Censoring White Supremacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2017, 02:22 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:13 PM)Emma Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 12:20 PM)adey67 Wrote:  So let me get this straight, the Intolerant must be tolerant of the tolerant but the tolerant must be intolerant to the intolerant in order for there to be tolerance as long as the tolerant are in charge and not emotionally triggered by having anyone disagree with their intolerance? Rolleyes

This is the Paradox of Tolerance. I've talked about it here before, so if you've read this before- please forgive me.

Quote:Discussions[edit]
Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.[1]

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

In other words- tolerance must have its limits if tolerance is to exist at all. And that limit must necessarily be the intolerant who wish to destroy the tolerance of others.

Wow, that's deep. Thanks for adding this.

Where are we going and why am I in this hand basket?
"Life is not all lovely thorns and singing vultures, you know." ~ Morticia Addams
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 02:26 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2017 02:37 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:20 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 02:18 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I meant that free speech is about being protected from gov actions not corporations ones.

Must be lost in translation, because that's 180 degrees apart...

If you say so. I would say I was pretty clear, though with English not being my first language what I think may not correspond with reality.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 02:30 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:08 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  " my guys"????


Exactly which pigeonhole are you attempting to force me???

As a conservative. Aren't you?

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 02:34 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:22 PM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 02:13 PM)Emma Wrote:  This is the Paradox of Tolerance. I've talked about it here before, so if you've read this before- please forgive me.


In other words- tolerance must have its limits if tolerance is to exist at all. And that limit must necessarily be the intolerant who wish to destroy the tolerance of others.

Wow, that's deep. Thanks for adding this.

Deep? It's nothing more than truism. Too much tolerance brings trouble - see Weimar Germany and state tolerance for some failed artist.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
23-08-2017, 02:34 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:14 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 01:58 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  It's gov that can try to deny free speech. Corporations merely chose their clientele and if they don't want neonazis to use their platorms I can only applaud such decision.

Our 1st Amendment to the US Constitution -
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So - no.

Government can't. ( or shouldn't)

In theory yes, the government shouldn't but then again you've got a president who right now calls anyone who doesn't agree with him "fake news" and tried to kick out certain members of the press out of daily press briefings. Religious people are becoming more emboldened that they can legally discriminate against virtually anyone they choose.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...101250064/

There's even been talk about allowing churches to officially tell their flock how to vote and come out publicly for or against candidates which would allow them to buy advertising time as well. In a year we could see "paid for by the Catholic Church" on television ads without losing their tax exempt status.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
23-08-2017, 02:39 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
Szuchow, I disagree. It made me think. Therefore it is (excuse my 1970's hippie phrasing) deep. Anything presented in a way that makes one explore something in a different way, IMO is not, by definition, a "truism."

Where are we going and why am I in this hand basket?
"Life is not all lovely thorns and singing vultures, you know." ~ Morticia Addams
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 02:44 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:26 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 02:20 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Must be lost in translation, because that's 180 degrees apart...

If you say so. I would say I was pretty clear.

To a certain extent I can agree with this train of logic: a private corporation is not as restricted in its viewpoints and philosophies as the government and thus can make certain decisions about its policies which are beyond the scope of federal action. But when a corporation is the size of Google, which is so gargantuan that it impacts virtually everyone in the world in a big way, it's practically a monopoly.

About a century ago there were other monopolistic companies like the Standard Oil Company who could do whatever they wanted because of their influence and power: they could pay their workers in peanuts, they could jack up prices, they could pollute whatever they wanted, and they could quash unions who spoke out against it, all with impunity because of a lack of governmental regulation and competition. When people spoke out against them they insisted that they had a legal right to do as they pleased, since they were only a private company and their employees were under contract.

Google can start with censoring White Supremacists, all right. But since they're a private company, what's stopping them from censoring anyone they don't like? In fact there are indications that they hid negative search results about Clinton during the last election, although I'm not entirely sure about the validity of them. Nevertheless, if they so wished they could control what information people see, and who's going to stop them? They're only a private company after all. They can do as they please.

That sentiment is legal, and I agree with it in a literal constitutional sense, but it really does not sit well with me knowing that private corporations could (and maybe already do) control the flow of information for the sake of their own political agendas.

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TSG's post
23-08-2017, 02:47 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:44 PM)TSG Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 02:26 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  If you say so. I would say I was pretty clear.

To a certain extent I can agree with this train of logic: a private corporation is not as restricted in its viewpoints and philosophies as the government and thus can make certain decisions about its policies which are beyond the scope of federal action. But when a corporation is the size of Google, which is so gargantuan that it impacts virtually everyone in the world in a big way, it's practically a monopoly.

About a century ago there were other monopolistic companies like the Standard Oil Company who could do whatever they wanted because of their influence and power: they could pay their workers in peanuts, they could jack up prices, they could pollute whatever they wanted, and they could quash unions who spoke out against it, all with impunity because of a lack of governmental regulation and competition. When people spoke out against them they insisted that they had a legal right to do as they pleased, since they were only a private company and their employees were under contract.

Google can start with censoring White Supremacists, all right. But since they're a private company, what's stopping them from censoring anyone they don't like? In fact there are indications that they hid negative search results about Clinton during the last election, although I'm entirely sure about the validity of them. Nevertheless, if they so wished they could control what information people see, and who's going to stop them? They're only a private company after all. They can do as they please.

That sentiment is legal, and I agree with it in a literal constitutional sense, but it really does not sit well with me knowing that private corporations could (and maybe already do) control the flow of information for the sake of their own political agendas.

Google has been playing god and censoring anyone they don't like for any reason from the beginning.

The google gods can crush a business in a second flat - and have done so many times.

The google gods do not publish their algos and never will.

If you own a website, may the google gods shine upon you! Bowing

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
23-08-2017, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2017 02:56 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:39 PM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  Szuchow, I disagree. It made me think. Therefore it is (excuse my 1970's hippie phrasing) deep. Anything presented in a way that makes one explore something in a different way, IMO is not, by definition, a "truism."

I disagree too. For me stating that tolerance can't be absolute is like saying that water is wet.

Edit: To each his own however.

As a side note I would say that even most tolerant person should (?) have deep well of intolerance - for example calling pro choice people child killers should be opposed as untrue and abhorrent and person espousing such view ridicculed.

@TSG

Google can censor anyone without starting with people despised by majority so slippery slope doesn't work here for me.

I see merit in Niemoller famos quote but if neonazis rights are infriged upon* then I won't give a shit. It's possible that "they" will later come for me but I will be damned if I will stay in solidarity with people for wboh I feel only contempt.

*If Google hypotetical action could be considered such.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 02:49 PM
RE: Censoring White Supremacy
(23-08-2017 02:47 PM)Dom Wrote:  Google has been playing god and censoring anyone they don't like for any reason from the beginning.

The google gods can crush a business in a second flat - and have done so many times.

The google gods do not publish their algos and never will.

If you own a website, may the google gods shine upon you! Bowing




More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TSG's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: