[anasawad]

@Presvias

People who are easily swayed owing to their various imbalances/issues.

Airing greivances is not always a good idea, when those who are easily swayed latch onto mob mentality and it all goes sour.

It's just my opinion anyways.

Airing grievances is always a good idea because it allows you to address them.
If you silenced the people's grievances and did not take the time to discuss and address them, it'll only go underground and grow, and you'll end up with sudden eruptions of violence on occasions, and, often, revolutions.


I would say look at the middle east for the results of silencing grievances, but many countries outside the middle east are already having that backlash so you can view the results everywhere.

[Presvias]

@Presvias

Airing grievances is always a good idea because it allows you to address them.
If you silenced the people's grievances and did not take the time to discuss and address them, it'll only go underground and grow, and you'll end up with sudden eruptions of violence on occasions, and, often, revolutions.


I would say look at the middle east for the results of silencing grievances, but many countries outside the middle east are already having that backlash so you can view the results everywhere.

The easily swayed are not going to listen to the whole argument, being my point. They'll pick up on the dogwhistle rubbish and jump on the bandwagon;

[anasawad]

@Presvias
If they're easily swayed, then you can get them on your side.
You don't let the opposition go underground.

[Presvias]

@Presvias
If they're easily swayed, then you can get them on your side.
You don't let the opposition go underground.

No you can't, without resorting to base level nastiness yourself..

That's the point.


Why do you think parties across europe ape far-right policies and nasty rhetoric?

[anasawad]

@Presvias
Far right parties across Europe and north America are rising up because they're getting screwed by the status quo and sick and tired of being silenced for years and decades, and, now, it entered the, long expected, revolution stage of every single scenario where the opposition is silenced in history as the opposition, in this case, the far-right, managed to grow and fester underground until it now has enough numbers to go public and start seeking power.

That nasty rhetoric isn't just the default stage, and people don't fall for extreme rhetoric because of nothing, they fall for it because they are already angry and had enough with the establishment so it becomes easy for radical groups to get them to join.

This is the exact same reason why there is a long fucking war in Syria now, and in Libya, and in Yemen, and in Iraq, and in Sudan, and in Somalia, and why both Iran and Saudi Arabia are so unstable and need to a spark to light on fire.

They all silenced the opposition, which included extreme movements like Salafists and fascists, and after 3-4 decades of constantly arresting and forcibly silencing every opposition group, those groups went underground and grew and organized until they became ready to go public in a revolution.


If you don't want that to happen, you address those grievances, and you discuss ALL the ideas proposed by even the most extremist groups and debunk it in public for everyone to see why those ideas are bad; When you drive it underground, you give it legitimacy and credence as the moment things go bad, the establishment loses the people's trust and all the ideas it silences and drove underground become popular and accepted not because they're good ideas but because they're anti-establishment.

That's why all far-right dictatorships begin with far-right populism because they all start as anti-establishment using the people's distrust of the establishment, anger, and misery to advance their movement.

How many times should history repeat itself before people learn why those freedoms matter?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

1- That's not a universal claim.
2- That's not a negative claim.
3- That study along with many many others reach a conclusion that subjecting someone to racism causes stress, which all stress causes a temporary reduction in cognitive abilities.
And by that logic, pretty much everything in life from the various social interactions, traffic, relationships, work, debt, deadlines, loud noise, any form of inconvenience, etc should be banned as well, because they all cause the same effect which, by your definition, is physical harm.

Causing inconvenience or stress is not a crime and should not be so; Active discrimination is already illegal, thoughts or words of racism, sexism, etc, however, should not be since by that logic everything will be.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/physical- ... rain-body/

More evidence that racist speech inflicts damage to your body that is not comparable to mere hurt feelings.

It sure was the one that pushed these things underground and allowed them to grow.

Since nothing was pushed underground (i.e. people can and do say racist and sexist things all the time), this is not a factual criticism.

And both are bad, having conservative snowflakes banning things doesn't mean it's ok for progressive snowflakes to start banning as well.

As long as we agree that it is not progressives who are continually expanding the scope of these laws.

And we also agree that they have not been expanding in recent years.

Already did.
You can just search arrested for tweets for one, and that alone is a miss.

If we look at the info you already presented, it does not support your claim that progressives are trying to silence everyone.

[Hindsite]

As long as we agree that it is not progressives who are continually expanding the scope of these laws.

And we also agree that they have not been expanding in recent years.

Whenever you say "as long as we agree" I find I never agree.
HalleluYah

[anasawad]

@Pants-of-dog

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/physical- ... rain-body/

More evidence that racist speech inflicts damage to your body that is not comparable to mere hurt feelings.

From the piece:

That experience set Brondolo on a path studying the psychological and physical toll of racism. African Americans face disproportionately high levels of diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. And when it comes to mental health, studies show that reporting more incidents ofracism is linked to more signs of depression and anxiety. But does racism cause health problems? Hard to tell. Other factors like socioeconomic status confound the data. But one thing is more certain: Racism causes stress, and stress can wreak havoc on a person’s body and mind.

So the study agree it's because of stress.

On stress:

Forty-three percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from stress.
Seventy-five percent to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints.
Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually.
The lifetime prevalence of an emotional disorder is more than 50%, often due to chronic, untreated stress reactions.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/eff ... -your-body

What Are the Consequences of Long-Term Stress?
A little stress every now and then is not something to be concerned about. Ongoing, chronic stress, however, can cause or exacerbate many serious health problems, including:

Mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and personality disorders
Cardiovascular disease, including heart disease, high blood pressure, abnormal heart rhythms, heart attacks, and stroke
Obesity and other eating disorders
Menstrual problems
Sexual dysfunction, such as impotence and premature ejaculation in men and loss of sexual desire in both men and women
Skin and hair problems, such as acne, psoriasis, and eczema, and permanent hair loss
Gastrointestinal problems, such as GERD, gastritis, ulcerative colitis, and irritable colon

https://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-ma ... the-body#2

So, exposure to racism causes stress, anxiety, and, in excess, depression.
So does work, deadlines, traffic, any type of bad news, raising kids, many social interactions in general, etc.
Let's start banning shall we?

Since nothing was pushed underground (i.e. people can and do say racist and sexist things all the time), this is not a factual criticism.

Considering that there is a sudden explosion of large scale far right movements, there are two possibilities:
1- This is just the start of it, and it'll grow much larger when it organize (highly unlikely).
2- These movements have been going under the radar for a long time, and just now grew large enough to make an effect. (most likely scenario since this is always the story as all these movements organize off the radar and grow before start going public).

As long as we agree that it is not progressives who are continually expanding the scope of these laws.

And we also agree that they have not been expanding in recent years.

Both sides are doing so.
That includes progressives, especially in the recent years.

If we look at the info you already presented, it does not support your claim that progressives are trying to silence everyone.

It does support my claim.
100s of cases of hate speech resulting in either arrests or fines, with security forces working to increase efforts to crack down on them.
That does support my claim, and stands against yours.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog


From the piece:


So the study agree it's because of stress.

On stress:

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/eff ... -your-body


https://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-ma ... the-body#2

So, exposure to racism causes stress, anxiety, and, in excess, depression.
So does work, deadlines, traffic, any type of bad news, raising kids, many social interactions in general, etc.
Let's start banning shall we?

Please reread the article where they specifically discuss exactly that and show how racism causes far more problems than that. Thanks.

Considering that there is a sudden explosion of large scale far right movements, there are two possibilities:
1- This is just the start of it, and it'll grow much larger when it organize (highly unlikely).
2- These movements have been going under the radar for a long time, and just now grew large enough to make an effect. (most likely scenario since this is always the story as all these movements organize off the radar and grow before start going public).

You are once again confusing time here. If progressives are trying to restrict speech tight now, it is impossible for them to have pushed conservatives underground years ago.

Unless progressives have time machines.

Both sides are doing so.
That includes progressives, especially in the recent years.

No, not in the UK. LGBTQ people and religious people did, and that has been only two expansions since 1986, and both these groups comprise progressives and conservatives.

It does support my claim.
100s of cases of hate speech resulting in either arrests or fines, with security forces working to increase efforts to crack down on them.
That does support my claim, and stands against yours.

You did not show there were hundreds of cases of people being arrested for bigotry.

You presented one article from DW that showed no arrests, and one article from the UK where the numbers were mixed with other illegal uses of speech.

[anasawad]

@Pants-of-dog

Please reread the article where they specifically discuss exactly that and show how racism causes far more problems than that. Thanks.

If you looked at the bolded parts, you'll see all the information needed.

You are once again confusing time here. If progressives are trying to restrict speech tight now, it is impossible for them to have pushed conservatives underground years ago.

Unless progressives have time machines.

Well, off the top of my head without bothering to look at exact dates; Considering the George Carlin was making pieces on how liberals and Feminists were constantly trying to control how people speak all the way back in the 90s, and how Bill Maher was pushing against this all the way back in the early and mid 2000s, I'd say progressives trying to censor speech and control it isn't really all that new.

You did not show there were hundreds of cases of people being arrested for bigotry.

You presented one article from DW that showed no arrests, and one article from the UK where the numbers were mixed with other illegal uses of speech.

Actually yea, it did show 100s of cases, I believe 1400 or so in Germany alone, with intent to expand them; I don't need to go into every single case to know what exact words were said, a simple stat about the number of police cases regarding hate speech, racism, or bigotry is more than enough to prove my point.

And in the UK, the cases that are making the news are all about hate speech; Now, sure, they don't call it hate speech, they say it is a breech of the communication act, section 127, and spray a whole lot of bullshit to delude the reader from the fact that someone is being arrested or fined for posting something "offensive", even without it being targetted at anyone.

Nothing better than the case of Mark Meechan to show how it works.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

If you looked at the bolded parts, you'll see all the information needed.

No. The article I cited mentioned your specific criticism elsewhere.

Well, off the top of my head without bothering to look at exact dates; Considering the George Carlin was making pieces on how liberals and Feminists were constantly trying to control how people speak all the way back in the 90s, and how Bill Maher was pushing against this all the way back in the early and mid 2000s, I'd say progressives trying to censor speech and control it isn't really all that new.

This is now a new claim. Are you adding this claim to the ones you have already presented?

Actually yea, it did show 100s of cases, I believe 1400 or so in Germany alone, with intent to expand them; I don't need to go into every single case to know what exact words were said, a simple stat about the number of police cases regarding hate speech, racism, or bigotry is more than enough to prove my point.

And in the UK, the cases that are making the news are all about hate speech; Now, sure, they don't call it hate speech, they say it is a breech of the communication act, section 127, and spray a whole lot of bullshit to delude the reader from the fact that someone is being arrested or fined for posting something "offensive", even without it being targetted at anyone.

Nothing better than the case of Mark Meechan to show how it works.

I have already discussed this with you many times. We looked at the evidence. It does not support your claims.

You are now simply repeating yourself despite the fact that the evidence does not support you.

[anasawad]

@Pants-of-dog

No. The article I cited mentioned your specific criticism elsewhere.

It doesn't. I've re-read it twice and it's generally circling around stress.

This is now a new claim. Are you adding this claim to the ones you have already presented?

It's not a new claim.
You said that you'd need to have a time machine to have driven these things underground years ago, I responded with, simply, that even someone like George Carlin and Bill Maher have not only noticed, but actively addressed this many times in the 90s and 2000s. So your claim that the progressive movement wasn't doing this is just false, it has been doing this for a long time and everyone noticed.

I have already discussed this with you many times. We looked at the evidence. It does not support your claims.

You are now simply repeating yourself despite the fact that the evidence does not support you.

And it is still unclear how when you're presented with a report of over 1400 police cases of hate speech in one year, you can come around and say that this does not support the claim that people are getting arrested for hate speech.

The evidence does support my claim.
You just keep repeating, baselessly, that it doesn't, even when it does.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

It doesn't. I've re-read it twice and it's generally circling around stress.

GIVING OUT PARKING tickets in New York does not usually inspire goodwill. If anything, it inspires a steady stream of insults from angry drivers. So several years ago, Elizabeth Brondolo, a psychologist at St. John’s University, came to counsel the city’s traffic agents, most of whom were African-American.

“We could do standard behavior therapy things about being called a ‘fat pig’ or ‘get a real job,’” says Brondolo. Her team ran through relaxation exercises and skits, which usually worked. “But the racial insults involved so much despair that we couldn’t do the same kind of intervention.”

That experience set Brondolo on a path studying the psychological and physical toll of racism. African Americans face disproportionately high levels of diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. And when it comes to mental health, studies show that reporting more incidents of racism is linked to more signs of depression and anxiety. But does racism cause health problems? Hard to tell. Other factors like socioeconomic status confound the data. But one thing is more certain: Racism causes stress, and stress can wreak havoc on a person’s body and mind.

A growing body of research now links experiencing racism to poorer health outcomes—from depression to low-birth weight to cardiovascular disease.Racism, blatant or subtle, marks the bodies of those who have to live with it. Much of the research, though not all, comes from the experience of African Americans in the US. “The literature is quite consistent,” says Naa Oyo Kwate, a psychologist and professor of Africana studies at Rutgers. “The more racism you experience, the worse your health experience in a number of domains.”

It's not a new claim.
You said that you'd need to have a time machine to have driven these things underground years ago, I responded with, simply, that even someone like George Carlin and Bill Maher have not only noticed, but actively addressed this many times in the 90s and 2000s. So your claim that the progressive movement wasn't doing this is just false, it has been doing this for a long time and everyone noticed.

Your original claim was that PCs are currently expanding laws and increasing oppression.

Now, the claim is that they have been doing this for decades.

You shifted this argument because I showed how they have not been doing anything recently.

And it is still unclear how when you're presented with a report of over 1400 police cases of hate speech in one year, you can come around and say that this does not support the claim that people are getting arrested for hate speech.

The evidence does support my claim.
You just keep repeating, baselessly, that it doesn't, even when it does.

If you are discussing the UK article about all these people being investigated for online speech, then you are referring to an article that used the number of everyone being charged with that particular crime.

That particular crime does not distinguish between racism and other illegal uses of speech. So, the number cited does not show how many cases were due to bigotry.

We can look at the evidence again if you wish.

[anasawad]

@Pants-of-dog

Now since the bolded part is useless in your quote, read the passages right below it.
Stress, anxiety, and depression.
That's what the article is arguing on.

Your original claim was that PCs are currently expanding laws and increasing oppression.

They are expanding these laws, and the censorship is indeed increasing.
Furthermore, as I've already shown, authorities in major countries are already working to increase efforts.

Now, the claim is that they have been doing this for decades.

That's not a new claim.
The relevant laws today started in the early 2000s as shown a couple of pages ago, and the silencing and censorship as well.
The base claim is that it's increasing at a large scale recently, and it is.

You shifted this argument because I showed how they have not been doing anything recently.

Nothing of the argument was shifted, you're just going around in circles.

If you are discussing the UK article about all these people being investigated for online speech, then you are referring to an article that used the number of everyone being charged with that particular crime.

That particular crime does not distinguish between racism and other illegal uses of speech. So, the number cited does not show how many cases were due to bigotry.

Yea, here is the thing; You've repeatedly made this statement of "illegal uses of speech", and it still is a red herring, even after all these times you repeated it.
Why?
Simple, because if it was inciting violence, it is called as such and has its own stats; If it was targetted, then it is harassment and it also has its own stats; The only thing that these stats address are hate speech.

Likewise in the famous case of Mark Meechan, he was arrested and fined for offensive content, content that was not targetted at anyone and comedic in nature and intent, which means it also a hate speech case like many others.

In Germany on the other hand, the cases, as quoted, were everything between using hateful language, illegal symbols, hate speech, and inciting hate speech and violence, with the stated intent of the state to remove hateful content online.

I don't see how much more clear should it get.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

Now since the bolded part is useless in your quote, read the passages right below it.
Stress, anxiety, and depression.
That's what the article is arguing on.

At this point, it is clear that it would be best to allow others to read the article for themselves and then make their own decision as to whether or not racism causes harm.

They are expanding these laws, and the censorship is indeed increasing.
Furthermore, as I've already shown, authorities in major countries are already working to increase efforts.

That's not a new claim.
The relevant laws today started in the early 2000s as shown a couple of pages ago, and the silencing and censorship as well.
The base claim is that it's increasing at a large scale recently, and it is.

Nothing of the argument was shifted, you're just going around in circles.

Yea, here is the thing; You've repeatedly made this statement of "illegal uses of speech", and it still is a red herring, even after all these times you repeated it.
Why?
Simple, because if it was inciting violence, it is called as such and has its own stats; If it was targetted, then it is harassment and it also has its own stats; The only thing that these stats address are hate speech.

Likewise in the famous case of Mark Meechan, he was arrested and fined for offensive content, content that was not targetted at anyone and comedic in nature and intent, which means it also a hate speech case like many others.

In Germany on the other hand, the cases, as quoted, were everything between using hateful language, illegal symbols, hate speech, and inciting hate speech and violence, with the stated intent of the state to remove hateful content online.

I don't see how much more clear should it get.

One step at a time.

Let us discuss Germany.

The evidence you cited for your claim about Germany was the DW article. Correct?

[anasawad]

@Pants-of-dog
In Germany, yes:

The suspects are also believed to have openly called for members to commit crimes,incited racial and religious hatred, and used banned symbols — the use of Nazi-associated imagery is illegal in Germany.

Germany has been struggling to enforce its strict hate speech laws when it comes to comments made online, but the lack of concern most social media platforms have exhibited towards reining in racist and hateful content has left authorities and politicians searching for ways to get hateful speech offline.

However, police vigilance appears to be paying off. In 2017, authorities throughout Germany logged 2,270 cases of possibly illegal hate speech on the internet. In 2018, that number was 1472.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-dozens-of ... a-49080109

[Pants-of-dog]

@anasawad

And how many arrests are mentioned in the DW article?

[anasawad]

@Pants-of-dog
States "dozens" of recent raids, no exact number.
With the numbers stating logged cases.

Logged cases mean the case is dealt with either by arrests or fines and in all cases, trials.

[Pants-of-dog]

@anasawad

Please quote the number of logged cases.

Do you agree that there is no mention of arrests?

[anasawad]

@Pants-of-dog
Already did.
Literally a couple of posts ago.

And what do you think those raids are for? Handing flowers?
They're arrests.
Dozens of recent raids in 13 federal states means dozens of recent arrests.

With intention to expand efforts as quoted.