New Canadian 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison

[+OverSword]

The only statistics were about child endangerment which I stated clearly multiple times is a great thing to police against.  Pull off the part about policing "hate" (whatever that may be at a given moment) and I'm all for it. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Anecdotes are not statistics. 

Well that makes 5 posts so far where you've missed the answer to your question. Keep going, I enjoy this impromptu IQ test of a libertarian representative.

EDIT: Whoops, now 6. Nice.

Edited March 18 by Doc Socks Junior

[+OverSword]

25 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Well that makes 5 posts so far where you've missed the answer to your question. Keep going, I enjoy this impromptu IQ test of a libertarian representative.

EDIT: Whoops, now 6. Nice.

So no answer except dig through the last 377 posts and read links and a smart ass insult.  You're obviously trolling.

Edited March 18 by OverSword

[Doc Socks Junior]

43 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So no answer except dig through the last 377 posts and read links and a smart ass insult.  You're obviously trolling.

Well, no, not the last 377 posts. I even provided you with the number. Hate to say it, but the IQ test results aren't looking good, buddy.

[+OverSword]

48 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Well, no, not the last 377 posts. I even provided you with the number. Hate to say it, but the IQ test results aren't looking good, buddy.

That's for sure.  Support for this bill is a clear indication of retardation.

[Doc Socks Junior]

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's for sure.  Support for this bill is a clear indication of retardation.

Ah, the poster who doesn't read posts, doesn't read links, and apparently can't count to 6, is trying to sound authoritative about retardation.

Well, they say experience is the best teacher.

EDIT: Since asking you to count to 6 earlier was too much, I'll just point directly to post #367 to put a pin in this one.

Edited March 18 by Doc Socks Junior

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 3/12/2024 at 1:56 PM, OverSword said:

Incredible how delicate some people from our cousin countries are when it's their nations under the spotlight.  They are too delicate to be Americans as they don't seem equipped to take the heat.

Yea, always thought this 'we Americans so tough' stance is such an empty pose, it seems to derive from the right-wing imaginary game that they're 'owning the libs'.  I don't see much difference as far as 'delicateness', I know you have a million examples for the left-wing but it wasn't really them who lost their mind and practically strangled themselves clutching their pearls because a football player kneeled during the National Anthem. 

I'm ambivalent like to some extent you are also about the idea of 'hate speech', but the fact is that our country over the last ~decade have provided abundant evidence of the harms that can be caused by speech, which in itself provides justification for other countries to not follow our lead on that.  There are some exceptions but overall my message to Canada would be, 'don't be like us'; there is a ton of room for them to improve beyond how things work here, and I don't have much faith or evidence that we'll be improving any of those issues any time soon given the current situation.

[+OverSword]

15 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Ah, the poster who doesn't read posts, doesn't read links, and apparently can't count to 6, is trying to sound authoritative about retardation.

Well, they say experience is the best teacher.

EDIT: Since asking you to count to 6 earlier was too much, I'll just point directly to post #367 to put a pin in this one.

Hate in the Machine: Anti-Black and Anti-Muslim Social Media Posts as Predictors of Offline Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime, is published in the British Journal of Criminology and available to view here.

Study will not open.  So what are the stats that prove a significant amount of (so called) hate crime happens due to an internet post?  Probably unprovable unless someone that has committed the crime blames a specific post.  Not buying it.  The hate exists without the internet.

[+OverSword]

12 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yea, always thought this 'we Americans so tough' stance is such an empty pose, it seems to derive from the right-wing imaginary game that they're 'owning the libs'.

Really?  Because from my point of view I don't say "You can't comment on that you're not even an American.  What do you care?"  when someone talks American gun law who is from Australian or Canada.  So I disagree with your post.

 

15 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

country over the last ~decade have provided abundant evidence of the harms that can be caused by speech

Got any examples?  Please don't say January 6th 

[+OverSword]

31 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Ah, the poster who doesn't read posts, doesn't read links, and apparently can't count to 6, is trying to sound authoritative about retardation.

Well, they say experience is the best teacher.

EDIT: Since asking you to count to 6 earlier was too much, I'll just point directly to post #367 to put a pin in this one.

Okay I left the tab open and it did eventually load.  What it mainly seems to be doing is counting (so called) hate tweets/posts and then assuming more (so called) hate crimes happen.  I say the hate is there and some haters express it online and some do so up close and personal, not one causing the other.  The study does not prove that the online activity was the driver of the real world activity in any way.  The entire study uses numbers without proving a relationship, only postulating their position.  The authors' opinion (and that is all it is) has no more legitimacy than mine or yours. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

30 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Because from my point of view I don't say "You can't comment on that you're not even an American.  What do you care?"  when someone talks American gun law who is from Australian or Canada.  So I disagree with your post.

That's different than 'we so tough because we're Americans and have all this freedom'.  Yea, we have so much 'freedom' that the leading cause of death for children is firearms right now, to me pretty much that fact alone should be enough to clue us in that maybe we should shut up about how other countries need to do things concerning rights and freedoms and lead by example first.

I don't say people from other countries can't comment on American stuff, I say that they are usually unavoidably biased though since our laws don't apply to them, that seems pretty logical.

30 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Got any examples?  Please don't say January 6th 

Why, because there was no harm there or because speech had nothing to do with it?  Forget that, let's not go into what you think of Jan 6th, let's try something that may be more in line with your view.  Do you think the BLM protests did not cause harm or that it had absolutely nothing to do with speech?  If you don't think anti-vax speech is harmful all I can say is I don't think you've been paying attention to that.

Edited March 18 by Liquid Gardens

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's different than 'we so tough because we're Americans and have all this freedom'.  Yea, we have so much 'freedom' that the leading cause of death for children is firearms right now, to me pretty much that fact alone should be enough to clue us in that maybe we should **** about how other countries need to do things concerning rights and freedoms and lead by example first.

I don't say people from other countries can't comment on American stuff, I say that they are usually unavoidably biased though since our laws don't apply to them, that seems pretty logical.

I don't see the connection between tweets and gun crime 

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Why, because there was no harm there or because speech had nothing to do with it?  Forget that, let's not go into what you think of Jan 6th, let's try something that may be more in line with your view.  Do you think the BLM protests did not cause harm or that it had absolutely nothing to do with speech?  If you don't think anti-vax speech is harmful all I can say is I don't think you've been paying attention to that.

Because it's an easy go to and arguably trump didn't tell anyone to use violence. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I don't see the connection between tweets and gun crime 

My comment that you quoted from me was about the 'Americans so tough' pose that shows up in more than just discussions about speech, such as when you accuse people of other countries of being too 'delicate' in comparison to us.

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Because it's an easy go to and arguably trump didn't tell anyone to use violence. 

'Arguably' being the key word. Can you 'prove' that no one committed violence because of Trump's statements?  After all that was the standard you just appealed to concerning the earlier study. ("The study does not prove that the online activity was the driver of the real world activity in any way.  The entire study uses numbers without proving a relationship, only postulating their position. )

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Can you 'prove' that no one committed violence because of Trump's statements?

I can't prove that nobody has committed violence because of our statements 😊

Edited March 18 by OverSword

[Kittens Are Jerks]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Hate in the Machine: Anti-Black and Anti-Muslim Social Media Posts as Predictors of Offline Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime, is published in the British Journal of Criminology and available to view here.

That link is not from Post #367.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

The hate exists without the internet.

It does, but the internet can serve to fuel it.

[+OverSword]

13 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

That link is not from Post #367.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Same paper

13 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

It does, but the internet can serve to fuel it.

Or the violence could serve to fuel the posts.  I have seen many examples of violence happening first and then groups getting pigeon holed after.  Unless you can get anyone that committed a "hate crime" to state they did it because they were enraged by social media posts it's not provable.  How many people have you assaulted or groups labeled because of a social media post?  Zero for me.  

Edited March 18 by OverSword

[Kittens Are Jerks]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Same paper

Yes sorry. Just remembered that link was embedded in one of the articles.

[+OverSword]

12 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Yes sorry. Just remembered that link was embedded in one of the articles.

No problem.  For the record I understand why you agree with this bill I just have the opinion that freedom of speech is the most essential freedom and extreme caution and consideration should be applied to any limitations placed on it.  I don't think you are crazy naïve or stupid in the least.  I hope you have known that throughout the thread.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

38 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I don't think you are crazy naïve or stupid in the least.

Likewise.

[Doc Socks Junior]

On 3/18/2024 at 9:33 AM, OverSword said:

Okay I left the tab open and it did eventually load.

Whew. Good job. Proud of you That wasn't so hard, was it? All you had to do was read the post in the first place.

On 3/18/2024 at 9:33 AM, OverSword said:

  What it mainly seems to be doing is counting (so called) hate tweets/posts and then assuming more (so called) hate crimes happen.

Well, looks like you may need to read the study too. Alas.

The study counted (so-called) hate tweets and also counted (actual) hate crimes.

If you missed that, then you didn't even decipher the study abstract correctly.

I suppose, given the difficulty I had in leading you to finding an online link, I could have expected this.

On 3/18/2024 at 9:33 AM, OverSword said:

I say the hate is there and some haters express it online and some do so up close and personal, not one causing the other.

First part obviously true.

As to the second part, some people obviously do both.

If you read the article, which of course you haven't, you might have found this quote enlightening:

Quote

Through the various mechanisms outlined in the theoretical work presented in this article, it is plausible to conclude that hate speech posted on social media, an indicator of extreme polarization, influences the frequency of offline hate crimes. However, it is unlikely that online hate speech is directly causal of offline hate crime in isolation. It is more likely the case that social media is only part of the formula

Of course, you reading the entirety of my post is obviously not going to happen either.

Lmao.

On 3/18/2024 at 9:33 AM, OverSword said:

  The study does not prove that the online activity was the driver of the real world activity in any way.

There's really no scenario in which you'd accept a link here. What would be sufficient? Signed statements from each hooligan who hit somebody with a turban in the head stating that the online circle telling them to "Bash the towelheads" was a factor in the case? Nothing short of that? Something short of that.

On 3/18/2024 at 9:33 AM, OverSword said:

 The entire study uses numbers without proving a relationship, only postulating their position.

You wanted numbers. Apparently, only to dismiss them out of hand (as proven by your immediate knee-jerk when the study didn't load).

Well, at least you're provably entrenched.

On 3/18/2024 at 9:33 AM, OverSword said:

The authors' opinion (and that is all it is) has no more legitimacy than mine or yours. 

Not really all it is. Opinion would be if they were a numerically-challenged non-reader in the Internet. When the authors put forward hypotheses, and gather data, and analyze, and discuss it, it becomes more than an opinion. 

Edited March 20 by Doc Socks Junior

[+OverSword]

7 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Whew. Good job. Proud of you That wasn't so hard, was it? All you had to do was read the post in the first place.

On 3/18/2024 at 12:33 PM, OverSword said:

It was not difficult it was a waste of time, there was nothing demonstrating causality.  It was opinion based on cherry picked data.

[Doc Socks Junior]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

It was not difficult it was a waste of time, there was nothing demonstrating causality.  It was opinion based on cherry picked data.

As I thought, you didn't bother even reading all of my post before you slag off a shallow answer. Ah well, the bonus round IQ test didn't go well for you either.

Learn to read.

[+OverSword]

42 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

As I thought, you didn't bother even reading all of my post before you slag off a shallow answer. Ah well, the bonus round IQ test didn't go well for you either.

Learn to read.

I read it, I only quoted the part I was responding to so there would be no confusion about my statement. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I read it, I only quoted the part I was responding to so there would be no confusion about my statement. 

Ah, and here was me thinking that your proven inability to read posts suggested that you hadn't read mine. Whew. Glad that's cleared up.

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Ah, and here was me thinking that your proven inability to read posts suggested that you hadn't read mine. Whew. Glad that's cleared up.

There was no need to respond to the rest since:

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

there was nothing demonstrating causality.  It was opinion based on cherry picked data.

Nothing you typed changed that fact.

Edited March 20 by OverSword