Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
RoofGardener

Free Speech ?

171 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, susieice said:

Who is cherishing hatred? Especially Lilly!

I wasn't posting against Lilly, the subject just triggered my irony-monster, bigtime.

 

8 hours ago, Lilly said:

The local news covered the Free Speech group, but  apparently not much happened over on the commons...they just had their say and then wrapped it up.

A competent Police force following a consistent guideline can do wonders for this sort of thing, eh?:)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Hmm.. I came across another interesting "grey area" yesterday, and I thought it might be worthy of discussion. 

There is a website called "Jihad Watch", www.jihadwatch.org , run by a chap called Robert Spencer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)#Best_sellers  . 

The site is mostly a news aggregator, featuring media articles relating to Jihad and Islamic extremism, along with the occasional editorial, and a lot of promotion of Robert Spencer and his various books. (and BOY has he written a lot of them). 

It is certainly unsympathetic to Islam, and It could be regarded as "rabble rousing", but the news articles it reprints/links are mostly from reputable sources. (mainstream media, with a light sprinkling of more fringe sites such as Breitbart, Christian Monitor, and outright lunatic sites such as the New York Times and the BBC :P )

Notwithstanding, it is listed as a "hate site" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre, and - based on that listing - an independent journalism group called ProPublica appears to have lobbied Paypal to close Spencer's account... which they duly did yesterday.  According to their letter to Jihadwatch, ProPublica hint that they are pressurising Amazon and other payment sites to do likewise. 

Facebook have already put a filter on links through to Jihadwatch, and Google put an algorithm overide on the search term "Jihad" a few weeks ago that ensures that Jihadwatch is no longer the No. 1 result . The new "top results" are all Islam-friendly, and - having looked at them - seem to break the "rules" that google is supposed to implement to determine what consitutes a high-ranking result. (e.g. they are "artificial" results created by Google internal policy rather than content relevance and quality)

Responsible social engineering ? Or Stalinist suppression ? 

I'd value your opinions :) 

 

 

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Facebook have already put a filter on links through to Jihadwatch, and Google put an algorithm overide on the search term "Jihad" a few weeks ago that ensures that Jihadwatch is no longer the No. 1 result . The new "top results" are all Islam-friendly, and - having looked at them - seem to break the "rules" that google is supposed to implement to determine what consitutes a high-ranking result. (e.g. they are "artificial" results created by Google internal policy rather than content relevance and quality)

Responsible social engineering ? Or Stalinist suppression ? 

I'd value your opinions :) 

 

I think that Facebook* is going to be used more and more to control the flow of information and I consider it to be
a growing danger to democracy and free speech - I'm putting it in the (developing) Stalinist suppression category -

of course it's all done in a rainbowy... aren't we all lovely people kind of way.... which is extra sinister ^_^ 

* edit to add ... and Twitter and YouTube ... 

Edited by bee
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. I came across another interesting "grey area" yesterday, and I thought it might be worthy of discussion. 

There is a website called "Jihad Watch", www.jihadwatch.org , run by a chap called Robert Spencer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)#Best_sellers  . 

The site is mostly a news aggregator, featuring media articles relating to Jihad and Islamic extremism, along with the occasional editorial, and a lot of promotion of Robert Spencer and his various books. (and BOY has he written a lot of them). 

It is certainly unsympathetic to Islam, and It could be regarded as "rabble rousing", but the news articles it reprints/links are mostly from reputable sources. (mainstream media, with a light sprinkling of more fringe sites such as Breitbart, Christian Monitor, and outright lunatic sites such as the New York Times and the BBC :P )

Notwithstanding, it is listed as a "hate site" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre, and - based on that listing - an independent journalism group called ProPublica appears to have lobbied Paypal to close Spencer's account... which they duly did yesterday.  According to their letter to Jihadwatch, ProPublica hint that they are pressurising Amazon and other payment sites to do likewise. 

Responsible social engineering ? Or Stalinist suppression ? 

I'd value your opinions :) 

Maybe they got him confused with Richard Spencer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer ? LOL 

This is a tough one, but it appears that the SPLC arent the only ones who think Mr. Spencer is involved in hate type activities :

Quote

. On June 25, 2013, Spencer and Geller were banned from Britain after planning to attend a rally organized by the English Defence League, an anti-Muslim extremist group. According to a letter issued by the Home Office of the United Kingdom, “The Home Secretary has reached this decision because you have brought yourself within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.” Spencer’s response to the announcement was to accuse the British government of being a “de facto Islamic state.” 

Im honestly torn and want to look into it further. Does he ever post anything positive about muslims on his site? If someone clearly hates a religion and posts a website to spread their position isnt that a hate site? 

I mean even I have posted the occasional positive thing about Trump :D

Im not for censorship but I dont think thats what this is. Mr. Spencer is free to host his own website if he likes , capitalism and whatnot however dictates that hate equals unhappy customers and noone wants that. 

 

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Facebook have already put a filter on links through to Jihadwatch, and Google put an algorithm overide on the search term "Jihad" a few weeks ago that ensures that Jihadwatch is no longer the No. 1 result . The new "top results" are all Islam-friendly, and - having looked at them - seem to break the "rules" that google is supposed to implement to determine what consitutes a high-ranking result. (e.g. they are "artificial" results created by Google internal policy rather than content relevance and quality)

I just googled jihad and while jihadwatch is no longer the no.1 result it is still on the first page of search results so its not exactly being disappeared 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. I came across another interesting "grey area" yesterday, and I thought it might be worthy of discussion. 

There is a website called "Jihad Watch", www.jihadwatch.org , run by a chap called Robert Spencer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)#Best_sellers  . 

The site is mostly a news aggregator, featuring media articles relating to Jihad and Islamic extremism, along with the occasional editorial, and a lot of promotion of Robert Spencer and his various books. (and BOY has he written a lot of them). 

It is certainly unsympathetic to Islam, and It could be regarded as "rabble rousing", but the news articles it reprints/links are mostly from reputable sources. (mainstream media, with a light sprinkling of more fringe sites such as Breitbart, Christian Monitor, and outright lunatic sites such as the New York Times and the BBC :P )

Notwithstanding, it is listed as a "hate site" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre, and - based on that listing - an independent journalism group called ProPublica appears to have lobbied Paypal to close Spencer's account... which they duly did yesterday.  According to their letter to Jihadwatch, ProPublica hint that they are pressurising Amazon and other payment sites to do likewise. 

Facebook have already put a filter on links through to Jihadwatch, and Google put an algorithm overide on the search term "Jihad" a few weeks ago that ensures that Jihadwatch is no longer the No. 1 result . The new "top results" are all Islam-friendly, and - having looked at them - seem to break the "rules" that google is supposed to implement to determine what consitutes a high-ranking result. (e.g. they are "artificial" results created by Google internal policy rather than content relevance and quality)

Responsible social engineering ? Or Stalinist suppression ? 

I'd value your opinions :) 

 

 

 

 

I count it as supression. But I don't even think sites on the internet should be suppressed.

Ideas are fought through discussion not through suppression. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these companies weren't basically a monopoly, I'd say they have a right to do whatever they wanted. 

However this is a situation where ideas are being effectively censored with no way of getting around it. One company should never be able to hold such power over whole societies. 

Edited by preacherman76
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Maybe they got him confused with Richard Spencer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer ? LOL 

Funnily enough, some of his detractors HAVE :P 

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

This is a tough one, but it appears that the SPLC arent the only ones who think Mr. Spencer is involved in hate type activities :

Im honestly torn and want to look into it further. Does he ever post anything positive about muslims on his site? If someone clearly hates a religion and posts a website to spread their position isnt that a hate site? 

That's what makes it so interesting. So far as I am aware, ALL of the material on his website is - implicitly - critical of Islam (though NOT of "Muslims" as individuals). However, does that constitute "hate" ?

If I create a website highly critical of .. dunno.. aubergines or something ...  and post endless new stories... from respectable media outlets - about the culinary downsides of Aubgerines, does that make me an Auberphobe, or a Solanumist ? When does posting factual accounts become "hate" ? I can see how it MIGHT, with selection... but... you can probably see the problem here ? 

If I create a website listing the moral failings of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany.. (as MANY have done.. with good reason)... is this a "hate crime" against modern Germans ? 

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I mean even I have posted the occasional positive thing about Trump :D

Only to say that you POSITIVELY hate him :P sorry.. sorry... inaccurate.. slanderous even...  and definitely unfair... but I just couldn't resist... 

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Im not for censorship but I dont think thats what this is. Mr. Spencer is free to host his own website if he likes , capitalism and whatnot however dictates that hate equals unhappy customers and noone wants that. 

Except.. it wasn't his CUSTOMER that was complaining. It was an 3rd party that - seemingly - wanted to separate him from his customers... and prevent them from buying his books. I'm REALLY uncomfortable with restricting books. I know it is SOMETIMES desirable.. but you have to be REALLY careful about that.

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I just googled jihad and while jihadwatch is no longer the no.1 result it is still on the first page of search results so its not exactly being disappeared 

 A very wise "man" once said... "With the first chain, the link is forged... the first speech censured... the first thought forbidden..the first freedom denied... chains us ALL irrevocably. "

I BET you don't know who said that. (It surprised me... )

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

 

 A very wise "man" once said... "With the first chain, the link is forged... the first speech censured... the first thought forbidden..the first freedom denied... chains us ALL irrevocably. "

I BET you don't know who said that. (It surprised me... )

 

 

I know this one!

But only because I'm a total sci-fi Geek.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RoofGardener said:

 A very wise "man" once said... "With the first chain, the link is forged... the first speech censured... the first thought forbidden..the first freedom denied... chains us ALL irrevocably. "

Haha thats the first time ive heard this quote, but I really like it. Hey if its good enough for Avery Bullock its good enough for me and no i never would have guessed that in a million years! 

 

Just now, RoofGardener said:

Except.. it wasn't his CUSTOMER that was complaining. It was an 3rd party that - seemingly - wanted to separate him from his customers... and prevent them from buying his books. I'm REALLY uncomfortable with restricting books. I know it is SOMETIMES desirable.. but you have to be REALLY careful about that.

I wasnt saying it was his customers, but potential customers of Amazon, paypal etc who might have a problem with their favorite retailers doing business with extremists. Im still not entirely comfortable with the concept myself.

 

Just now, RoofGardener said:

Only to say that you POSITIVELY hate him :P sorry.. sorry... inaccurate.. slanderous even...  and definitely unfair... but I just couldn't resist... 

:lol: No pretty accurate, I dont think i have said anything positive about him since either pulling out of the TPP or his nomination of Gorsuch whichever was most recent. 

 

Just now, RoofGardener said:

That's what makes it so interesting. So far as I am aware, ALL of the material on his website is - implicitly - critical of Islam (though NOT of "Muslims" as individuals). However, does that constitute "hate" ?

It is interesting. As im thinking more about it I do wish it were an exercise rather than a reality I think. Censorship is scary 

Out of curiosity let me ask you , if it were a pro jihad site would you feel the same? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lilly said:

I know this one!

But only because I'm a total sci-fi Geek.

I had assumed.. until tonight.. that the scene was based on an earlier "real word" speech... possibly by Aristotle or something.... 

Curious, isn't it ? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. I came across another interesting "grey area" yesterday, and I thought it might be worthy of discussion. 

....

Notwithstanding, it is listed as a "hate site" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre, and - based on that listing - an independent journalism group called ProPublica appears to have lobbied Paypal to close Spencer's account... which they duly did yesterday.  According to their letter to Jihadwatch, ProPublica hint that they are pressurising Amazon and other payment sites to do likewise. 

Facebook have already put a filter on links through to Jihadwatch, and Google put an algorithm overide on the search term "Jihad" a few weeks ago that ensures that Jihadwatch is no longer the No. 1 result . The new "top results" are all Islam-friendly, and - having looked at them - seem to break the "rules" that google is supposed to implement to determine what consitutes a high-ranking result. (e.g. they are "artificial" results created by Google internal policy rather than content relevance and quality)

Responsible social engineering ? Or Stalinist suppression ? 

I'd value your opinions :) 

Google is putting itself out of business if this keeps up, that that is THEIR problem, not ours. And the SPLC was dumped by the FBI years ago, who no longer consider them a reliable source of information at all.

Firstly, if you are tired of Google's games, try DuckDuckGo, a quick & easy search engine that i now use all the time-

https://duckduckgo.com

 

Other tips are here -

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I had assumed.. until tonight.. that the scene was based on an earlier "real word" speech... possibly by Aristotle or something.... 

Curious, isn't it ? 

Curious...it's down right prophetic: https://diply.com/what-the-facts/article/times-star-trek-predicted-future

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I wasnt saying it was his customers, but potential customers of Amazon, paypal etc who might have a problem with their favorite retailers doing business with extremists. Im still not entirely comfortable with the concept myself.

Out of curiosity let me ask you , if it were a pro jihad site would you feel the same? 

Hmm... good points - as ever. I'll have to consider those when I'm sober. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... I wonder... perhaps it would be worth creating a new thread about "the philosophy of Star Trek" ? 

Although I was familiar with the episode in question, I had NO idea that the "chains" speech was original to the scriptwriters ? 

I mean.. it's worthy of Ghandi or MLK ? 

ANYWAY.. back to the main thread. 

Umm.. where were we ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... good points - as ever. I'll have to consider those when I'm sober. 

Ok.. I'll "anshwer" it anyway. (hick)

NO.. I would not feel the same way about a "pro-Jihad" site, in the same way that I would not feel the same away about a "pro-fascism" site, or a "Pro-Aubgerines" site. 

But at the same time, I would not regard a website that simply documented Aubgerine (or Fascist) news in the same light as a PRO Aubergineistic site. The two are entirely different. 

Jihad Fascism and Aubgergines are a blight on our civilisation. In the same way that "race-supremicism" (commonly reffered to as "racism") is. 

Umm... Farmer77.. I'm not sure what point you where developshing there ? < hick > 

Edited by RoofGardener
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, RoofGardener said:

Umm... Farmer77.. I'm not sure what point you where developshing there ? < hick > 

 

Just now, RoofGardener said:

"Pro-Aubgerines" site. 

Well my point is clearly only a monster would make such a site and it should be shut down IMMEDIATELY lest it harm the minds and palates of our youth :lol: 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2017 at 3:20 AM, and then said:

I'm stating that the far Left in the U.S., in the form of groups like Antifa, funded by shadowy sources, BEHAVE exactly like the Brownshirts in the 30's.  They use violence and intimidation to disrupt the free expression of ideas by those they disagree with.  If you look at the images from Berkely, earlier this year and deny this then it is YOU who is either disconnected from reality, lying or extremely biased.  The groups of thugs that came spoiling for violence in Charlottesville were reprehensible but they were not the first to behave in such a way this year, were they?  In fact, I would posit that the acceptance by media of the outrage at Berkley gave a tacit approval to the use of violence in political expression.  It is ridiculous to assume that once violence is normalized in any way, it can be restricted to being used by one side only.  To think so is childish.

You are describing " counter-protesters" correct? If you were not trying to, you just did. If you were trying to, you hit the nail on the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sakari said:

You are describing " counter-protesters" correct? If you were not trying to, you just did. If you were trying to, you hit the nail on the head.

Actually, the description fits both groups but yes, I was describing that specific encounter by the counter-protesters.  BOTH came primed to fight that day and the cops in Charlottesville, for whatever reason, refrained from restraining them.  FWIW, I believe we are witnessing an effort to intentionally ratchet up violence and tensions on a national level to bring more heat on removing the president.  They can see that their efforts to shame Trump supporters into deserting him have failed and this is plan B.  I expect it to increase in intensity and to spread.  I hope I'm wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we post stuff relating to Charlotesville in the relevant thread, and not divert THIS thread from it, unless there is a GENUINE convergence ? 

Now, about PayPal and Jihadwatch ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Funnily enough, some of his detractors HAVE :P 

That's what makes it so interesting. So far as I am aware, ALL of the material on his website is - implicitly - critical of Islam (though NOT of "Muslims" as individuals). However, does that constitute "hate" ?

If I create a website highly critical of .. dunno.. aubergines or something ...  and post endless new stories... from respectable media outlets - about the culinary downsides of Aubgerines, does that make me an Auberphobe, or a Solanumist ? When does posting factual accounts become "hate" ? I can see how it MIGHT, with selection... but... you can probably see the problem here ? 

If I create a website listing the moral failings of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany.. (as MANY have done.. with good reason)... is this a "hate crime" against modern Germans ? 

Only to say that you POSITIVELY hate him :P sorry.. sorry... inaccurate.. slanderous even...  and definitely unfair... but I just couldn't resist... 

Except.. it wasn't his CUSTOMER that was complaining. It was an 3rd party that - seemingly - wanted to separate him from his customers... and prevent them from buying his books. I'm REALLY uncomfortable with restricting books. I know it is SOMETIMES desirable.. but you have to be REALLY careful about that.

 A very wise "man" once said... "With the first chain, the link is forged... the first speech censured... the first thought forbidden..the first freedom denied... chains us ALL irrevocably. "

I BET you don't know who said that. (It surprised me... )

 

 

Captain Picard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:

Captain Picard!

Correct :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.