Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution > General Discussion > Chit Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-24-2018, 04:23 PM   #1
choof
Banned
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorD7 Elite KeysmasherFFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,563
Default some old white racists got fuckin owned by visa and why that's a good thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arch0wl View Post
no, the "hate group" label is useless, vague, and irrelevant. the term "hate" is meaningless, and more ideological than substantial.
According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate group's "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."[1]
that doesn't seem very vague to me though.

Quote:
the splc's definition in particular has not been meaningful in any way. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2...20180724171554
soft paywall, please link to this article from elsewhere

Quote:
what a given group is able to do, and therefore what sets the standard for what is possible and what people are okay with -- aka, societal and legal precedents -- is far more important than whether any given group receives money or not.
which is precisely why hate groups should not be given platforms.

Last edited by choof; 08-24-2018 at 08:04 PM..
choof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2018, 04:39 PM   #2
Arch0wl
Banned
FFR Simfile Author
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: fb.com/a.macdonald.iv
Age: 35
Posts: 6,344
Default Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-e...its-defamation
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/3....ng-anti-christ

"promoting anomisity", "promiting hostility", "promoting malice" are all extremely open for interpretation as they are vague. what counts as "hostility" in, say, a rough neighborhood in LA is vastly different than what counts as "hostility" at Oxford. clearly, the term is open for interpretation in a very broad way.

these terms are along the same lines of vagueness as terms like "personal attacks", "insults", "being mean", and so on. the CT threads I posted recently (one about the vagueness of terms like "being nice", one about the vaguenss of terms like "insult") show that this isn't immediately obvious to everyone, nor is it self-evident. there's widespread disagreement about what these things mean.

using the term again doesn't make "hate group" less meaningless. it just means you're rolling with a term that hasn't been defined well. "well, like I said, bad people shouldn't get money" where "bad people" = whatever you want.

Last edited by Arch0wl; 08-24-2018 at 04:40 PM..
Arch0wl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2018, 04:49 PM   #3
Arch0wl
Banned
FFR Simfile Author
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: fb.com/a.macdonald.iv
Age: 35
Posts: 6,344
Default Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

Quote:
Strossen draws attention to the fact that prohibitions of “hate speech” are characterized by unavoidable vagueness and overbreadth. A law is “unduly vague” (and unconstitutional) when people “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.” “Hate speech” laws are inherently subjective and ambiguous in their language, with the use of words like “insulting,” “abusive,” and “outrageous.” Specific to laws about speech, vagueness “inevitably deters people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech” (69).

One person’s “hate speech” is another’s anti-“hate speech.” Strossen cites many examples in which certain religious views are assailed as “hate speech” against LGBT individuals, while critiques of those religious views are attacked as anti-religious “hate speech.”

This issue is also prevalent on campus, exemplified by a situation at Harvard University in which a group of students hung a confederate flag from their dorm room. In response, other students hung swastikas from their windows.

Strossen notes the irony of the situation:
Of course, the swastika is deeply identified with Hitler’s anti-Semitic and other egregiously hateful ideas, not to mention genocide. However, the Harvard Students who hung the swastika were trying to convey the opposite message, condemning the racism that the Confederate flag connoted to them by equating it with swastika. So should these swastika displays count as “hate speech”—or as anti- “hate speech” (78-79)?
Deciding what should count as “hate speech” leaves room for decision-makers to err or disagree about whether an expression constitutes “hate speech.” This arbitrariness of these laws on campus means that “…all members of the campus community face enforcement that is unpredictable and inconsistent at best, and arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory at worst” (77).

