What is a "known hate site"? ... ... by Bob Nelson
NT should proscribe seeding from known hate site. I've stated my support for banning hate speech since forever.
That isn't true of very many members, if I recall the debates we've had on the subject. Banning hate speech is a limitation on free speech, and most members have said that there should be no infringement whatsoever on free speech. I have always said that hate speech has no value; on the contrary, it is harmful. When something is harmful, with no counterbalancing qualities, it should be banned.
So I'm not going to flip now and say the opposite, although I suspect that many of those who used to say "No to censorship of any kind!!" will kinda sorta not say the same thing in the present case. Their incoherence is their problem.
So... how do we do this? How do we define "known hate site"?
Should NT keep a democratically derived list? That's probably not a great idea, since we'd have a hard time agreeing.
Should Perrie make a list? That's silly. She has more than enough work with... some members being less than easy...
What reasonable, practically applicable process would produce an acceptable list?
If we are unable to make a list, we could just agree that if Perrie doesn't like it, she can delete it. That would formalize the de facto situation that now applies.
I don't think it's a good solution, though. It would be arbitrary, and even if we all have perfect confidence in Perrie being fair and balanced, the member whose seed gets deleted without formal grounds may squawk. We could simply tell that person to stuff it -- that's a solution that is applied more or less frequently with more or less success with CoC interpretations... but probably should not be written into the CoC.
There are organizations -- websites -- that make lists of hate sites. The trick would be to agree on what organization we trust. For example, I've seen the list maintained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and I would gladly apply it. ... But some members say that the SPLC is itself a hate site. I will not say what I think of such opinions; it would be a CoC violation.
So...what do we do?
Obviously, we could do nothing. That would confirm Perrie's responsibility and authority to declare any site a hate site, and take down seeds from it.
We could agree on a "neutral party" list, allowing everyone to verify that the source they're using is acceptable.
Or maybe there's another, different possibility that I have not imagined? What are your thoughts?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
What the left and antifa
You are aware that Antifa stands for, "Anti Fascism", right? Are you saying that you support fascism? And it was a protest, not a riot. Interesting that you support hate speech, but opposing it is a, "no-no". That tells us a lot about you.
Next your going to be positing that antifa isn't a hate group either.....
Again FAIL...
Why? cause which one is right?
You tell me.
That's what they claim to be, but their actual behavior suggests rather strongly that they are actually supporting fascism....
Besides they fly the CPUSA flag. which is as fascist as it gets.
Oh it most certainly is. Your "hate speech" is someone elses belief and some of your beliefs may be considered by others as hate speech. There is no point in protecting speech that everyone likes and agrees with.
There are some students....I mean FORMER students attending OSU that would be happy to explain to you what the difference is.
Would the explanation be more than hurling insults, bottles, and rocks?
And it was a protest, not a riot.
Yeah i guess that is why the very liberal mayor of Berkeley condemned them and their actions. Even time magazine and other publicationscalls them riots
Interesting that you support hate speech,
And i said that where? Oh thats right I disagreed with you and I think that the constitution protects all spech not just the spech you like or I like. I do not necessarily agree with the speech of the kkk or nazis or Westboro baptist or antifa or anyone else for that matter but unlike you I will not demand that they be silenced because I don't like it. I, again unlike you, do not believe in denying the the constitutionally orotected freedom of speech just because they offend me
opposing it is a, "no-no".
Boy you really like to put words into peoples mouths dont you? I never said that either but whenyou engage in violence as the left does at times and most certainly does most of the time to oppose something then yes I will oppose you.
Simple questions, six: Should seeds from "known hate sites" be deleted?
If "yes", how'shou NT define "known hate site"?
What do you say Bob? I haven't seen but a couple of articles posted. Doesn't seem to be a problem to me. I certainly haven't posted any. Have you?
I haven't seen but a couple of articles posted. Doesn't seem to be a problem to me. I certainly haven't posted any. Have you?
I have. I seeded a disgusting Storm Front hit piece about Heather Heyer that was deleted... and an American Renaissance piece just a couple days ago.
So.. What should NT do about seed from "known hate sites"?
I have. I seeded a disgusting Storm Front hit piece about Heather Heyer that was deleted... and an American Renaissance piece just a couple days ago.
You posted a “disgusting” hit piece from a white supremacy website and wonder why Perrie deleted it? That’s what this is all about? I don’t think Perrie needs to even dignify this with an explanation.
antifa is a fascist movement supposedly protesting fascism.
Boy you really like to put words into peoples mouths dont you?
Well, I don't think anyone who doesn't consider themselves an extreme Liberal hates anyone, but is able to see where this extremism is coming from because it isn't new. When all you can see and center your attention on about the country you live in is all the negative things and are unable to put some attention on the positive things about this country, you are being manipulated and evidently many are unaware of it.
... wonder why Perrie deleted it?
Where did you get that idea?
Well, all the people I normally agree didn't post those seeds. We understand some people will post seeds like that if we don't in order to produce a problem where there isn't one. I would suggest, if you think those sites are hate sites, don't do it again.
... wonder why Perrie deleted it?
Where did you get that idea?
From you when you said it was deleted.
Are you not answering because
- you don't have an opinion,
- you don't understand the question,
- it is a matter of principle to play weasel, regardless of the topic?
Yes there is a simple solution to Bob’s problem he is trying to create.
I understood perfectly well why she deleted it.
A bunch of people standing there with tiki torches.....
what does that represent?
An excellent question!
Let's go to the videotape:
A good example of if caught between two such forces, what would I do with my M-16?
Fire in both directions....
That's what they claim to be, but their actual behavior suggests rather strongly that they are actually supporting fascism....
That's like saying the KKK supports the ACLU.
I would imagine that they do, since the Nazi party in America did.
Wasn't it the ACLU that defended their right to march in Skokie? the same ruling that allows the KKK, skinheads and neo nazi's to march today....
