarxism interpretation of the "Devilish West" is automatic, no, better,  inescapable/necessary.

It's not by chance that here in Italy, neo-fascists really are pro-Iran (and NOT "Persia"): they literally want to be italian pasdaran and they pursuit the same kind of "spiritual" revolution against "degenerated liberal values of the West".

Fascism by the book (Gentile's one :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile )

Not really sure about the amount of marxism in the Iranian islamic revolution doctrine, as it was a religious-based revolution against the Shah's authoritarianism. That said, by considering it as pseudomarxism as you said, it makes sense. Probably it was just a propaganda spin from the Ayatollahs who wanted to gain the image of "Nice Revolutionaries for the Greater Good" associated with marxism, it could have been an efficient way for them to hide the core of their objective behind their revolution: destroying freedom in Iran, banning alcohol, free speech, etc.

But the fact that neo-fascists in Italy are pro-Iran, that made me laugh: anti-freedom cultists are really the same everywhere, under the ideological paint-job you always find the same obsessions and objectives, lol. :laugh:

Regarding that Tarrio you mentioned in your post replying to Nbohr1more's revelations, keep in mind that the various crimes you're referring to are crimes he committed between 2004 and 2014, so that's not really relevant to his property destruction in 2021 (burning the stolen banner, a so-called "hate crime" it seems now if the banner happen to contain some specific words :rolleyes:). In a nutshell, it looks like the typical case of a low-level delinquent that got pardoned for being an informant on victimless crimes (gambling, growing weed, distributing steroids) and that, since he doesn't really know what to do with his life now, has now found a new calling as a political troll... the fact that he's been stealing things more than 15 years ago and dealing in stolen stuff almost 10 years ago are now irrelevant, as he paid for it by doing his time and becoming an informant, so JP Morgan's closing of his bank account is not "the legitimate punishment of a hard core criminal" but instead indeed a politically motivated move (possessing high-capacity EVULZ magazines for assault-military-grade-firearms-of-war-that-kill-and-that's-so-horrible may be a crime now, but that's from a law made on ideological basis to legally turn yesterday's citizens into instant criminals, not a legislation based on technical grounds -I mean this word in the sense of "engineering" and "shooting & reloading techniques").

Notice how he denied working undercover and informing the government, very probably for fear of getting a contract on his head by people he helped the government to throw in jail, and how the journalists of Reuters visibly went digging specifically into all the court transcripts and went to meet a former prosecutor in order to expose to everyone that this Tarrio did indeed worked undercover, with a complete disregard about the risks this create for his life should the people he denounced decide to kill him as a reprisal. I'm ready to bet that should he chose to be a political troll from the other side, the side of the Greater Good, the journalists would instead have taken great care not to expose this and even wouldn't have chose to dig in his past... I'd also tend to think that the journalists are very aware of the risks that exposing his undercover work involve about his safety and that they secretly hope that one of the gang members he informed the US gov about would kill him, but that's just me being unbearably critical of the Holy Journalists :D<_<
 

 

On 7/8/2021 at 12:14 AM, Kurshok said:

I didn't say all muslims are pigshit. I said their belief systems are. Its primitive nonsense that makes people who would otherwise be good and compassionate into brainwashed stooges of a long-dead warlord, willing to disown their own daughters for refusing to dress in a body bag or kill their own children for being an apostate in a so-called honour killing. Yes, not every muslim is an extremist, but society's current "live and let live" attitude towards letting Muslims deal with their own society-within-a-society is resulting in people being harassed and even worse. Lest we forget the child grooming gangs of the UK, where the police were afraid to stop the rape of actual children for fear of angry Muslims starting a race riot.

The problem is that the words you're using are way too violent for today's society standards, where the average citizen can barely bear to be yelled at, claims to suffer from PTSD for a couple of insults read on the Internet, and collapses psychologically at the mere thought of having to fight, even if it's fighting to defend the Enlightenment Era's heritage that, actually, the average citizens today wouldn't know what it's about, as he/she is primarily obsessed with consuming always more and more to fill the void in their lives, buying the last smartphone each year even if it would bankrupt them, posing in "selfies" to get approval and to do like everyone, etc.

Don't expect these kind of people to defend values such as the right to free speech and the right to criticize religion, they simply do not understand, in the technical "my brain cannot fathom" meaning of the term, the importance of these concepts. All that matters for them is the brand new smartphone, their followers' reaction to their selfies on Twitter or Facebook, getting drunk at the end of the week, and basically what could be called living the life of a drone as long as they can. When you have a majority of people like that in a society, such as the end of the Ancient Roman society where the majority of citizens were only concerned about 1) having bread and 2) watching sports, that society is unsalvageable. There is nothing you can do about it, the scale of the problem is way too big for a single individual to solve it, even if it was a dictator with full powers.

As a result, getting agitated and angry about the rape and sexual torture based on religious hatred in cities like Telford and Rotterham, as revolting as these acts are (and as revolting as the lack of action of the authorities by "fear to offend" is), is useless as it can't and will not solve the problem, as the problem cannot be solved anyway. I've discovered recently that a cartel leader in Mexico has dismembered alive a six-years-old girl just because he could, and several months ago I've learn that a 13 years-old girl with Down syndrome had been decapitated along with her drug-stashing grandmother by cartel members that believed that they had ratted on them: same thing, that's atrocious, but there's nothing you can do about that.


Also, as a general rule, insulting or threatening religious drones is counter-productive: christians, muslims and judaists are the first to divide Mankind between the Good Believers of their respective herds and the Evulz Unbeliever that they'd eagerly kill any time they can, but if you insult them or express the same level of hostility toward them that they express themselves toward the "unbelievers", they'll always play the victims and pretend to be the nice ones oppressed and threatened by "Dem Evulz Atheists".

So, don't offer them the occasion to pose as victims, instead when you want to criticize them, focus on the basis of their beliefs: that for instance there are not the single historical proof of the existence of their "prophets" (jesus, muhamad etc) except a couple of books that are just hearsay without any chronological datation, compared to, say, Ancient Egypt whom we can trace a precise chronology regarding the existence of every celebrity of this era (Ramses II, Hatshepsut, Cleopatra etc) dating several thousand years before the mythical figures from the so-called "holy books" of religions. When you start aiming for the foundations of their cults, the whole house of cards collapses and that hurts much more their cults than insulting them or hating them, because they can't pose as victims.
You can also quote François Cavanna, who said: "A religion is a cult that succeeded.:D :)


But anyway, there is also one very important thing to keep in mind: when you are blowing off steam using "hateful words that is soooo bad", not only that's counter-productive as I stated above, but that's also putting everyone at risk here.

Because due to the way that society has shifted today, some people focused on maintaining an ambiance of censorship in society are very eager to jump on the first occasion to obtain the banning of WrongThink to keep making examples, and be certain that there are a lot of journalists that will provide a fair and balanced narrative of the facts:


"... in other news, after a long legal struggle, anti-racist NGOs were finally successful in their efforts to obtain the deplatforming of a free game forum called "The Dark Mo Forums", short for "Dark MotherFucker", a racist-themed dog-whistle term.

On this forum, users could gather to discuss their work on "The Dark Mod", an illegal modification of the controversial and gory game "Doom 3", created to allow users to build "fan-made" missions based on the male power fantasy of being a thief and assassin, such as the infamous "The Painter's Wife" a sexist story where the player has to transport a female non-player character by bearing her on the white male hero's shoulder without her consent, in order to "save" her.

But, under the disguise of being a video game-related forum, this online place was also a known haven of hate speech for international sexist supporters of the gamergate movement, where they gather clandestinely to share their hate and radicalize themselves.

One of them, posting under the handle "Kurchok", notably repeatedly called for the killing of muslims as depicted on the screencaps below, using inflammatory islamophobic rhetoric. During a raid on this user's house, who confessed to have been tempted to vote for Trump and publicly complained about Joe Biden's election, the FBI found a kitchen knife, the presence of this assault weapon confirming that he had plans to commit a terrorist attack somewhere in the USA.

Nbohr1more, the ring leader of this international extreme far-right nazifascist cell, claimed to the rigth-wing conspiracy theory channel "Fox News" that his house had been pelted with what he described using the vague and inaccurate catch-all term "molotov cocktails". These unfounded accusations refer to a incident he claims to have occurred during the fiery but mostly peaceful protests in front of his house following the trending hashtag #BashTheFashDarkMod on Twitter. The local firepersons declined to comment on the accidental fire.

UK-based user "OrbWeaver", who used a picture of spider as an avatar, showing a total lack of sensitivity toward arachnophobic visitors that could be triggered by this sight, was finally fired from his job today following a grass-roots campaign of activism aimed at warning his boss via repeated phone calls to his office about his online activities on this hate-speech forum.
He is currently detained in Anti-Terrorist Detention Facility 05 as a safety measure while UK authorities are investigating his Internet history with the help of his Internet Service Provider. His exaggerated claims to have been the target of a so-called "online harassment campaign" have been dismissed by the International Court of Human Rights.

While this successful deplatforming can be seen as a victory for the struggle against online radicalization, this case in another example of the pervasive hate speech found on so many free "game forums" on the Internet, which is a real threat, for our democracy.

Now, on to the weather..."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:

People don't stop hating other people just because you delete their Facebook posts or arrest them for tweeting — in fact authoritarian behaviour by governments seems like a fantastic way to increase levels of hatred (against the government itself, or the people that the government claims to be protecting).

It's even more counter-productive than that, I've noticed: for instance, the criminalization of WW2 genocide denial by sending deniers to jail is now used as an argument in itself by neo-nazis, they base their rhetoric on the punishment and rabbid prosecution of the slightest word uttered on that subject to convince people that since anyone "questioning the truth" ends up jailed or punished in a way or another, then it's "a proof that it's all false because if the authorities are constantly prosecuting dissent that's because they're frightened that people may learn The Truth".

That kind of rhetoric is particularly efficient as there's no effective way to contradict the neonazis on this particular point (the persecution of deniers) without sounding like a liar, since all the cases of punishment for genocide denial have been massively publicized in the hope to make examples... the neonazis are now turning to their advantage this mistake from the well-meaning busy-bodies, that's a perfect intellectual trap. :wacko:

Another proof that using the Law to censor even the wrongest ideas cannot and will never work... the only way of preventing people to believe stupid shit or to deny verified historical facts is to expose them to both discourses with equal time and a rational counter-argumentation, as the nazi intellectual constructions always collapse like a house of cards once exposed to rational examination. These kind of debates just have to be integrated in the school curriculum, and voilà, problem solved.

 

5 hours ago, Anderson said:

"Free speech" standards in the US didn't really develop due to the originalism doctrine prevailing with regard to this question up to present. But this can always change if the balance of power shifts to progressives for a period of time. Remember, it's also the same Constitution that proclaims a right to bear arms even though the entire world is moving to restrict and regulate the illegal circulation of firearms.

The problem of this reasoning is that, just because mentalities regarding what is acceptable or not in a society change with time, it doesn't mean that it's good in itself... since, by this reasoning, should in the next 25 years a big change of collective mind regarding the value of human sacrifices occur, then the laws should logically change to accommodate this new way of life.
That's the reason why the US Constitution was drafted, after deep thinking based on the lessons of History (Cicero's works in Ancient Rome, notably, are directly quoted as inspiration by the Founding Fathers -see "The Federalist Papers", which are the reference justificative texts for each and every article of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, which was created specifically to protect the 1st Amendment, as a way to ensure that the State will always be put under the threat of its citizens to prevent a tyrant to raise to power, that's the reason why the 2nd has been written and placed just after the 1st in the US Constitution as it was deemed of the utmost importance): by creating the Constitution, the Founding Fathers wanted to build something that acts both as a guideline and as an eternal protection of the rights of the citizen whatever may happen in the future. The list of Amendments going from the 1st to the 8th Amendment are precisely called the Bill of Rights.

By creating a Constitution, they did more than just say "the laws will be like that and not otherwise": they wanted to enshrine the basic rights guaranteeing the freedom of any individual and to preserve them forever. Now, the task isn't perfect as they are a few Amendments that are lacking, such as for instance an Amendment forcing any US government to neutrality in the same way that the Swiss Constitution does, but still that was a absolute work of art based upon the principle that it's better to say "from now on and for eternity, freedom of speech will be absolute whatever the small negative effects that could occur" than to say "from now on, people will have the right to think and say only what will be considered acceptable at the era they're living in".
Because otherwise, should there be a growing importance in tomorrow's society toward the glorification of religious belief, it means that in 10, 25 or 50 years, freedom of blasphemy could be gradually contested and eventually forbidden as society grows more and more religious, ending in a theocratic society just because each generation of children had been gradually indoctrinated to have pro-religious views under the pretext of "respecting religions and religious people", which unfortunately has already begun I think.

I don't want to drag the topic on the subject of gun laws so I'll leave it at that, but on the principle, regarding the "reason of the number", it's a erroneous reasoning: if tomorrow more and more countries in the world start moving toward promoting the drowning of the first-born of any family to appease Gaïa's wrath, it doesn't mean that they are right to do so just because they all agree to do the same...

 

6 hours ago, Anderson said:

Hate speech laws can work best against those who already have a platform, an audience willing to defend violence. Common folk don't have that leverage if nobody's listening.

Also, violent speech can easily translate to violent actions if it's tolerated too much. People not only have the right to speak and impart information. They also have the right to cover themselves from disinformation.

About violent speech becoming violent actions, well, I'd say not necessarily, but on a more technical side, it's actually very useful to have people being able to freely voice their dreams of violence and of insurrection: I prefer to hear my neighbor yelling that he's going to kill the whole neighborhood one day and thus to know that he's planning that, which allows me to react accordingly, instead of never hear him saying a single word about his plans and get a nasty surprise. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Recent Status Updates

    • freyk

      Some years earlier i created some launchers for TDM. uploaded today some new sourcecode and executables on my github repo.
       
      · 0 replies
    • Epifire

      Say, I know it's been a while since the site got overhauled from the crash. But did we ever figure out if/how to get the recent topics & replies list back? It's not a total deal breaker but it was nice for becoming a thread creeper again...


      · 2 replies
    • Epifire

      Some of you who've been on the TDM discord know I was out of work last Winter, just putting in hrs for the developer portfolio. Currently I've been working a seasonal job to pay the bills and now I'm finally in my last week before I get bumped off. Things will be tight but I'm planning a long off period to make as much content as I can. Big plans in Unreal Engine as well as my most ambitious TDM collab yet! Never been so excited to be a stuck at home to pursue my life's work. With a lotta time and maybe some luck, I'm hoping to get enough art work done that I may start applying around to studios.
      · 4 replies
    • STiFU

      I finally got around to play Prey and I truly loved it. It is an incredible homage to System Shock and Deus Ex. While the gameplay is not en par with those two titles, the game makes up for that with its well written lore and story. The whole "world" just feells so authentic and it features a ton of really god environmental story-telling. Recommended for every immersive sim fan, i.e., everyone on this forum.
      · 2 replies
    • jaxa

      Alder Lake has arrived:
      https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/18055-2016-cpugpu-news/page/15/&tab=comments#comment-466190
       
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...