Moreover, “given the pervasiveness of individual and institutional bias,” the government is likely to enforce “hate speech” laws, as it has other laws, to the disadvantage of the disempowered and those with unpopular ideas. David Cole, ACLU legal director reiterates this point:
Here is the ultimate contradiction in the argument for state suppression of speech in the name of equality: it demands protection of disadvantaged minorities’ interests, but in a democracy, the state acts in the name of the majority, not the minority. Why would disadvantaged minorities trust representatives of the majority to decide whose speech should be censored (81)?
Strossen observes this phenomenon even in countries with established democratic governments. Take Canada, for example, which is more willing to restrict certain forms of speech than the United States. The Canadian Supreme Court explains the word “hatred,” (as used in their laws) as “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification”; and “enmity and extreme ill-will … which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike.” How confident would you be in distinguishing between speech that conveys “disdain,” which not punishable, and speech that conveys “detestation” or “vilification,” which is punishable? The consequence of this innate vagueness and overbreadth is illustrated in the following case:

Canadian customs seized copies of a book being imported from the United States because it was dangerous, racist and sexist. The book was Black Looks: Race and Representation by bell hooks, African-American feminist scholar who was then a professor at Oberlin College. hooks describes the impact of this decision in “Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations”:
It seemed ironic that this book, which opens which opens with a chapter urging everyone to learn to “love blackness,” would be accused of encouraging racial hatred. I doubt that anyone at the Canadian border read this book: the target for repression and censorship was the radical bookstore, not me…it was another message sent to remind radical bookstores—particularly those that sell feminist, lesbian, and/or overtly sexual literature—that the state is watching them and ready to censor.
Thus, “hate speech” laws are enforced against the certain groups they try to protect. We must resist solutions that embrace censorship, as hate speech laws fall hardest on those they aim to protect. Instead, we should favor the liberal solution, more speech:
Just as free speech always has been the strongest weapon to advance reform movements, including equal rights causes, censorship always has been the strongest weapon to thwart them. That general pattern applies to “hate speech” laws, even though they are adopted to advance equality (81).
per here
Arch0wl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2018, 05:02 PM   #4
choof
Banned
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorD7 Elite KeysmasherFFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,563
Default Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arch0wl View Post
"promoting anomisity", "promiting hostility", "promoting malice" are all extremely open for interpretation as they are vague.
most people understand what "hostility" and "malice" is comprised of when it's in the context of race, gender, religion, etc. in the case of groups such as stormfront or horowitz, the promotion of hostility and malice should be obvious. they hate jews and muslims based on the sole premise of them being jews and muslims.

Quote:
what counts as "hostility" in, say, a rough neighborhood in LA is vastly different than what counts as "hostility" at Oxford. clearly, the term is open for interpretation in a very broad way.
again, the context of race makes this pretty clear.

Quote:
these terms are along the same lines of vagueness as terms like "personal attacks", "insults", "being mean", and so on. the CT threads I posted recently (one about the vagueness of terms like "being nice", one about the vaguenss of terms like "insult") show that this isn't immediately obvious to everyone, nor is it self-evident. there's widespread disagreement about what these things mean.
and based on your responses in that CT thread you seem to have an issue understanding context.

Quote:
using the term again doesn't make "hate group" less meaningless. it just means you're rolling with a term that hasn't been defined well. "well, like I said, bad people shouldn't get money" where "bad people" = whatever you want.
I think people who use python to automate windows functionality are bad people (because powershell is objectively better yes I'm being hostile come at me br0o0o0oo0o). I also think that people who hate brown people because they're brown are bad people. I'm fine with one of these groups of people getting a platform. you should be able to guess which one.
choof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2018, 05:15 PM   #5
Arch0wl
Banned
FFR Simfile Author
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: fb.com/a.macdonald.iv
Age: 35
Posts: 6,344
Default Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

well, if most people "understood" what hostility, malice and so on were in the case of race, then there wouldn't be so many authors agreeing that hate group classifications are vague.

you can chalk this up to some error on my part, but that doesn't help you understand anything. I could easily just say, in turn, that you're simplifying a complex social phenomenon due to (insert some negative trait about you). this needs to be provabe in some way. a person saying "hey, there are a lot of ways to look at this situation" doesn't mean they have trouble with context.

context is quite easy for me to understand. in fact, it's because there are so many angles from which to come at a situation that it's easy for me to see how these terms are vague. the more I learn socially the more this is true; situations seemed more straightforward when I knew less about other human beings. with the trend of more knowledge = more complexity, I would be lying to myself and you if I agreed with this being merely a context issue.

finally, "hostility" is not something that is clear due to racial context. if you participate in a discussion group of largely economically well-off people, even so much as swearing will be regarded as hostile. this has nothing to do with race, but just perceptions of hostility which may be directed at race. meanwhile, if samuel l jackson swears, he's just talking.

