Thank you, I’m great full for the input. Yes. Moderation is needed for free speech to work. Without it, the effective exchange of ideas breaks down because the communication medium happily amplifies noise.
Viral and malformed ideas will beat facts every time. Counter speech fails.
> .... and they came to believe that these very popular websites are somehow inherent to the Internet and to society in general. They're not.
Amen. And my feeling is that we would be better off without them. This is why i'm in favor of slow computing, slower network speeds, and slower lifestyles. (I should state that this is not sarcasm)
Modern 4k monitors are awesome. Need a fast computer to drive them.
My phone shoots 20 megapixels photos. I only post them on social media once in a year or so, but have cloud backups and I need bandwidth for that. I watch movies sometimes, Blu-ray ain’t available at local physical retail, again need internet bandwidth and local storage.
That has nothing to do with expanded hate speech laws, and the in fact the provincial human rights council in British Columbia ruled against the complainant in the article, and ordered her to pay restitution to the salons.
I assume the GGP is referring to the C-16 bill passed by the federal government of Canada in 2016, which added gender expression and identity to existing human rights laws on discrimination.
I have repeatedly seen a perhaps willful misinterpretation, popularly stemming from Jordan Petersen, that this bill criminalizes misgendering people when that's not the case.
>"After Bill C-16 amended the Criminal Code, Canadian law prohibited hate propaganda against groups
that can be identified based on gender identity or gender expression. The bill also allowed for more
severe sentencing if it is proved that a particular offense was motivated by a bias or prejudice
against a person's gender identity or gender expression.
>
>However, experts say misusing a pronoun would not constitute hate propaganda, nor can it be used as >sole evidence of discrimination.
>
>"If it's just the pronoun, not much is going to happen," explained Cheryl Milne, director of the Asper >Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto told AFP."
You’re right, I was confusing the two issues. But this article from the cbc with commentary from two legal experts isn’t completely reassuring:
> Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun?
>In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.
>“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”
>The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination.
>“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
>If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
>It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
>If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
>“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.”
>“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”
Hey thanks for educating me about this. I dunno why my inquiry was downvoted (was it not additive to ask for more sourcing?) but I did want to say genuinely I appreciate actual law I can point to and track over time. Has it been used to prosecute anyone that you're aware of, or how has it been applied in courts? Thanks again!
Sources certainly can add some factual, concrete evidence to someone's argument to ask for a source or two.
That being said, I think some just near-reflexively reply 'Source? Source?' as a sort of low-effort 'rebuttal' by implying it's just, like, your opinion, man when they haven't necessarily come up with a well-thought-out argument.
I won't disagree that well-sourced arguments add much to a discussion, especially if you're not well-informed about the topic at hand.
--
But don't worry about the down-votes. It happens, who can know for sure why, they don't really matter, and if you're earnest in your comments, you'll almost always going to end up in the black. :)
> The almost free speech on the other side of the ocean seems to be working pretty well. You get to say anything that isn’t actively harmful to others, but you won’t be able to advertise bleach as a way to get Corona out of your system.
Alternatively, you don't go to jail for suggesting that anybody actually implied injection of bleach as a treatment for coronavirus.
Last night he was given the chance to unequivocally condemn the Proud Boys and instead told them to "stand back and stand by", which the group themselves has taken as a rally cry. Just like how after Charlottesville, white supremacists took his ambiguous response as a sign of approval.
He doesn't condemn, he validates with just enough deniability that people can make lists like the one you posted, while everyone who is following along sees exactly what is happening.
>Last night he was given the chance to unequivocally condemn the Proud Boys and instead told them to "stand back and stand by
Let's be honest here: if Trump had "unequivocally" said "I condemn White Supremacy", what would have happened, practically? Do you think for a second that the media would have suddenly "let him off the hook"? Problem solved? No more white supremacy talk?
There is footage of him disavowing the KKK, and David Duke, going back 20 years, believe it or not. Has it made a difference?
The fact that question was even asked demonstrates just how far the US political system has fallen. Kind of embarrassing. The fact that Trump doesn't simply repeat the condemnation -- for whatever that's worth -- is sad and polarizing. But let's not pretend it changes anyone's opinion on anything.
>He doesn't condemn, he validates with just enough deniability
Much like many Democrats did with regards to the looting and burning of cities.
I did, unfortunately. I haven't really followed the media's portrayal of it, but I do know that the Proud Boys' website now says "stand back and stand by" prominently on their home page above a call for recruits.
English is not my first language but I think it was the host who introduced that term?
Also he was pushed really hard and seemed willing to denounce violent far right, not just in sweeping terms.
Also: Contrast this to Biden (who could easily be my favorite except for his candidate for vice president) who AFAIK refuse to denounce ANTIFA at all.
I dislike Trump and I am scared by how many seems to be close to worshipping him as a family values guy despite his two broken marriages and other problems.
That said, I think he will easily win again this year. Why?
- underdog sympathy: media tackles him harder and it seems easy to see as an unbiased observer (Again: not a native speaker, but at least I don't want either of them, although in Bidens case that is more because of his choice of vice president candidate.)
- BLM is out everyday to remind people to vote for a law-and-order president
- the Left still underestimating the discontent in the working class
- Trump simultaneously bringing home troops and strengthening the armed forces so people won't lose their lives or their jobs (for now).
- His support for law enforcement (unlike HN-ers many people seems to support the police)
- He is actually wildly successful in certain areas. He has actually managed to get more peace in the Middle East than a number of other presidents, including Obama who got the Nobel peace price.
That said: I don't like him.
I'd rather have any decent engineer or business(wo)man or teacher who knows a bit about politics, can keep their mouth shut at times etc.
> English is not my first language but I think it was the host who introduced that term?
It was not.
Relevant portion of the transcript:
WALLACE: “Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups…”
TRUMP: “Sure…”
WALLACE: “And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we’ve seen in Portland”
TRUMP: “Sure, I’m prepared to do it, but I would say almost everything I see is from the left-wing not from the right-wing. I’m willing to do anything, I want to see peace…”
WALLACE: “Then do it, sir.”
BIDEN: “Do it, say it.”
TRUMP: “What do you want to call them? Give me a name.”
WALLACE: “White supremacists and right-wing militias”
BIDEN: “Proud Boys”
Trump: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left.”
WALLACE: “And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we’ve seen in Portland”
[...]
Trump: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.
Trump parroted the language in the request by Chris Wallace and the named individuals from Biden. It was a gotcha request.
> Trump parroted the language in the request by Chris Wallace
No, he didn't. And while he does have trouble focussing long enough to string together a full coherent sentence, he's not so incompetent with words and shirt phrases to not understand the difference with, or to a
inadvertently swap, the terms with very different meaning “stand back”, and particularly “stand by” when intending to repeat “stand down”.
“stand down” means to demobilize.
“stand back” means to pause, usually for planning or emotional reflection.
“stand by” means to be ready for action or orders.
Trump speaks in code, so it's hard to take any of his words at face value. This could be interpreted as "nuance" or, in context with a pattern of behavior, it can be seen as an sly sort of encouragement -- which is how the Proud Boys are taking his comment.
If the way the comment was received is incorrect, then it is up to Trump to correct it. Obviously, he will not be doing so.
This is what I hear: he says white supremacists should be “totally condemned” which is as harsh as an indictment from a 6 year old. And then proceeds to say that the media treated them unfairly, and the “other side” was worse because they dressed in black and used riot gear.
If you say a group should be condemned but then proceed to justify their actions it’s barely a slap on the wrist, and coming from the president the lack of a strong response is actually a form of encouragement.
> This is only as true as saying that any personal attempt to minimize your carbon footprint is self-harm.
I sometimes wonder, when the mining energy question is raised, about the carbon footprint of all the servers and buildings and air conditioning in all the banks in all the world.
Sure, but the lure of '1000x gainz' (ie. high volatility) isn't useful to its uptake as a replacement for many types of transaction, and here in the UK/EU many countries have allowed (even if somewhat tenuously) some regulatory legroom, so all we're missing is... an app?
Yet...?
It's a solution wherein principally the currently-invested are the only stakeholders hungry for a problem to solve.
In Doom, i get to org-mode with SPC-X. it's great. it's helping me learn emacs, too.