Been seeing a lot of news articles such as this one below, where people under a pseudonym post racist or otherwise sexist content and then find themselves sacked or resigned:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/top-cop-resigns-…
Just thinking; there are millions and millions of Youtube Posts that are vile and racist, how is it that at times the pseudonym is tracked to a user's workplace?
It's not like the anti-racist police are doing IP checks on each and every post?
Investigated by who?
Since when would the Police be keen on investigating a report of a random youtube comment?
That's what I dont get, sure if you posted a comment on Twitter using your full name or a verified account that links you to an organisation, but some random with a username of e.g: "Twerko1212"?
It's easy. You just found me. I'm Twerko1212 as well. Dang!
And I'm Skankhunt42
Pretty sure it's not the comment that is tracked and linked to the person.. It's usually the person that is tracked and linked to the comments. Someone must've raised the flag for this cop in question, and they must've tracked his online activity to find his comments.
I have the overriding feeling not many on here have read or watched 1984.
I was just about to comment that my Orwellian senses were tingling.
Why are you curious? Are you worried about something?
Nope, jut been seeing a rise of people sacked/resigned/etc via SM (Social Media) comments under a fake name.
It seems as there's also a rise of internet detectives just getting paid to dig up crap…
Are you worried about something?
Yes, freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to be a jerk. People land themselves in civil court everyday because they run their mouth. Also Youtube, Twitter etc are not publicly owned broadcasting platforms, they can make their own rules.
People don't end up in court for being a jerk or running their mouth. They end up in court for breaking the law.
@Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Crimes are defined by law, not by what I think. Weed would have been legal by now if they were.
Being a jerk isn't again the law.
The problem with internet mobs dealing out "vigilante justice" is they can get the wrong person. Or the punishment is disproportionate to the offence. That's why we have police and magistrates - they're not perfect either, but they're 1000x better than a mob.
Yep being in the online world is like being a child in the 1800’s we are gonna get abused and companies will always make it tough for content creators
Feel free to say whatever you like, but don't hide behind the anonymity that the internet can provide. That's just gutless.
Also feel free to accept the consequences of your actions.
BTW: My comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek.
"Feel free to say whatever you like, but don't hide behind the anonymity that the internet can provide. That's just gutless."
Spottymoose, that's an odd real name;)
But.. then how will I tell my crappy sh*tty jokes and puns? It's so much easier to tell it on the internet and not get a reaction or upvotes, compared to real life .. hits right in the feels man :/
Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want on a commercial website without fear of repercussion - people signed up to terms of use to access it in the first place.
No freedom of speech is impacted whatsoever - if someone wants to speak their mind they are free to set up their own website.
@HighAndDry: Just a few decades ago JFK was leader of the Democrat party. The left was so much different then, for the most part they debated with others, listened to others and reasoned.
Now we have Antifa…..
Not sure what a militaristic extremist group has to do with a political leaning, but ok.
You have a very twisted view of "the left". Not every left learning person is a fanatical SJW, just like not every conservative is a nazi or a fanatic. Three quarters of the population are just completely normal people, but the fanatics on both sides like to pretend that we're all far left / far right with no middle ground. Not every discussion needs to be turned into a political rant.
As for the rest of your comment.. "Doxxing" has been around since the 90s, though it became more well known in the early 2ks.. It was not coined by liberals and actually started primarily on sites like 4chan. Your comments about the difference between people on the left and right being exposed is tied more to the content / reasons that they're exposed for than their political leanings.
There are generally two types of "doxxing", the first involves exposing people or corporations for something that they've done, content that they've created etc. There are plenty of examples of this kind of hacktivism. The other type of doxxing however is done to completely innocent people, for the purpose threatening and harassing. One example of this, is the parents of the Sandy Hook shooting. Many have had to move multiple times, because crazies that believe that it was all fake and designed to take their guns away, doxx them every time they move. They receive death threats from people that believe their dead kids were "crisis actors" faking it. This isn't left / right.. This is on one hand hacktivism, and on the other crazy people that just want to threaten and intimidate innocent people into silence or submission. There are crazies on both sides.
You have a very twisted view of "the left".
Blame the most vocal, outspoken, and visible members of the left. Did you miss the part where this is the New York Times defending a racist? I'd like to see how you want to argue they're somehow a fringe element. I'll wait.
@HighAndDry: Generalising people based on pre concieved notions, you seem to be doing the exact same thing.
There is nothing in the comment tree that you've replied to that says anything about the NYT defending racism. You responded to someone saying (correctly) that you have no "freedom of speech" on a private website, because "freedom of speech" is a directive for the government.
As for the story about the NYT defending racism.. why do you think that the entire left leaning population of western democracies is somehow to be held accountable for the actions of one executive in one private company in the US? Should the left be assuming that Alex Jones speaks for all conservatives as well and make them argue his point of view in every discussion? Politics is a spectrum, and most of us aren't out on the fringe at either end.
As disgusting and reprehensible as the idea that Sandy Hook was done by crisis actors is the idea that people who are not white can not be racist.
Conservatives want to get the hell away from Alex Jones, a lot even agree with deplatforming him. But they want to see that the crazies on the other side get the same treatment, which just isn't the case. The problem is that on the flip side of the crazy coin, people on the left will elevate their crazies and racists as paragons of people to aspire to be like. Such as is the case with Sarah but also particularly in the U.K. with the Labor party anti-semitism scandal. In 2016 the democratic party slogan was "I'm with her". Think about how crazy that is for a moment, the left in America thought it would be prudent to make their slogan "you're either with her, or against her".
Crazies get a pass on the left much more than they get a pass on the right. It is socially more acceptable to discuss openly views that are left leaning than conservative. Although this is changing fast, especially with young kids being rebellious by nature.
The middle ground left, which as you say is 3/4 of the people that lean left - should have a look inwards to see if they want to stand by people like Sarah Jeong as people who represent their views because if they don't apply the same standards to themselves, they will lose people to the right.
If Alex Jones isn't allowed to lie, then no 'news' agency should be allowed to lie. Youtube should be applying their deplatforming of Jones and deplatform The Young Turks, or other 'news' agency that constantly lies to promote a political agenda.
@DesiredUsername: None of what we're saying is based on "pre-conceived" notions, they're literally based on reported events.
@Praeto: Scrolling can't be that hard. There's a www.news.com.au article that reports the following defence from the NYT of Jeong:
“For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers. She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it.”
I.e. Excuses for what she said, and that they'll still be hiring her despite knowing of her racist comments online. Don't know how else you'd characterize that other than defending a racist.
"The problem is that on the flip side of the crazy coin, people on the left will elevate their crazies and racists as paragons of people to aspire to be like."
This just simply isn't true. Almost every left leaning person I know hates the far left as much as they hate the far right. We don't want Antifa and other crazies speaking for us, any more than you want Alex Jones speaking for you. Most of the self proclaimed far left "SJWs" started off with what is a fairly neutral belief that everyone should be treated equally, and took it to a fanatical level that is highly detrimental to society. The entire debate has become both sides yelling at the fanatics on the other side and pretending they speak for everyone, and they don't.
"The middle ground left, which as you say is 3/4 of the people that lean left - should have a look inwards to see if they want to stand by people like Sarah Jeong as people who represent their views."
Most don't stand by her. Some certainly do, but none of the left leaning people I know would support her. I understand that there's an argument to be made that racism requires power over the other party, but that's not something that all of us believe.
"If Alex Jones isn't allowed to lie, then no 'news' agency should be allowed to lie. Youtube should be applying their deplatforming of Jones and deplatform The Young Turks, or other 'news' agency that constantly lies to promote a political agenda."
If you're frequently lying, you shouldn't be allowed to call yourself a news organisation. Much like Fox has been to court multiple times to argue that it is not a news organisation, but an entertainment one. It's a hard system to enforce though, as most people aren't particularly objective with their "fact checking". In the case of Alex Jones though, it goes beyond just being dishonest. That guy is a nut.
"Scrolling can't be that hard."
You're talking about a comment you made in a completely different comment tree. I didn't read through your entire autobiography before I replied to your comment.
"I.e. Excuses for what she said, and that they'll still be hiring her despite knowing of her racist comments online. Don't know how else you'd characterize that other than defending a racist."
Err. I've already said that I don't agree with that decision, and neither do any of the left leaning people I've discussed it with..
@Praeto: I just counted, it's like 3 notches on a mouse scroll wheel. Here's the link by the way:
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/new-york-time…
Err. I've already said that I don't agree with that decision, and neither do any of the left leaning people I've discussed it with..
Great. Unfortunately it seems you and your friends might be the fringe, because the NYT disagrees with you, and they're again certainly not on the fringe.
"This just simply isn't true."
I gave you actual examples of crazy people on the left getting a pass. Perhaps you could have addressed those rather than talk about what your friends think? I didn't talk about Antifa there. I spoke about Sarah Jeong, Jeremy Corbyn with the Labor Party in the UK & Hillary's slogan. All of which and many more I could give examples of as crazies who have a lot of evidence against them as being racist or sexist who became paragons of the left, just because they stand against the right.
"If you're frequently lying, you shouldn't be allowed to call yourself a news organisation. Much like Fox has been to court multiple times to argue that it is not a news organisation"
If you are caught frequently lying you should be platformed by private organisations such as YouTube, but you don't lose your freedom of speech or human rights. Even death row prisoners get to talk after they raped and killed people.
Also it isn't 2015 anymore. Fox got rid of O'Riley and have made a lot of other big changes. You sound reasonable, I bet if you were to actually watch Fox news then CNN - you would think Fox news as being more of a news outlet and less of an entertainment channel than CNN/MSNBC.
I like when I see people making about generalisations about "the left", "SJW's", "the right" etc - gives an easy identifier for comments to skip.
"I gave you actual examples of crazy people on the left getting a pass. Perhaps you could have addressed those rather than talk about what your friends think? I didn't talk about Antifa there. I spoke about Sarah Jeoung, Jeremy Corbyn with the Labor Party in the UK & Hillary's slogan. All of which and many more I could give examples of as crazies who have a lot of evidence against them as being racist who became paragons of the left, just because they stand against the right".
The point I was trying to make with my response is that these people aren't "paragons of the left". The reason I speak for myself "and those that I talk to", is because that is all I can speak to. Just like on the right, we aren't all one shared voice, and I can't speak for other people anymore than they can speak for me. I personally don't see any issue with Hillarys slogan, and wouldn't care if anyone else used it on either side of politics. As for Jeremy Corbyn and his apparent anti-semitism or Sarah Jeoung and her racism.. I'm not going to defend either of them because I think they're both in the wrong. I completely dispute that they're "paragons of the left".
"If you are caught frequently lying you should be platformed by private organisations such as YouTube, but you don't lose your freedom of speech or human rights. Even death row prisoners get to talk after they raped and killed people."
People can talk all they want, but no one is entitled to a platform. The badge of "news" should be limited to people actually reporting objectively and factually. Anyone else can say what they want, but it should be clearly marked as entertainment.
"Also it isn't 2015 anymore. Fox got rid of O'Riley and have made a lot of other big changes. You sound reasonable, I bet if you were to actually watch Fox news then CNN - you would think Fox news as being more of a news outlet and less of an entertainment channel than CNN/MSNBC."
I have watched it, and no, not even close. There are certainly some people on the actual legitimate "news" portion of the channel that are reasonable. But the rubbish from the other 90% just pretending to be news completely drowns out the legitimate content.
Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the left party in the UK. Hillary was the leader of the left party in The USA.
You literally can't be any more of a left paragon than being the leaders of the left political parties.. and you're going to say that neither are paragons. Hrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……
Like I said, people on the left seem to have blinkers on when dealing with their own issues that they accuse the right of. Bunch of projection artists, perhaps.
@DesiredUsername: The link there would be that Antifa are completely funded by the two main political donors of the Democrat party.
"Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the left party in the UK. Hillary was the leader of the left party in The USA."
I'm honestly surprised that you care about the slogan "I'm with her".. It's a non issue, and as I said before.. i wouldn't care if anyone used it on either side. As for Jeremy Corbyn, he may very well be an anti-semite, but most of his parties actual actions and policies have not been. When he's said things in the past that have got him in trouble, he has received an extreme backlash, in large part from his own party. I'm not sure you can point to someone that is constantly beset upon by his own party and has been forced to apologize half a dozen times as a perfect example of what the left believes in. Sometimes we end up with shitty leaders that don't really represent us, just ask half the conservatives in Australia what they think of Turnbull.
I take your silence about paragons on the left as an admission that you were wrong?
The slogan is a joke.
1) It implies that the race was about sexism. If you don't vote for me, you are a sexist because Donald Trump is sexist.
2) No talk about making things better (like every other candidates slogan since forever). If you are not with her then does that mean you are for making things better? Or perhaps Making America Great Again? It played right into Trumps campaign having that.
3) Plays into the 3rd wave feminist movement that 'women can do everything men can' but for some strange reason need to keep saying it rather than just doing it and letting actions speak louder than words. Sows division.
4) Most important - it sows division. If you vote democrat in 2016 you do so because you want to be with her, not all Americans to make a better country together. Literally just with her.
5) You would have laughed your ass off if Donald's slogan was "I'm with him", because it's pathetic and should be mocked.
Despite identifying as a conservative, I really liked and even had money on Bernie very early on. It was criminal how the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie when he was the popular candidate because they wanted their groomed career politician Hillary to be in line. Not the American people, but a bunch of faceless democratic elites screwed over Bernie. People hated Hillary. How bad of a candidate do you have to be to lose to Donald Trump? Probably the worst candidate in history.
Since then though I think Trump has done very well in office and have changed about him. I've also come to realise that Bernie probably wouldn't have been able to get anything done at all with both the established left and established right against him. I learned later than most that it's best to stop listening to politicians words but start paying attention to their actions to actually gauge what kind of person they are.
Jeremy and many, many Labour MPs are overtly racist. The evidence is easily accessible and cataloged. The Labor party campaigns about how they have more women and ethnic diversity in their party as a positive - but will openly racially vilify Jewish people in their party. More piling evidence of how I wrote the left has a set of rules for themselves and a set of rules for everyone else.
No conservative likes Malcom Shorten. Bill Turnbull would be the same on the left (misspelled for what should be obvious reasons - they could be the same person). They represent rich old Sydney Siders who have to be so careful about what they say to not offend, that they alienate themselves from their supporters. Neither have any balls, so division grows further apart because neither are interested in bringing people together - just not offending them.
@Randolph Duke: And yet you still replied to me, with a comment that's completely devoid of substance no less. Congrats, you've played yourself?
@HighAndDry: Funnily enough the people on the left fight to protect the freedom of speech that the people on the right are calling foul over, probably because they never understood the core concept.
"I take your silence about paragons on the left as an admission that you were wrong?"
Err.. I responded.. Look at the comment above yours.
"The slogan is a joke"
100% agree, it's a shitty slogan. I don't find anything offensive about it though, just amateurish. If that's literally all that anyone can find to be upset about, I would have thought that would make her a pretty good candidate.
"Jeremy and many, many Labour MPs are overtly racist. The evidence is easily accessible and cataloged. The Labor party campaigns about how they have more women and ethnic diversity in their party as a positive - but will openly racially vilify Jewish people in their party. More piling evidence of how I wrote the left has a set of rules for themsevles and a set of rules for everyone else."
As I said earlier, when they've been caught making those kinds of comments, they've been taken to task by their own party. Some will certainly agree, because there are fanatics on both sides. This example isn't about the left though, it's about shitty hypocritical politicians that exist on both sides. Whether it be our Australian politicans that don't take a stand on any point any more, or more overt comments from UK Labour. The idea that you could argue that this is only a problem on the left is ridiculous given the current state of American politics.
I consider myself left leaning because of my beliefs, not because I follow any particular individual. I would have voted for Hillary in the US because her parties policies most closely align with my beliefs, that doesn't mean I support her in everything she does.. Same with every other leader I've ever voted for. I would have assumed it was the same for the right?
Anyway.. I'm out. This is just going around in circles, and people apparently feel the need to start downvoting any kind of reasonable discussion for some reason.
"Err.. I responded.."
You didn't. I brought to your attention how you were incorrect, that the leaders of a political party are most definitely 'paragons' by definition and you did not address that.
"As I said earlier, when they've been caught making those kinds of comments, they've been taken to task by their own party."
They haven't been taken to task. It's a current hop topic issue that Labor in the UK is desperate to sweep under the rug.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_…
Modern Left leaning parties in the West have one set of rules for everyone, and one set of rules for themselves.
@stormii: Yeah, people on the left used fight to protect the freedom of speech.
In those times I was happily a member of the left. These days? College students protesting to shut up and silence speakers they disagree with, college campuses allowing these protests to cancel talks, left-wing people "de-platforming people" against the very principle (not the 1st Amendment) of freedom of speech, unpopular speech being mis-labelled as "hate speech" to vilify and censor it…
I'm honestly more saddened than anything else that the group I used to be a part of is behind these things. For shame. For utter shame.
This isn't the only subject that the left has done a 180 turn on though. It also used to be the Christian Conservatives who'd force women to cover up and portray sexuality as a bad thing. These days? The left are the ones protesting against scantily clad women in video games and on TV, forcing cheerleaders to cover up and/or lose their jobs, demonizing sexuality (though mostly male sexuality) to the point that just looking at a woman is supposedly 'harmful'. Sigh.
"You didn't. I brought to your attention how you were incorrect, that the leaders of a political party are most definitely 'paragons' by definition and you did not address that."
Do you 100% agree with Teresa May, Donald Trump, Stephen Harper, Malcolm Turnbull? Are they perfect examples of your beliefs? Your argument seems to be that every elected leader for either the left or right wing is the perfect example ("paragon", meaning "a person or thing regarded as a perfect example of a particular quality.") of the beliefs of those that vote for them. I didn't address that directly, because it's a ridiculous argument. They may be a "paragon" for a subset of the party, but for most of us they only align with some of our views. In all these countries, there are only two main parties that can realistically control the government. People vote by looking at their beliefs, and identifying the party whose policies most closely matches with those beliefs. Even if 40% of my beliefs may actually align more closely with conservatives, I'd still vote for the left because the other 60% aligns with them.
The two party system forces us to vote for one or the other, even if we disagree with half the policies of the person we're voting for. This is even more true in countries like Australia were we're voting for a party and not a leader. If you want to argue about what the left believes in, argue about the policies, not the politicians. People who are voting for a personality instead of actual policies are one of the reasons the world is currently in this mess.
Good luck, I'm done.
We were arguing if Jeremy Corbyn and Hillary Clinton were considered paragons of the left.
You said no, I said yes by definition they are. You still haven't addressed it.. you are doing a lot of mental gymnastics to get around having to admit you were wrong.
Now I know why you identify as left. Prior to that you seemed too reasonable to adopt the views, but if that's how you want to roll when we were discussing what constitutes a 'paragon' then yeah.. I can see the unreasonable left shining through.
Donald is a paragon of the alt right. The established right/GOP hates him. He was a registered democrat for many, many years. That will never, ever fly in the face of the established GOP. They hate him and ganged up on him during the primary debates many times. Was fun to watch Cruz get put in his place. Theresa May is like Turnbull - a caretaker PM, not someone elected and they also poll really poorly with their own voter base. Steven Harper was a good man and a paragon of established conservatives (not alt-right).
This is the 2nd time you have said you are 'done', let's see if it will be. My guess is like most leftists, you won't be able to contain yourself and must prove how your personal definition of a 'paragon' holds more water than what a dictionary says.
@DesiredUsername: It has everything to to with a political leaning because Antifa are radical leftists that are spurred on to be violent by people like Maxine Walters of the Democrat party.
@HighAndDry: I must be so ignorant. I have no idea what "the left" and "the right" means.
Sounds like you simply mean "people who don't agree with me".
@singlemalt72: But they go around with black masks beating people up with baseball bats. They are the true fascists along with George Soros and company. Lock the lot of them up.
Youtube set up a website purely so others could speak their mind, or at least they used to let them, that was the whole point of the platform, lol.
@stormii: Funnily enough socialism has killed over 100 million people. Perhaps get them facts straight.
Top tip, Venezuela is a country of 36 million people. 90% of them live in extreme poverty. The soldiers are murdering them as we speak. When freedom of speech goes lives are lost.
Youtube set up a website purely so others could speak their mind, or at least they used to let them, that was the whole point of the platform, lol.
Once again - Terms and conditions, a private platform can limit undesired or illegal speech, imagery and the like.
Funnily enough socialism has killed over 100 million people
Funnily enough, so has fascism
Overt 100 million people, you really, really should factcheck before posting. Fascism hasn't killed anywhere near the amount of people as communism/socialism, but it's weird you use number of killed as some kind of measure of less evil.
https://www.quora.com/What-killed-more-people-communism-or-f…
Meanwhile the leader of the Labor party in the UK was just found out to have laid a flower wreath at the graves of the terrorists who killed 11 athletes at the Munich Olympics.
That's a strange way to honor the dead:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn…
@HighAndDry: I haven't known who to vote for several elections, I am not really represented since the Democrats took a fall.
@c0balt:
Hitler was a fascist, Mussolini was a fascist, The Imperial Way in Japan were fascists, Franco …. keep adding them up. FFS, I am not saying socialism hasn't been bad, but being left wing does not equate to being fecking Stalin. Just like being right-wing does not make you Mussolini.
A labour leader lays a wreath for terrorists, an American leader cozies up to white supremacists- neither of these people represent me or my ideals. And if you dig deeper - the wreath laid by Corbyn was for terror victims in Paris - if the Palestinians were being less than forthright in their reasons behind the ceremony then they are the ones at fault. Do you really, honestly think that the left in modern first world countries deify terrorists, I mean really?
And when Quora becomes a reliable reference point, let me know. I can click on the first thing I google too.
Yes, and all of them didn't kill anywhere near the amount of China, Russia, Cuba, Venezula.
I didn't say that, I said a hundred million, who the fsck cares who has killed the most, then to their extremes, both edges or politics are evil.
If you don't like Quora, find a source that combats it.
Did you actually read that and see that the wreath was laid for the victims of terror
A wreath was laid by the Palistinians, Corbyn denies laying it - he admits he was at the function, there is a difference. Once again, I don't support Corbyn, Once again, do you really think that a senior member of any political party would knowingly lay a wreath for terrorists… think about it!. He is possibly anti-semitic to an extent, that does not mean pro-terror, and to correct my earlier statement, he says he believed he was there in support of Palestinians killed in a 1985 air strike. I admit I made a mistake, but was typing on my phone and going from memory.
Was he stupid to be there - possible, was he misinformed of the event, possibly, but ffs dude. He is not supporting terrorists, he is not that stupid.
Should he lose his job, probably, but I for one, will wait for the full story to come out before judgement.
Bseiso was killed in the French capital in 1992 in what was believed to be an Israeli assassination, although the country denied involvement and said he had been murdered by a rival PLO faction."
Oh, so conjecture is proof now, no it is conjecture - screaming "false flag" is more Alex Jones, I had hoped not yours.
Did you actually read that and see that the wreath was laid for the victims of terror, and not a terrorist?
I read Corbyn's description. Is he backflipping on previous statement, perhaps - we will see.
And take a fecking chill pill - I am not supporting extreme socialism, I am not saying it is better than fascism, I am saying they are both bad and that left wing is not communism any more than right wing is fascism. I don't see whay you are taking this so personally. I haven't made any direct insults at you, so I suppose that your inability to have a civil conversation of politics simply reflects what is wrong in the world these days. People with opposing political views should be able to have civil conversations without hetting into screaming matches and likening each other to political extremists. In my university days I used to have great discourse with others on politics and rarely did it ever result in name-calling and fringe-ranting.
@Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Antifa respond to white supremacist rallies, not really sure what you're getting from this
Actually antifa hold many violent riots regardless of if there’s a Trump rally or not. Am I to understand that you would call every pro Trump rally, a white supremacist rally? Are the two the same to you? Antifa are actually the fascists they think they are combating, it's very easy to see in the video linked below.
Here’s footage from a very recent riot by antifa + BLM in DC on August 12th that wasn’t covered by the media:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ61mQjZvn8
Come to reddit.com/r/publicfreakout and you can watch violent rioting antifa fascists destroying property and beating innocent people every 2nd day.
Oh I just realised you are one of the people that upvoted the comment that only white people can be racist.. yeah I know your type - you're the guy at the start of the video I linked above calling a black policeman a KKK member because they aren't as left as you are.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences.
Yeah but the consequences appear to only exist if you are on the right.
Under the eyes of the law we are all equal, but when the majority of people get their news from Google/YouTube/Facebook - would you agree that it's a good idea that private organisations under the leadership of billionaires such as Murdoch and Zuckerberg having complete control over what news they are allowed to publish on their online private media sites?
If we don't regulate it, then in the future if there's a big change and all of a sudden the right wing are banning and deplatforming the left people - then you must realise that's what you wanted.
I'm for regulating these online media juggernauts with an nonpartisan elected committee as to what should or shouldn't be censored. I don't like the idea of a few rich people controlling the few media outlets that people pay attention to, even if things were to change and it started leaning right.
They need to be broken up, not constantly bought out by each other until we are left with only Google and Apple.
@c0balt: >Yeah but the consequences appear to only exist if you are on the right.
Tell that to Martin Luther King.
Oh is it the 1960's? Is Rosa Parks still not allowed to sit on the front of the bus?
Get with the times man, look at what's actually happening than living in the past.
I could easily talk about how in the past Black slaves were sold by Black tribes in Africa to white people, and how Muslim nations had many white slaves that they forced to 'relocate' when their armies raped and pillaged their way through Christian lands during the expansion of Islam between 610 and 1924, but I don't live in the 11th century and it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.
@c0balt: When the citizens on the left find out they are being used it will be like the Titanic sinking. Only so many lifeboats:)
@c0balt:
Free Press - if you are stupid enough to take all your information from one source then so be it.
all of a sudden the right wing are banning and deplatforming the left people
They already are/have. You simply display here your ignorance in thinking it is only right-wing views being moderated - of which I disagree anyway, Alex Jones is not right-wing, he is batshit crazy right-wing, there is a difference.
an nonpartisan elected committee
Non partisan …. feck, I can't stop laughing. Non partisan in whose eyes? in the view of which nation? a committee of how many people? No matter what you did there would be people crying foul.
Look you're the guy who said that fascism has killed 100+ million people and more than socialism has.
It's very hard to take anything you write as being truthful, when either you can't fact check or you purposely post lies to further your point.
I disagree greatly with your personal views and have sourced a lot of my arguments with facts.
The strange thing is, the idea to regulate social media of big corporations is a centrist-left idea that I agree with. That companies like Google, Facebook and Youtube should regulated based on how that's where most people are getting their news. You come barging in banging the communist drums so loudly that you would disagree with an idea from your camp just because someone on the otherside agreed with it. That's pathetic. The right side of that idea is to break up the monopolies. It's literally the idea that bridges the divide between right and left when it comes to media.
An elected group with representatives on both sides, that's how you get non partisan. It's not rocket science, but I can understand how someone who posted what you did earlier about the death counts of socialism vs fascism as someone who can't grasp 4th grade level maths. That's probably why you also laugh at everything, so loudly in your writing too.
@c0balt: "only on the right" this isn't true at all, look at the recent James Gunn firing from Disney
He was fired for pedo tweets..
Not for political tweets.
Sarah Jeong is the example at hand. The left promotes their racists, see Jeremy Corbyn antisemitism scandal where it came out in they news today that he laid a flower wreath at the grave of an Islamic terrorist who killed 11 athletes during the Munich Olympics.
Crazy and racist is tolerated on the left just because they combat the right. Leftists have one set of rules for themselves and one set of rules for everyone else.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If you run your mouth and say things that are blatantly untrue or aiming to harm someone, you're going to have a crash course in libel/slander laws.
So you agree NYT should've fired Jeong instead of covering up and excusing her racism?
That be saying said most of the MSM workers should be in jail.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Sure, but the mob doesn't get to determine those consequences.
Too often "FoSdnmFfC" is used to justify some truly abhorrent retribution by the mob.
Ah good old freedom of speech, always the excuse.
You are free to have vile and bigoted views, you aren't however free to try and force them on everyone else. I've removed a lot of people on facebook due to not wanting to see their mainly racist crap. Keep it to yourself.
There are NO freedom of speech laws in Australia.
No, but the High Court has ruled that freedom of political speech is implied in the constitution. Yes, it should be further ratified, but we do, in fact have the ruling of the court.
Most don't this, it's true.
Freedom of speech means freedom to speak without being thrown in jail for what you say. It is not freedom from responsibility for your actions and speech is an action. If what you say doesn't line up with your employers values, they are free to act and fire you. Our society does a fairly good job of moderating its collective values in this way.
What I've noticed online of late is all this stuff about 'leftists' and 'snowflakes' and 'fascists' and 'neo nazis' and 'white oppression' and I could go on and on forever but, if you actually get off the bloody Internet and get out into the world, talk shit with friends out at drinks, chat with other parents at the daycare pickup, with colleagues at work - then this talk all but disappears. It's the people who are 24/7 online, falling into this silly hysterical rabbithole of left/right/up/down outrage who then go and do something sillier like write abusive shit they'd never say out loud in real life on someone's FB who are going to run into trouble. They are genuinely surprised when their employers are horrified, and genuinely surprised because that's not actually who they are but they're being fired for someone they aren't.
TLDR; Freedom of speech is not freedom from being accountable and also get off the Internet and get down the pub/cafe/school pickup/work and talk out stuff in reality.
Why are you curious about their curiosity? Looking to target someone as a way to distract attention away from something you've done?
How curious… 🤔
Why are you curious about about them being curious about their curiosity? I'm now curious.
It's likely to say that their youtube post wouldn't be the only thing they're doing:
(P.S. Didn't read the full article)
Your comment gets reported by another user, then it gets investigated if deemed necessary.