regardless, if the quoted article was not enough for you, try

this (canadian, but relevant): https://theconversation.com/section-...repealed-64482

or this (an scholarly publication on the issue): https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewconte...522&context=lr
Arch0wl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2018, 06:02 PM   #6
the sun fan
FFR Player
 
the sun fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Age: 29
Posts: 441
Default Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

Idc how hard it is to define, I agree with choof.
__________________
TWG Stats: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

FFR is a pretty good place somehow.
the sun fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2018, 06:09 PM   #7
Arch0wl
Banned
FFR Simfile Author
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: fb.com/a.macdonald.iv
Age: 35
Posts: 6,344
Default Re: VISA/Mastercard blocks payment to Horowitz Center because of SPLC

for the purposes of your view being true you should care, because that's empty disagreement otherwise -- i.e. you're agreeing on something that still has a glaring problem. the issues outlined in those essays and articles I sent you aren't going away.

on the other hand, I think this is a completely different topic now. is it possible for the moderators to split the topic (starting with choof's post about the horowitz group being undeserving of funds), then lock the other one? that would make this more relevant.
Arch0wl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2018, 08:05 PM   #8
choof
Banned
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorD7 Elite KeysmasherFFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,563
Default Re: some old white racists got fuckin owned by visa and why that's a good thing

nice thread title miss me with that nerd shit
choof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2018, 11:42 PM   #9
shrewms
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 15
Default Re: some old white racists got fuckin owned by visa and why that's a good thing

were they truly old?






were they truly white?







were they truly racist???
shrewms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2018, 02:28 PM   #10
melonpapes
FFR Player
 
melonpapes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Confirmed: Sending supplies
Posts: 343
Default Re: some old white racists got fuckin owned by visa and why that's a good thing

why did this need 2 threads
__________________
melonpapes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2018, 04:05 PM   #11
dAnceguy117
new hand moves = dab
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
dAnceguy117's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: he/they
Age: 33
Posts: 10,094
Default Re: some old white racists got fuckin owned by visa and why that's a good thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by melonpapes View Post
why did this need 2 threads
I think this was split from the other thread, which doesn't answer the question but what i mean to say is I don't think choof created this 2nd thread
dAnceguy117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2018, 07:51 PM   #12
choof
Banned
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorD7 Elite KeysmasherFFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,563
Default Re: some old white racists got fuckin owned by visa and why that's a good thing

it was split by arch's request but someone (presumably dev based on the initial wording lol) titled it "Morality Of Visa's denial of Horowitz" and that was just way too nerdy of a title if I'm to be to OP

Last edited by choof; 08-25-2018 at 07:52 PM..
choof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2018, 08:00 PM   #13
the sun fan
FFR Player
 
the sun fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Age: 29
Posts: 441
Default Re: some old white racists got fuckin owned by visa and why that's a good thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by choof View Post
it was split by arch's request but someone (presumably dev based on the initial wording lol) titled it "Morality Of Visa's denial of Horowitz" and that was just way too nerdy of a title if I'm to be to OP
the maddest amount of respect
__________________
TWG Stats: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

FFR is a pretty good place somehow.
the sun fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2018, 06:29 PM   #14
Arch0wl
Banned
FFR Simfile Author
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: fb.com/a.macdonald.iv
Age: 35
Posts: 6,344
Default Re: some old white racists got fuckin owned by visa and why that's a good thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by melonpapes View Post
why did this need 2 threads
there are two issues here:

1. whether "hate group" is a useful label, or too vague to be useful

2. whether VISA/mastercard denied the horowitz center due to speech reasons, or due to some other reason

#2, I think, is largely settled; it's very improbable that this happened. this is good news.

however, #1 is still an issue worth discussing, and imo more relevant, so I requested the threads be split.
Arch0wl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2018, 07:39 AM   #15
Kekeb
davai
FFR Veteran
 
Kekeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Age: 33
Posts: 2,765
Default Re: some old white racists got fuckin owned by visa and why that's a good thing

why is visa messing with this jewish man's nonprofit? very anti-semitic!
Kekeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution