Facebook prioritizing different types of hate speech

Page 5 of 12 [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

07 Dec 2020, 12:03 am

cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
I got warning for elaborating on how Western culture has been superior to other cultures. This is taught in college. However, here, such a suggestion can be considered racist -- if someone complains.


Would doubt the word "superior" would ever be used in higher education to compare one culture over another. It sounds like you misheard or misinterpreted what your college lecturer said.

I took Western History in college.

We started with the Sumerians, and progressed to modern culture.

At various times, it's taught that culture X was superior to culture Y.

For example, the Greek phalanx was considered an innovation in military fighting, and made them superior over their enemies for a time.

Image


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

07 Dec 2020, 12:09 am

cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
I got warning for elaborating on how Western culture has been superior to other cultures. This is taught in college. However, here, such a suggestion can be considered racist -- if someone complains.


Would doubt the word "superior" would ever be used in higher education to compare one culture over another. It sounds like you misheard or misinterpreted what your college lecturer said.


It seems like a token qualification for dubious claims.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,851

07 Dec 2020, 12:23 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
I got warning for elaborating on how Western culture has been superior to other cultures. This is taught in college. However, here, such a suggestion can be considered racist -- if someone complains.


Would doubt the word "superior" would ever be used in higher education to compare one culture over another. It sounds like you misheard or misinterpreted what your college lecturer said.

I took Western History in college.

We started with the Sumerians, and progressed to modern culture.

At various times, it's taught that culture X was superior to culture Y.

For example, the Greek phalanx was considered an innovation in military fighting, and made them superior over their enemies for a time.

Image


That's really quite specific to a particular context which is warfare not culture. For example the German Panzer division was equipped with tanks which was militarily superior over the Polish light cavalry. That has nothing to do with German culture being superior over Polish culture. You got your terminology crossed.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,080
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2020, 12:39 am

cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I am strongly against the concept of "white privilege". I want to be allowed to state my objection to the concept and not be censored. Censoring a concept is pretending a concept does not exist.


This is a recognised psychological phenomenon but nobody is preventing you from critiquing it.


Assuming you mean it applied to all whites, doesn't the word "phenomenon" mean it really exists, ?
Answer: Yes.

Isn't that a false statement?
Answer: Yes.


I would call it a "concept", rather than a "phenomenon"

Quote:
phenomenon
/fəˈnɒmɪnən/
noun
noun: phenomenon; plural noun: phenomena

1.
a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen,

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... phenomenon


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,080
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2020, 12:44 am

cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
I got warning for elaborating on how Western culture has been superior to other cultures. This is taught in college. However, here, such a suggestion can be considered racist -- if someone complains.


Would doubt the word "superior" would ever be used in higher education to compare one culture over another. It sounds like you misheard or misinterpreted what your college lecturer said.


What about the word: "Advanced".

Pre-WWII, the German sciences were generally considered the most "advanced" in the world.
A simple statement of fact, not racial superiority. 8)

In fact, psychologists were puzzled at how such an "advanced"/sophisticated culture could engage in such brutality, during WWII. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,851

07 Dec 2020, 12:59 am

Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
I got warning for elaborating on how Western culture has been superior to other cultures. This is taught in college. However, here, such a suggestion can be considered racist -- if someone complains.


Would doubt the word "superior" would ever be used in higher education to compare one culture over another. It sounds like you misheard or misinterpreted what your college lecturer said.


What about the word: "Advanced".

Pre-WWII, the German sciences were generally considered the most "advanced" in the world.
A simple statement of fact, not racial superiority. 8)

In fact, psychologists were puzzled at how such an "advanced"/sophisticated culture could engage in such brutality, during WWII. 8)


Advanced is acceptable. Superior is not.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,851

07 Dec 2020, 1:03 am

Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I am strongly against the concept of "white privilege". I want to be allowed to state my objection to the concept and not be censored. Censoring a concept is pretending a concept does not exist.


This is a recognised psychological phenomenon but nobody is preventing you from critiquing it.


Assuming you mean it applied to all whites, doesn't the word "phenomenon" mean it really exists, ?
Answer: Yes.

Isn't that a false statement?
Answer: Yes.


I would call it a "concept", rather than a "phenomenon"

Quote:
phenomenon
/fəˈnɒmɪnən/
noun
noun: phenomenon; plural noun: phenomena

1.
a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen,

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... phenomenon


It's applied in this way.
If two people have the same personality, mental health, IQ, status, grades, income and on paper the same qualifications and one person is black and one white then the law of white privilege predicts the white person is statistically more likely to
j) get a job
ii) get better education
ii) get a bank loan
iii) not get harassed by the police
iv) get approval for a house/tenancy in a predominantly white area

The data says I am correct



uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

07 Dec 2020, 1:23 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Antrax wrote:

Robot says discussing "white privilege" is against site rules. Pretty sure AsPartofMe is expressing they don't want discussion of "white privilege" censored so they can express their opposition to the concept.

I think the concept is fine, it describes a phenomenon that exists in society. I dislike how people emphasize this phenomenon because I think it's destructive to focus on racial differences. But, I agree its a silly interpretation of the forum rules to say it can't be discussed.

I got warning for elaborating on how Western culture has been superior to other cultures. This is taught in college. However, here, such a suggestion can be considered racist -- if someone complains.

This site is very reactive to complainers.

On this site, maybe you've noticed, most frequent posters on the right are banned ?

Likely, on a different day, after this discussion has been forgotten, a member will be banned for suggesting supposed axiomatic truths about a non-white racial group, primarily, because it will receive a lot accusations of racism.


Which college did you go to where this is taught? Was it the same place you learned statistics? I have yet to attend a history class, in college or otherwise, that taught that western culture was "better" in any way shape or form.

Update - it seems you've taken quite the leap in logic there. The tactic of the phalanx made them the superior FIGHTING FORCE - you've broadened that on your own to mean by extension that they are the superior race. The point is that the METHOD was better, not the PEOPLE. YOU inferred the superiority of the people yourself, by extension of their use of "superior tactics". You were not taught "western superiority", even if that's the message you're inferring from it. Unless you can provide a better example than being told a method or idea was better, and then YOU independently adding your own inference to it, to imply by proxy that you were being "taught" something YOU added yourself...?

I was taught in world history that the Chinese invention of gunpowder made them the superior fighting force at the time. Does that mean I was taught Chinese Superiority?

Are you implying that if people complain enough they get their way? Are you implying that the mods only act if someone complains enough? Are you implying that the mods are biased against people on the right? Wanted to ask, for clarity purposes. Just to be sure, so there's no ambiguity or misunderstanding.

You go ahead and keep banging the drum of what you want "white privilege" to mean. You have every right to choose to be wrong, and you are welcome to discuss your opinions as well. But you're still wrong. The mods have spoken.

Seems like you're the one doing the complaining. Others are merely correcting you.

As for Facebook, yes, the user is the product. That means the product is a reflection of the users that inhabit it. So if you focus exclusively on the trolls that subvert it, sure, it's easy to portray Facebook as a hive of scum. But it's also easy to ignore all the people that do use facebook for real, honest, legitimate reasons.

To say "Nobody in their right mind is on facebook" likely does constitute one of those sweeping statements / judgments that we're not supposed to make on here. And I get it, I used to think that too. But as with most things, the reality is more complex that we often realize.

It's really easy to get hung up on the bad parts, and project them across the board. Mark Zuckerberg may be a wide-eyed muppet, but I don't think he's EVIL, nor do I think Facebook is meant to be as such - but those who will abuse the loopholes in rules exist everywhere (even here), and Facebook, for better or worse, seems to take as much of a hands-off approach as they can get away with, and really only does the bare minimum they have to.

But if the user is the product, then facebook isn't bad. People are. And people will generally go where the opportunity is. When the rules are too tight, they calm over-policing, when the rules are too loose they claim complicity in the negative or questionable opinions of the users. Basically a lot of the same arguments that get made here, when people claim the mods over-police one side over another, and do so because they too share the views of the ones they are siding with.

As for white privilege, I suspect the main reason people overall don't want to talk about it is cos they might find out it's real, and boy would that be a kick in the teeth. Imagine having to psychologically reconcile the realization that wow, maybe the world IS unfairly biased, and maybe white people HAVE been enjoying the benefits of this, even if they didn't create the system in the first place, or were even aware of it. Like discovering that a product you've been using for years is actually made by doing really terrible things to animals or something - but in this case it's being terrible to people.

Wanna know what white privilege looks like?

Scores of POC and minorities say they've experienced racial bias, and the bar set for them to "prove" that this actually happened is nearly hyperbolic. Apologism and rationalization explain away anything and everything, and the POC basically needs 3 different HD video recordings of someone literally saying "I hate (whatever ethnicity the POC is)
and that's why I'm going to murder you!" while literally murdering them on film, to prove it's racially biased, and even then, "its just a bad apple", or perhaps the Twinky Defense might get invoked. Maybe the racial equivalent of "gay panic" might come into play.

But if a white person says "america isn't racially biased", that's the end of it. NO additional proof needed. It just isn't. Because racism isn't real - unless it's reverse racism :wink: . Because to hear some people tell it, white people aren't racist, can't be racist - but everyone else is, though - and trying to claim that as true is the most white privilege-y think I can think of in this moment.

Heaven forbid a single POC happens to say they've never experience racial bias. That gets treated like a mic-drop moment. They won't believe the multitudes of POC that say they did experience it, but unconditionally believe the ones that say they didn't. I do believe that's called cherry-picking.

I could talk about white privilege all day. And would, given half a chance. Perhaps I shall continue in a new thread.

As for FaceBork, no matter how much or how little they censor of what, someone will always complain. At least they're trying, kinda, I guess. As for bias in their decisions, of course they're going to be biased, mostly in favor of themselves. They will do whatever avoids the most negative press, keeps them out of trouble, and makes them money. That's what businesses do.

Also, "Advanced" is a comparison - "Superior" is a judgement. "Faster" is a comparison" - "Better" is a judgement. You'd think impartial people would know that 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,080
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2020, 1:25 am

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I am strongly against the concept of "white privilege". I want to be allowed to state my objection to the concept and not be censored. Censoring a concept is pretending a concept does not exist.


This is a recognised psychological phenomenon but nobody is preventing you from critiquing it.


Assuming you mean it applied to all whites, doesn't the word "phenomenon" mean it really exists, ?
Answer: Yes.

Isn't that a false statement?
Answer: Yes.


I would call it a "concept", rather than a "phenomenon"

Quote:
phenomenon
/fəˈnɒmɪnən/
noun
noun: phenomenon; plural noun: phenomena

1.
a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen,

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... phenomenon


It's applied in this way.
If two people have the same personality, mental health, IQ, status, grades, income and on paper the same qualifications and one person is black and one white then the law of white privilege predicts the white person is statistically more likely to
j) get a job
ii) get better education
ii) get a bank loan
iii) not get harassed by the police
iv) get approval for a house/tenancy in a predominantly white area

The data says I am correct


Human resources has been inundated with left-wing university graduates, based on my sources.
These individuals would actually favour non-whites, these days.
I don't think your scenario is that accurate, these days.

Look at our situation here, in Australia.
There is a lot of evidence of "Black Privilege".
The pendulum, here, may have gone very much the other way.

I can't speak for the Amerikans, but I can say that in Australia, there isn't that much "white Privilege" that I find myself in.
I get ripped off, like everyone else.
There is no advantage in me being Caucasian, here, my friend. :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,080
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2020, 1:31 am

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
If the American Psychological Association recognise "White privilege" as an evidence based phenomenon then it can't really be banned as its therefore an attack on freedom of speech.
https://www.apa.org/research/action/spe ... -privilege

In contrast Racism against black people is exclusively based on "hate" which does contravene standards on most internet sites.


There are specific rulz on WP.
Insulting terminology has to be backed up with cogent arguments.

Here in Australia, we actually have what some might call "Black Privilege", so much so that there has been an explosion of people claiming aboriginal ancestry, no matter how remote.

There are even cases, such as Bruce Pascoe, of Dark Emus fame, claiming to be of aboriginal descent even though there is no evidence of this being the case. Even aboriginal elders deny that he is aboriginal.

But is it right that all aboriginals have black privilege?
Ask that question to the black communities on welfare, in outback Australia. 8)


I don't necessarily disagree with your points and consider that these are topics that need to be debated (one of the few things I agree with Andrew Bolt).

I also agree on WP its not right to say all caucasians are......that's not right. Although I haven't closed the door to the alien DNA theory.


Damn!
I live to have a political *discussion* with you, rather than a debate.
This is a good start. :heart: :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Glory to Ukraine.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,851

07 Dec 2020, 1:39 am

Pepe wrote:
Damn!
I live to have a political *discussion* with you, rather than a debate.
This is a good start. :heart: :mrgreen:


It took me a while but Bolt made a valid point that indigenous money handed from the government seems to be controlled by gatekeepers who are also sharing in the dividends but seem (on appearance) to be of predominantly white ancestry.

I have tutored "blonde" indigenous students in Melbourne Victoria and they seem to live in a different universe to the aboriginal kids who are doing to tough in remote towns in regional WA, Queensland or NSW.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,851

07 Dec 2020, 1:42 am

Pepe wrote:
Human resources has been inundated with left-wing university graduates, based on my sources.
These individuals would actually favour non-whites, these days.
I don't think your scenario is that accurate, these days.
:


Nah mate, I've been on job interview panels a long long time ago and seen how applicants with Asian names are tossed into a paper shredding machine on the assumption i) their qualifications will be embellished and ii) the English competency will be poor, This is actually true but employers, banks, real estate companies take their bias and extend it to people who don't deserve it.



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

07 Dec 2020, 3:05 am

To people saying cultures can't be superior to one and another I submit the following two cultures:

A) Antebellum Southern U.S. culture
B) Insert your favorite modern country's culture


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,958
Location: I'm right here

07 Dec 2020, 4:46 am

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Damn!
I live to have a political *discussion* with you, rather than a debate.
This is a good start. :heart: :mrgreen:


It took me a while but Bolt made a valid point that indigenous money handed from the government seems to be controlled by gatekeepers who are also sharing in the dividends but seem (on appearance) to be of predominantly white ancestry.

I have tutored "blonde" indigenous students in Melbourne Victoria and they seem to live in a different universe to the aboriginal kids who are doing to tough in remote towns in regional WA, Queensland or NSW.


Would that be the local blonds? (Since Solomon Islands and Australia are where the other blond-haired gene appears)


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,268
Location: Reading, England

07 Dec 2020, 5:29 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Antrax wrote:
I dislike the term white privilege for the simple reason that it reinforces racial classifications and thus contributes to racism, but fail to see how it violates PPR policies to discuss it here.

This site has a rule that you're not suppose to make generalizations of people groups.

Such as "Liberals are XXXX" or "Trump supporters are XXXX" or "Autistics are XXXX".

"White privilege" is such a statement.

It declares all the people in the white racial people group are XXXX.

It is not a generalisation to say that all white people experience white privilege. It is axiomatic. A white person is someone who experiences white privilege. We are not in the business of censoring facts because individuals don’t understand them.

If you interpret it as an axiomatic truth about all white people, which is absurd, then I would think that would be banned as racist.

It follows the form of "All Black people are axiomatic XXXX" ,where XXXX is some assumed axiomatic trait.

You think wrongly.

Race is a social construct. A white person is a person who is perceived as belonging to the “white” category. These people are less likely to experience a whole host of negative experiences. This is called “white privilege”. White privilege is nothing more or less than a description of the fact that in white-ruled societies, white people do not experience the same sorts of pervasive racism that non-white people do. It is not a moral judgement, it does not mean that all white people are richer than all non-white people, it is merely a description of whiteness. It does not tell you anything about white people. It doesn’t mean “white arrogance” or even “white racism”, it’s more like saying “tall people are tall” or “gay people are attracted to people of the same gender.

On the other hand, if you tried to say that all black people are criminals then this would nearly always be a racist statement as it would be a slur against black people. The exception would be if you tried to say that the nature of our society means that black people are routinely criminalised simply for their race. It is not acceptable to say “black people are more inclined towards criminality than other races” but it is acceptable to say “our society is racist”.

This is not up for debate. This is the last word on the subject of WrongPlanet’s rules. Please stop derailing the thread to push your own agenda. If you’d like to discuss the validity of white privilege then you may do so, but the rules are the rules and are not the subject of this topic.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,851

07 Dec 2020, 5:36 am

funeralxempire wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Damn!
I live to have a political *discussion* with you, rather than a debate.
This is a good start. :heart: :mrgreen:


It took me a while but Bolt made a valid point that indigenous money handed from the government seems to be controlled by gatekeepers who are also sharing in the dividends but seem (on appearance) to be of predominantly white ancestry.

I have tutored "blonde" indigenous students in Melbourne Victoria and they seem to live in a different universe to the aboriginal kids who are doing to tough in remote towns in regional WA, Queensland or NSW.


Would that be the local blonds? (Since Solomon Islands and Australia are where the other blond-haired gene appears)


Australian aborigines are intermarrying faster than any minority group in Australia. Jounralist Andrew Bolt was charged under the racial vilification act for stating the obvious, that most people claiming to aborigines are so dilute that it makes no sense, especially since they don't really practice "culture" or know their language. Yet they are the ones who seem to be taking money mean't for aborigines who don't have the luxury to hide their appearance and who do actually still retain their language and culture and spiritual connection to the land.

The blondes you are referring to are the desert aborigines and solomon Islanders who do have a gene for blondism but I understand its not related to the European gene and it tends to vanish in adolescence.