Yes it was.....
Don't like it overturn National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) .....
But just understand one thing, Antifa, BLM and all those other liberal hate groups wouldn't be able to march either....
Why is it that we read about how difficult it is for right-leaning speakers to speak at college campuses, or invitations to speak being cancelled (Ayan Ali Hirsi at Brandeis) due to pressures being brought or rioting or shoutdowns happening, whereas are there any examples of left-leaning speakers having to bear that brunt?
Is free speech exclusively a left wing privilege?
Why is it that we read about how difficult it is for right-leaning speakers to speak at college campuses, or invitations to speak being cancelled (Ayan Ali Hirsi at Brandeis) due to pressures being brought or rioting or shoutdowns happening, whereas are there any examples of left-leaning speakers having to bear that brunt?
Is free speech exclusively a left wing privilege?
The left has dominated the college campuses since the Vietnam war. The left’s idea of freedom of speech is that only certain speech should be free (theirs). All other speech that does not conform to their ideology must be suppressed.
Wasn't it the ACLU that defended their right to march in Skokie? the same ruling that allows the KKK, skinheads and neo nazi's to march today....
That's when I first started donating to the ACLU. And while the ACLU supports the civil rights of even the most loathsome of people, I seriously doubt that the KKK or its members support the ACLU.
Why is it that we read about how difficult it is for right-leaning speakers to speak at college campuses
That's probably because their racist and Islamophobic views are usually accompanied by protests and counter-protests, sometimes resulting in violence. The school administration has a legitimate concern about the safety of their students and they have no specific obligation to provide a platform to anyone.
"I'm curious Buzz.....what actually bugs you about the SPLC? The fact that they consider white supremacist groups, anti-gay groups, antisemitic groups, anti-Muslim groups, etc to be hate groups? Do you actually know anything about the history of the SPLC and the work that they do?
I can see why RWNJs hate the SPLC but I didn't think you were one of them."
I have posted a couple of articles in the past about the SPLC and I don't intend to waste time trying to find and reprise them here. Granted that the organization started out by naming truly vile organizations like the KKK and was a proper non-profit organization, but it changed, and I think I made it clear that their brush has become just too broad. It tarnishes those who may have a different view from that organization and its owner and staff, but does that give them the right to make libelous accusations about fair-minded individuals by lumping them together with real racists. They ship their millions of dollars of profits offshore so they can maintain a "virtuous" image. There are organizations that have dropped supporting them, both government and NGO.
As for trying to stick me into one side or the other of political viewpoint you won't be able to do it because my opinions vary depending on the issue. Sometimes I'm right-leaning and sometimes I'm left-leaning and sometimes I have no opinion at all. Those who know me better than you are aware of that.
And young students who are learning to think and distinguish must be shielded from views that differ from progressive liberal views. They were also treated to rampant anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing when Dershowitz spoke recently at Berkeley. I'm really happy that my daughter chose to get one of her Masters degrees at USC rather than Berkeley or any UCLA college. At her graduation ceremony we had the privilege of seeing Rosa Parks get an honourary degree and listening to her address.
When I studied law, we were trained to give heed to and try to learn both sides of issues, to be prepared to argue either side if necessary. Debates were run the same way, and you had to know your opponent's view better than your own in order to defeat him/her. These days, nobody is allowed to even HEAR the other view, let alone try to understand it. What a sick unidirectional society this has become.
It tarnishes those who may have a different view from that organization and its owner and staff, but does that give them the right to make libelous accusations about fair-minded individuals by lumping them together with real racists.
That's complete BS. The SPLC clearly states why organizations or individuals are included on the list, and it's usually because those persons have a pattern of vilifying and stigmatizing specific groups of people like Jews, gays, blacks or Muslims.
That's Bullshit? I very much appreciate your civility. However, I'm not that hung up on political matters and whatever anyone who supports the SPLC thinks. Frankly I'm too busy posting articles on things like photography, movies, literature, music so I guess it's because I don't have a one track mind.
A bunch of people standing there with tiki torches.....what does that represent?
Wow, some loyalty. It's true......no honor among, etc.
Again, IN YOUR OPINION!
Another fail!
Another Flail!
Next your going to be positing that antifa isn't a hate group either
Hating fascism, nazism and racism is as American as apple pie. Why don't you hate those things?
Wow, some loyalty. It's true......no honor among, etc.
You alluding to the ideal you have that I'm a neo-nazi?
Sorry to disappoint you. (Libertarians wouldn't attack first, it's against our philosophy of life)
You did get the point that if I was caught in the middle of just such a demonstration and had to defend myself I would attack in both directions?
Put that photo next to a photo from circa 1933 Germany
It would be a pretty good match
And what the hell do those clean cut, young, relatively well-to-do white men have to complain about?
The purpose of free speech is to be able to say something that other people may hate hearing. Just because you hate it doesn’t mean it’s hate speech. There has to be a limit for everything but Perrie has done a pretty good job of determining when the line is crossed and has erred on the side of allowing things in keeping with the site’s claimed purpose of “Speak Your Mind.” What people are free to do is not participate in a discussion rather than prevent everybody else from discussing it.
I'd actually be more interested in examining a "hate site" and their articles, just to see what they are saying and thinking, instead of pretending that they don't exist. I believe their is value in examining the psychology of the mal-informed, the cynical haters, and the generally obsessed lunatics. They are a vision into the depths of the human experience, and like most everything, there is always something to be learned.
Besides, I've always maintained that people have every Right to hate, and to express their hate. Nobody has to agree with them, and we can also castigate them, in public or private, and take solace that "at least we aren't like them". Also, I think looking at the fringe, can help us look into ourselves. Most "hate" sites take some measure of truth, and distort it, but in the end, that truth remains, and quite often, we are forced to examine our own personal "truths", especially when we see whom is using them for what.
Either way, Bob, it's nice to see you again, I trust that you are well, and it appears that you're just as invigorated as you were back on the Vine.
Cheers Amigo!
-Mike Lonkouski
Good to see ya Mike...
You should come back more often...
I’m awestruck. I’ve long regarded Mike as the best blogger I’ve ever seen on the Internet and here we have an excellent example of why. This is certainly one of the most intelligent and well thought out comments I’ve seen on this site all year.
Hey, Mike!
I think we actually knew each here, before you took an extended vacation. I may have been in my "PJ Proudhon" period.
Welcome back!
Only then?
The point I want to make is that what is true can be officially defined as hate by some group. Does that make it hate though? Unless you are living in a society that 100% believes in exactly the same thing, one should be very careful about banning things.
If we are going to ban hate, however that gets defined, shouldn't we also ban immoral sites, unethical sites, untruthful sites, ad nauseum?
Banning becomes easy but it quickly becomes a Gordian knot only to be undone by the sword.
Did I say only then? Personally, I couldn't care less about 'hate' or 'hate sites' being allowed, it's the blatant, ridiculous lies posing as a serious article that bother me. If a 'hate site' puts out statistics that, say, cast minorities in a bad light, but the numbers are accurate, I have no problem debating it. What I have a problem with is this equivocating about what is true and factual and what isn't. We can't even begin to seriously debate the issues if we can't agree on certain basic facts.
I don't think we should give those seeded articles any of our valuable time. When they are done slapping each other on the back and calling us liberals stupid names, they'll get tired and go take a nap
In reality, the SPLC really carries no truck with me as an authority on what a hould be considered a gate site/group, my reasoning is by the definitioning factors they use to make their determinations, if they hold the same candle to them selves, they w would have to call themselves a gate site/group.
Now that of course would mean a very slight tweaking of their parameters to include those that treat their political beliefs as a religion, and we all have seen examples of this on both sides,I won't name names of course, but they know themselves.
As for free speech, that is the true test of American citizenship, to sit there and allow someone espousing something at the top of their lungs something you would denounce at the top of yours, and would defend their rights to say it.
Here is the kicker though, everyone has that right to speech,but none has the right to make anyone listen or agree with them.
Mark, Good to see you again brother... we've missed you....
So I have been told in pm, I didn't go anywhere, I just stopped signing in and posting, was a bit burnt out on politics, still am, but I do stop by from time to time to gander the front page a and the goings on.
I have missed you too Mark. It's odd that I was just thinking about you the other day and then you popped on line. It made me smile. Anyhow, good to see you posting even though we have opposite opinions about this President and Administration.
In reality, the SPLC really carries no truck with me as an authority on what a hould be considered a gate site/group, my reasoning is by the definitioning factors they use to make their determinations, if they hold the same candle to them selves, they w would have to call themselves a gate site/group.
That's a curious claim. What aspects of the SPLC's standards would make them fit the definition of a hate group?
So...what do we do?
Try relaxing a little. Seriously. Chill. You don't actually need to control everything and you can't anyway. Give up on the idea of policing other people's thoughts. If somebody posts something you don't like, your solution is simple: don't read it. Move on to something else. Get some brain bleach and post pictures of kittens if you like.
After 250 Comments, most of them off-topic as usual, there seem to be two dominant positions among members:
First, there are quite a few members who would allow all seeds from all sites. No limits. Perrie has made it very clear that she will not allow seeds that are too odious.
Second, most members have confidence in Perrie's judgment. She has explained, kinda sorta, how she works: she checks the Wikipedia article about the site, looking for key-words like "hate group" or "white supremacist".
I don't think we'll get any closer to a "rule" here. If there are no more pertinent Comments, I'll shut the article down when I get back from my round of golf...
Who is online
70 visitors
I'm betting we do nothing, leaving Perrie to make the call without any formal grounds.
That would be fine with me since in all the years I’ve been here I can only recall two instances that anyone has seeded from a hate site. Yours yesterday and JR’s seed about how to naturally boost testosterone. I think Perrie has the situation under control.
I completely trust her judgement in these matters.
Well Perri is the resident advisor, it IS her house so to speak, and as much as democratic socialist anarchists like majority rule, there is no such thing in someone else's house if that is their choice and she can an will use her best judgment on individual besides,if that isnt acceptable, my suggestion to those that do not trust her judgment,find other enviroments more to their liking where they can disrupt for points to their hearts content,this isn't the place though, Peredri and others from all sides of the American political spectrum have worked too hard to keep this site from becoming a shell, echo chamber for any one political flavor.
Since this article, at least the comment was pointed at how the RA will handle things, imho, that is a direct insult, impuning her as well as the moderators integrity and judgments.
But then again it's already been admitted this and other articles were posted to see responses, in other words to stir the pot, illicit a reaction that would give a basis to change things to only somes likings,their own personal echo chamber.
My vote on that? Pluck yew.
Sandy, this is not a CoC violation... D.
Like other businesses if social media fails to regulate itself regulation will be imposed upon it. People are alarmed that American social media has become addicted to the income produced by the flood of inflamatory false news often foreign sourced manufactured propaganda flooding social media intended to misinform People, cause confusion and antagonism and generally induce People to vote against their own best interests. Congress will be looking at this and those companies who wish to be on the right side of history should be proactive in this regard...
Until the murder of Heather Heyer, the rule on social media was pretty much "anything goes". Now they want to maintain a minimum level of decency... but as always, opinions differ as to the shape of the Earth...
Congress won't do anything, Congressmen will bitch about it but they won't make any laws because that would justify censorship in other Countries that we always condemn. America invented this shit, our CIA is on social media all over the world propagandizing and trying to influence elections and popular opinion in other countries. I'm sure our country does it to us too, we hear about and see commercials on TV and other ad campaigns by our government to sway our way of thinking but we'll never hear about the super secret campaigns on social media that target us but you can be sure they happen. Our Government pioneered the spread of propaganda in other countries from dropping leaflets, to radio America, and especially the internet but I guess what's good for the Goose isn't so good for the Gander (at least Congress doesn't think so).
Well, I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate site. One that could put Ayan Ali Hirsi and Maajid Nawaz on its hate list HAS to be a hate site. So go ahead and say what you think of my opinion.
I have seeded from SPLC, and no one objected.
I will do so again, so that we will know what Perrie decides...
Yes you have, and in the cauldron known as the front page, your posting are usually failures that only deliver high posts counts of tripe style arguments....
But that is what free speech is all about.
All opinions should face public scrutiny and be exposed if they can be exposed....
Problem is you advocate for said opinions not being exposed and just accepted as truth at face value.
That is anathema to a free society...
So... are you "for" or "against" deleting seeds from "known hate sites"?
If you are "for", how would you define "known hate site"?
I'm against, it has been my experience that posting from known hate sites get appropriate and rapid treatment here.
And are then left to descend to the trash bin of posting history.....
The only problem they present is the pile of trash postings they generate..... (except for those that directly violate the ToS, they need to be deleted for legal reasons)
I'm all for anyone brave enough to post their drivel being given the response they so richly deserve.....
In discussions on the Internet, for the most part when someone says that a site is a "hate site", they mean a site that has expresses opinions that are different than theirs.
Don't you find it ironic that when liberals"expose" a site, they only expose conservative sites? And when conservatives "expose" a site they only expose liberal sites?
(How often have you seen a conservative "expose" a conservative site-- or for that matter, how often have you seen a liberal "expose" a liberal site?)
Bravo! Right on. How many times have I said that as well?
ABSOLUTELY!
There are only a few on here that have even broached it much less exposed it.
I won't call those members out cause that is against the CoC, but the list does include both of us.....
You're pretty fiesty this morning, Buzz, here, have a donut!
The SPLC has clearly stated the standards they use for inclusion on their list. While you might disagree with the inclusion of a particular person, are you denying that they violated the SPLC's standard?
Note that the Jewish ADL also has a similar standard.
Hooray. Another plus for Breifart and Storm Front.
Can we stop with the hyperbole?
Here let me explain so that there is no misunderstanding about how a hate site is determined for NT.
The SPLC is not a hate site. Neither is Breitbart. Stormfront is.
Here is how I figure out a hate site. I wiki it. If the site comes up as a known hate site, it is not allowed on this site. I use common sense and realize that wiki is community written, so if something comes up kind of stinky, I investigate even more. If the consensus is that the site is affiliated with a known hate group, it is not allowed.
Thank you for the clarification.
I Googled "wikipedia hate sites" and found no list established by Wikipedia... but a link from Wikipedia to the SPLC list.
How does this work?
SPLC sets its own standards? Well, then, so do I.
I wiki the site specifically. I do not use the SPLC, since there are members here who would not accept that as a viable source. If I find the commentary mixed, I look up other sources using google. Usually hate sites are easy to find right in wiki.
Since Wiki is updated by various people from across the political spectrum, that is my starting point.
I am not for making up lists. It's too 1984 for me.
Bob I googled "Hate site list" and came up with several lists of various people making various lists of what they consider "Hate Sites"
Google "Hate site Lists"
Very interesting, it seems like SPLC is close to the top but it isn't the only one out there.... (and liberal biased isn't the only basis either)
Seems like lots of people hate lots of others out there.
Hate is easy, it always seems to fill the arena....
Well done. Voted you up.
Thanks
I'm curious Buzz.....what actually bugs you about the SPLC? The fact that they consider white supremacist groups, anti-gay groups, antisemitic groups, anti-Muslim groups, etc to be hate groups? Do you actually know anything about the history of the SPLC and the work that they do?
I can see why RWNJs hate the SPLC but I didn't think you were one of them.
In a word: yes. Specifically their interpretation of Anti-Gay. They have evolved to include any church or religious organization that believes the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. No other metric, just whether they believe it to be a sin. As a result, the 1st Amendment freedom of Religion is attacked by this organization calling them a hate group.
How about back in 09, they were commissioned by the left leaning goverment to write reports on extremism on both the right and the left.
Seems I remember the reports were for the newly formed fission center a created as a repository for info that fderal, state and local were all to use.not a bad idea actually , if it remained no partisan.
The report on the right-wing focused on militias sprouting up, the propensity to use violent acts to achieve political goals, basic domestic terrorist stuff of the home grown variety, which basically said anyone that disagreed was a potential threat to the government and a terrorist.
The report on the extreme left ruled out any violent behavior instigated on that sides part, and limited that sides actions to peaceful protests, hacking, and cyber terrorism with media disinformation thrown in.
IMHO, no right wing violence from the supposed militias materialized, keep in mind I define violence as doing bodily harm, injury or death. So that individual sold report got it wrong.
As for the report on the left, man did they get that one wrong. And I will leave it at that.
So that's Two specific reports they based on political ideology, they got completely wrong at tax payer expense, the government should ask for its money back, and sold credibility is in the wrapper since its now a political mouth piece.
That's completely false as the SPLC's statement on this issue notes:
.
It sounds like you don't understand to whom or to what the 1st Amendment applies. Superstitious cults are free to be as bigoted as they like and there's nothing the SPLC could or would do to change that.
Ah, Bruce...
The First Amendment is violated by a private organization???
Since I know that you understand the First, and know that it doesn't apply to anything any private organization does... I have to assume that you are just throwing red meat to your less-knowledgeable fellow-travelers.
I was going to say HUAC....
Buzz, you are right on. The SPLC is clearly a hate site. One that has induced followers of their hate lists to engage in acts of terrorism against people in groups on their hit lists.
Everybody Hates Something and there's Always Someone who Disagrees.
I agree that the SPLC is very much a hate site. And just who is the grand Pooh Bah that determines what hate speech is and who the hate speakers are.
I am learning quickly that certain members are just opinionated left leaning know-it-alls, trolls if you will, there are indeed a few of them here. Their posts consistently intend to annoy rather than educate and debate, and contain little of relevance or reason, therefore they are not taken seriously and mostly ignored. In fact, they would go on IGNORE if we had that option.
You are one of those people who do nothing but spout Fox News talking points. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
And you are one of those people who violate the CoC and get edited all the time, then whine about it. What's YOUR point?
Fox News seems to be more accurate and truthful than NYT, CNN, and MSNBC. If you don't like FNC comments, just scroll past them - easy peasy.
Well, thanks goodness there are no members here who are just opinionated right leaning know-it-alls, (trolls if you will . . . ).
*snort*
There are thousands of opinions on any "Label". You know the old saying....One Man's opinion on 'garbage/hate', is another man's opinion on "riches/truth".
Yeah, that is how we get "opinions" such as the one that LaDavid Johnson was a traitor.
The right wing nut job media wants everyone to believe that they are as factual and sincere as legitimate news organizations. They are not. It is an ongoing fight to try and contain these people.
The left wing nut job media wants everyone to believe that they are as factual and sincere as legitimate news organizations. They are not. It is an ongoing fight to try and contain these people.
There, fixed it for ya......
"""""wants everyone to believe that they are as factual and sincere as legitimate news organizations. They are not. It is an ongoing fight to try and contain these people"""
As I see it, and millions of others... those MSM "legitimate" news is fighting to contain "these people" because the Shadow Global Group who gives the orders are fighting to keep the truth out of all media. MSM does nothing but spew hate on those with political views other than their extreme left. HLN and ABC is especially bad. They sneer and cackle whenever they report/comment on Americans who want to keep more of their own money or want limited, smaller government to reduce the outrageous unfunded liabilities our country is passing down. They curl their lips and sneer when reporting about reducing our budget or reduce spending. I feel that the Mainstream Media is the Real Hate Group!
Wow. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you voted for Donald Trump and think he is doing a fine job, correct?
So T-rump is a hate site?
why don't you try and stay on topic?
"""""""""I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you voted for Donald Trump and think he is doing a fine job, correct?"""""""""""""" *******Hey lennylynx****I was not referring to Trump, as I thought this was about Hate Speech Sites. As one of the Producers of Society who has never had Subsidies, Bailouts, had no Government Handouts nor the cause of Unfunded Liabilities for the Parasites of the Government,...for a consecutive 48 years giving Tax Dollars that were pure profit for this government...as well as employing many for almost 30 years....I feel that the Mainstream Media is a Hate Group against Traditional Americans. Their allegiance leans toward those who Hate America. My traditional values are scorned on Mainstream Media.So, Trump has nothing to do with my comments. I've felt the same since 1970.
Now that you put it that way...
{chuckle} predictable so predictable....
Well, thank goodness there's no such thing as a left wing nut job media that wants everyone to believe that they are as factual and sincere as legitimate news organizations.
So that's a yes to being a Trump voter?
Just out of curiosity what "traditional values" do you espouse which you think aren't shared by the MSM? Are you the sort of traditionalist who thinks some Americans should be denied the civil rights you enjoy, or the sort of traditionalist who thinks our secular government should be enforcing Christian sharia law? Or is it something else which bugs you?
seriously?
You should do some fact checking. Donald Jr is no different than his daddy who made millions off of taxpayer subsidies
On the other hand, one man's fish is another man's poisson.
Cute! Aah puns...now you've got me hooked!(Or more accurately, that should put a simile on peoples' faces!
[I like my metaphors mixed-- not shaken!)
As spoken by James "Krishna" Bond.
As spoken by James "Krishna" Bond.
No, there should not be a ban on any hate site.
There is an old saying "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer".
One needs to keep their eyes open to be able to see what is going on, shutting your eyes does not make the bad just go away.
Now, if I post an article from Storm Trooper or whatever, it does not mean you have to participate in it, or maybe it is better that you do participate, just because it's posted does not mean you have to subscribe to it.
Aha! Playing the "there's an old saying card" I see.
heheh..
That's it right there. If We can't post a story from a 'Hate Site" how the hell can we call attention to the crazy shit they're spewing. I would say that on NV 90% of the time a story was posted and it promoted hate it was posted so that we could ridicule the article not to promote the Ideals of the article.
I am not for limiting anything. If it is a known hate site....don't go there. For instance, religious articles ....stopped going there. Articles about body functions....I don't go there. Certain seeders....I don't go there.
I don't live in a cocoon and think myself pretty intelligent to decide for myself. Don't require the assistance of anyone telling me what I can and cannot read.
Alrighty then, the full NV assault on NT appears to have finally begun.
Have faith Perrie, more of us support what you are trying to do here than not. Those that are trying to burn it down are just sad, small minded little people.
So stay the course, they will lose in the end. They always do. They just can't help it.
What are you even talking about?
The problem that arrived here is not Bob Nelson (if he is a "problem" , it has nothing to do with NV) , the newly arrived problem is the NV conservatives who are constant consumers of fake news and bogus opinions. There was a little of that here before, now because of the numbers, it is far more widespread on this site.
well John, I'm shocked that you would feel that way, really. I would think that the not so subtle assaults on NT should be obvious to a NT pro such as yourself but such is how you roll I suppose.
Don't worry though, I'm not the only one who has noticed it. The folks on the assault are not as good at their subterfuge as they think they are.
I recall you on NV, you got banned. Looks like you are trying to get banned here as well.
ooh, you are hurting my feelings. Stop agreeing with fake news and right wing propaganda , at the expense of the truth, and we will probably get along.
FYI, I take nothing at face value.
ooh John, you are hurting my feelings. Stop agreeing with fake news and left wing propaganda , at the expense of the truth, and we will probably get along.
Ohh John, you do love the broad brush don't you....
Oh ... I get it now. You don't want conservatives like me here, because I've linked Fox News sources. Here's some news for you -- conservatives like me also link NYT, WaPo, MSN, etc. on the rare occasions that those sites publish FACTS. Aside from that, who, exactly should decide what is "fake news and bogus opinions" on NT? You? Me? I'll tell you right now that I wouldn't want an opinion-censoring job, because I respect everyone's opinions, even when I disagree.
There are many left-wingers who came here when NV shut down. They said they would never come here because this is a "RWNJ" site and yet, they are here - many of them wreaking the same havoc/CoC violations they did on NV. Maybe you've not noticed them because their "opinions" agree with yours, but in the 6 weeks I've been here, I have. Some of them publicly and privately troll me, but guess what? I just ignore them, because mature adults ignore nasty, petulant children.
There are many left-wing Newsviners who went to other sites. If you're not satisfied with how NT is run now that those you disapprove of have joined, please feel free to PM me and I'll gladly give you their names so you can join their sites.
If it’s so easy to shoot down because it’s fake, then shoot it down. You’re a match for just about anybody on the site so it shouldn’t be a “problem” for you at all.
Excellent point.
Does this mean that seeds from "known hate sites" should not be deleted?
Well, I suppose there's at least one thing we can all be grateful for.... that there are no newly arrived NV liberals who are constant consumers of fake news and bogus opinions.
Grateful yes-- our thoughts and prayers go out to them!
Now John, I think you're referring to me, and I thought we were getting along. Your comment hurts my feelings.
Personally, I trust Perrie to be the final arbiter of that. (Hopefully your question was not meant to be absolutely private.)
Yes. Blame your problems on "the others," the refugees, the newcomers destroying your culture. What would the SPLC say about that policy? What do liberals usually say about a policy like that?
The newly arrived conservatives from newsvine are a huge benefit to this site. They have made very good contributions here and are very welcome here.
And I thought he was talking about hamstrung little me.
How about the newly arrived liberals, care to comment on them?
Why? They weren’t brought up by another member. The conservatives were. I really don’t care about them one way or another. I’d never complain about who is here or what they seed or post. Besides, I’ve realized that I’m spending too much time on these kind of places compared to the realities of real life. I’m half way in and half way out. I do most of my seeding elsewhere now. I have too many friends here to leave completely though.
I try to keep it real too. I've only gone to NV and now this site. I get up at 3AM every day and there isn't anyone to talk to then!
Yes John, you must start agreeing with the originators of the fake news cycle and you will be considered a convert, repeat faux is true and good over and over!
.....'full NV assault on NT'. I too, support Perrie et.al., to moderate fairly and unbiased on comments posted. Those who are here to disrupt, insult, and whine are welcome to go to Newsvine. Oh yeah, those guys are the ones who fucked it up, and now it is history. Now they are here, and it is up to all of us who left that sinking ship before it ran aground, to make sure NT doesn't go down that route.
100% agreement Don....
So who are you talking about? I've seen numerous postings about the assault from viners. I'm probably not the only one wondering who you are talking. Some of the same people bitching say some pretty vile things, hard to tell. Instead of whining come out and be specific.
That would constitute calling members out, and is specifically against the CoC.....
In this case, truth and lies would only be this "COC Violation" far apart, if you didn't have to also deal with "opinion".
Why is it so hard to fine truth? Because there is only one truth and so many lies.
Denise's birthday brain teaser was written by Dr. Joseph Yeo Boon Wooi of Singapore's National Institute of Education. Yeo is also the author of the viral "Cheryl's birthday" problem, and this puzzle is very similar to the original... but it's even more complicated: Denise wants her friends to guess her birthday, and gives them 20 possible dates. The dates for year 2001 are Feb. 17, Mar. 13, Apr. 13, May 15, and Jun. 17. The dates for year 2002 are Mar. 16, Apr. 15, May 14, Jun. 12, and Aug. 16. The dates for year 2003 are Jan. 13, Feb. 16, Mar. 14, Apr. 11, and Jul. 16. The dates for year 2004 are Jan. 19, Feb. 18, may 19, Jul. 14, and Aug. 18. Albert knows the month, Bernard knows the day, and Cheryl knows the year. Albert says, "I don't know her birthday, but I know Bernard doesn't know." Bernard says, "I don't know her birthday, but I know Cheryl doesn't know." Cheryl says, "I don't know her birthday, but I know Albert doesn't know." Albert says, "Now I know her birthday." When is Denise's birthday? Stumped?
The answer is located here
I think the real issue is being overshadowed or maybe the better term is deflected, imo. The real issue is front and center and has been for several years and which has now part of the reason for the current special investigation.
Fake News. Not the news that someone doesn't like because it doesn't support their Party's political agenda or position. Not the news that some consider hate but "real" fake news that has little to no facts associated with it.
The problem is determining the criteria of "facts" that we all agree on that can be applied to those sites or sources. What I mean by this is there seems to be a difference of definition by members on what is a "fact". Until we can get people to understand fact from opinion or speculation we will not be able to identify what sources are legitimate and which are "fake".
Very percipient of you Pj, I'm impressed.
The issue being argued is perception. one persons hate speech is another's reasoned opinions. And everyone has a reasoned opinion or two mixed in with all the unreasoned ones....
Perfect example about is the declaration that SPLC would be an excellent listing of hate speech sites to adjudicate against and another's declaration of it being a hate site in and of itself.
Bob is posting a series of articles trying to espouse the way he thinks it should be. And to a certain extent shading against Perrie's judgment on this issue.
Unfortunately, for Bob's position, most here think the site management, Perrie Halpern, RA, does a wonderful job of keeping it balanced and level. and so he goes off on his stunts trying to gain traction for the ideal that it is wrong and the site should have a particular political flavor like most of them out there do.
Thankfully, that is not the majority opinion here.
I would hate to think of what would happen to the site if said philosophy were ever changed.
This is the only balanced site on the net that I can find.... And I've been on the net a very very long time....
But people already do understand that. (The problem is that while both Liberals and Conservatives understand the difference...they understand it differently!
As your avatar for the past day or two says: "Think different". What you see here is what happens. In some dystopian novels the people in the future are eliminated if in fact they do start to "think different".
The article that used lies and baseless speculation to drag the name of a fallen soldier through the mud is the most disgusting piece I have seen in my short time here at NT. It just doesn't get any worse than that. If that article is acceptable, I don't see why anything should be banned.
Here is a question for all. Why is it that when the issue of free speech and blocking speakers at colleges and blocking seeds from certain sites or blocking and banning individual commentors the aythor promoting such things are alway those on the left side of the aisle? It was true on NV and now I have been seeing it happen here.
So tell me. What is the left so affraid of that they are willing to trash the Constitution and keep those that have a differing opinion from speaking out?
That's because the right lies a lot more than the left. Truth hurts, huh?
In your not so humble opinion.
Correct Lenny?
Wrong Nowhere, facts are facts, alternative facts are lies.
Well everyone is entitled to "their" facts.....
Right, wrong or indifferent.
They are "entitled" to keep ignorant opinions to themselves too.
There was an article seeded here, I believe yesterday , claiming that the Washington Post had offered to pay a woman 1000 dollars to lie and say that Roy Moore had been inappropriate toward her when she was a teenager. This claim originated from the twitter feed of a right wing conspiracy nut.
Why is this accepted as a legitimate seed on NT? Should it be prevented from being seeded? No, that would be censorship. But it should be shunned, or universally derided. But we don't really see that reaction to this crap, what we see is some people accepting it and approving it. As long as that is the case there will be no "peace" on any site like this.
Why is it a false seed?
It's a story, it has claims, it offers and generates opinions....
Some may be right some may be wrong....
Has abut as much proof as the one posted claiming the opposite and calling a man a pedophile.
I would ask, why is it the one calling a man a pedophile without any real proof the truth and the one claiming it's a paid for political hatchet job without any real proof false?
Have something to do with political slant? Maybe? Just a little bit?
NAW, it is just plain fact and the other is trashy lies....
You pick which one is which...
The names of all the people involved in accusing Moore are public and they can and probably will be questioned about their claims.
The allegation about the payment to the person to lie about Moore has no specifics and gives no names of those allegedly involved.
Plus, the source of the story on twitter is a crank.
Do you believe John McCain is a traitor who was going to be executed for treason until Nixon gave him a secret pardon? The person who started the rumor about the Post trying to pay people to lie about Moore does.
""""""why is it the one calling a man a pedophile without any real proof the truth and the one claiming it's a paid for political hatchet job without any real proof false?....Have something to do with political slant? Maybe? Just a little bit?""""""
Great analogy, No WhereMan.... Spot On and Cannot be Disputed!
well obviously you have your opinion, and I have mine which have nothing to do with reports of reported paying people for crapola.
My opinion comes from my experience in politics, and the knowledge that the instances of the left accusing people on the right of heinous sexual behaviors without any real proof is becoming a standard political campaign tactic...
think of the disservice your side is doing to those who have actually been sexually abused or taking advantage of........ (and mainly most of the serious allegations, those with at least a modicum of truth backing them or even admissions of such behavior have come from icons of the lefts support network)
I would say that it is a problem the the left has more issues with than the right side does.
But then again I'm all for truth.
So let the chips fall where they may and hang the bastards and bitches that practice such behavior no matter where they have practiced their perversions.
The sources providing the story's are the key to this, because of WaPo's reputation I would trust them over the other sources that say it's a hatchet job.
You keep trotting out Mediabiasfactcheck......
Right, Rule #1, bias can always expose bias....
Don't you know that such is the first rule of political opposition philosophy?
You know what the second rule is?
Rule #2, ALL sides are biased to the side they stand on.....
So what we have is a site you find truthful in your opinion and in your opinion is the deciding factor in what is truthful and what isn't.....
So all you are expressing is your opinion when culled down into it's essence.
Bias is as bias does... (see rule #2 above)
According to the article, the WaPo is considered to center-left to extreme left by 78% of the responders.
Certainly not fair and balanced.
But all of the ones coming from the rightwing are unimpeachable?
As long as it agrees with your politics, right?
But you only deal in "truth," right? If you could only see yourself for whom you really are.
Based on what poll? Lemme guess: FarzNooz?
If the information is impeachable, whether from left or right, then impeach if you can rather than ban it. That's all NWM has ever said as long as he’s been posting and he’s always been open to a challenge if you’re up to it.
It's a lot more balanced than the sources that you and, C4P have put up, those are extreme Right by every responder.
Fox News
So I guess you are saying accusing someone of something that can not be proved and the person being accused has no way to disprove the accusation would be unacceptable?
For example, when Menendez was accused of having underage prostitutes, ABC, Slate, The Washington Post, The New York Times and even the FBI went to bat for him from the start, but they took the bat to Roy Moore from the start.
We have to consider how untrustworthy our MSM is. Take the edited call in to 911 from Zimmerman. I assume everyone knows NBC edited what they produced for the public to hear trying to make Zimmerman sound like he was a racist.
And after the ABC video of Zimmerman getting out of the police cruiser didn't show any indications of any damage to Zimmerman's head all the fake news could report is how there was none. I remember those on this stie who were pushing this lie, so it is hard to get to the truth when the MSM lies and all those who follow them take the ball and run with it. By the way, none of the usual suspects who get all bent out of shape were bothered by this lie either and didn't do anything but accept it as the truth.
When the MSM lies to you and your government lies to you, eventually you get the message and don't trust them to tell the truth. Like in an earlier post, I don't take anything at face value either. There's no a smidgen of truth in it sometimes.
That is my preferred position no matter where the truth lies, right or left.
I am me, what you think of me is irrelevant to the truth...... (in fact what you personally think of anyone is irrelevant to anyone but you)
But thank you for your opinion of me, I already knew what that was, so I can only suppose that you posted it openly to relate to everyone which side your on.
Like anyone really was questioning that. Everyone already knows what side I'm on.....
The American side.
And this is proof positive that the site your using to defend your position that all sites and organizations the left disagrees with are fake news purveyors....
I guess that is why Fox News is the highest rated news channel as far as viewership and trust in America.....
America is stupid......
Heard it all before, and your site is no better than politifact..... (which has it's own biased history)
Never fails, when the liberal side is flailing and losing all credibility with the lions share of America, they create even more sources with a false veneer of credibility and then point to them for how the opposition is so bad.....
Hardly anyone get their facts from mainstream media anymore..... that is sooooo 90's, ie it's ancient.....
It did show that RWNJs have little regard for the facts and are extremely gullible.
It should have been shunned, but when something is seeded that "confirms" what a poster is thinking, it won't be shunned or ignored.
No matter how much proof you provide that the "article" is all lies. They have confirmation and that's all that's required
Fox news does the same thing. They base their "ban's" on what you say, for example, I made a very derogatory comment about Hillary and the mods did nothing, but when I said the exact same thing about trump? The comment was removed.
Infowars and brietbart do it as well. It's not "left wing" sites. NV, may it RIP banned people because they didn't follow the rules. Freedom of speech is fine, but...
If you violate the rules of a site's CoC, CoH, "terms of service", etc.. you can have a comment removed or....be banned, whatever. Freedom of speech is not a blank check to say whatever you want where ever you want. Put it another way. If you go over to someone's house and they have a rule, "no smoking in the house", and you light up? Do you think they have a right to ask you to leave? Um, yes. Rules on blogs are no different. You are using someone else's service, play by the rules or leave. Simple as that.
The question wasn't about banning or blocking. I questioned why whenever someone wants to keep someone from exercising their free speech, It is almost always those on the left that would deny it. They kept a man from becoming the CEO because they didn't like his position on gay marriage. They boycotted and still bad mouth Chic-fil-A for the same reason. They rioted in the streets to keep right wing speakers they disagree with. They propose that websites such as this one block users and seeds they don't like.
Like who? Richard Spencer? Who WOULDN'T block his speech? I mean, other than the KKK and a smattering of other far right wing hate groups? Hate speech is not FREE speech...big, HUGE difference.
As to this site? I haven't seen them block a link. Could be that a link to something inappropriate or maybe the link is broken? No idea.
Again, IN YOUR OPINION!
What are you saying that others are not entitled to their opinions? or in the alternative they are entitled as long as it agrees with yours?
FAIL!
Wanna see FAIL!?
A bunch of people standing there with tiki torches.....
what does that represent?
This is what it represents.
Doesn't matter who! Last time I checked Richatd Spencer, Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter Milos Y. Were all citizens of this country and have the right to their opinion and to talk about them. The people that wanted to hear Shapiro , Coulter and Milos Y. Have a right to assemble to hear them talk. You do not have the right to use violence to stop them.
Oh it most certainly is. Your "hate speech" is someone elses belief and some of your beliefs may be considered by others as hate speech. There is no point in protecting speech that everyone likes and agrees with.
I never said this site has but in the time I have been tracking this site I have seen at least two article about how certain right wing and conservative groups, sources and/or commentators should be blocked or banned. In each case the authors were liberals/left wingers. The same was true on Newsvine before its end.
That's not what I said at all, they PROMOTE violence, racism and bigotry. Can you show me how ANY of those things HELP society? You can't because they DON'T, (I mean, unless you think a divided society somehow makes us stronger?), Spencer can SAY whatever he wants, he just needs to accept the fact that there are those that do NOT want him spreading his filth. Again there is a difference between HATE speech and FREE speech. Free speech doesn't divide a society, it's the free expression of opinions and facts. NOW do you get it? Do I agree with Hannity? No, I don't agree with ANYTHING he says, but it's NOT hate speech, so I support his right to say what he says even though I do NOT agree with it.
.
Also, if you think your right to free speech is absolute? Walk up to a cop and tell them you are going to murder them. "Free" is something you won't be about 10 seconds later.
REALLY?
I don't see that pic on that site you linked..... (although color pictures were available back in the Nazi Germany days I don't believe that there was such high definition color photography back then either)
PERRIE? we have another attribution problem!
Need linkage to the source of the real pic that Atheist posted...
And last I checked, protesting is a constitutional right.
Again, IN YOUR OPINION!
Another fail.....
There are some students....I mean FORMER students attending OSU that would be happy to explain to you what the difference is.
Key word here, "SHOULD". Now are you going to say that people shouldn't be allowed to say that, and go against your own "free speech" standpoint that OPINIONS are protected?
Your right free speech is a constitutionally protected right, and what are they protesting? other peoples free speech rights.....
So in essence they are protesting exactly what they are doing.....
And you say they make soooooooo much sense...
The only logical conclusion is they do not like speech that they disagree with and wish to squelch such.
So much for free speech.
Protesting is, rioting is not. What the left and antifa did in Berkeley to keep Milos, Coulter and others was not protesting but it was a riot.
Tell me. When has anyone on the right engaged in the actions like antifa did in Berkeley to keep a liberal from a liberal from speaking. Tell me when a right wing group threatened violence if a liberal group was goung to attend a function.
They don't promote violence? You sure?