Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3362
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Mr Man » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:08 am

So Doot Doot is posting from Mark Collett's youtube channel to Dhammawheel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Collett
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:10 am

I agree with the general point here, but would warn that ideas having caused direct harm in the past is a poor predictor of whether they will cause harm in the present or future. Ideas about homosexuality being a sin against God, for example, or ideas about racial purity and miscegenation: these have clearly caused direct harm in the past, but are very unlikely to gain much traction now.
Are you joking? Is hate crime a thing of the past?

Murder of Jo Cox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox
SDC wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:24 am
My whole point is that the landscape that produced these things that you see as morally reprehensible, are there on DW because the community as a whole, asked for it. We asked for it on DW through our behavior in the Lounge prior to the creation of the News section. We asked for it in the broader Buddhist community when we supported members of the ordained Sangha, from various sides of the aisle, when they opted to talk politics in the age of global warming and Donald Trump. You can't let even a little bit of it in without getting all the trash that comes along. Unfortunately we were all arrogant enough to think we could regulate it.
The community as a whole? Dhammawheel is as it is now as a direct result of the admin team. It is your responsibility. Your choice. You manage this forum.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2718
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by DooDoot » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:15 am

Mr Man wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:08 am
So Doot Doot is posting from Mark Collett's youtube channel to Dhammawheel.
Personally, never heard of him before now. Regardless, everything this person speaks or writes may not necessarily be invalid. The video popped up when searching for the pornography article written by the Jewish professor. Since Collett appears to conform with the views of Abrams, whats the issue? How can the Jewish Abrams be right & Collett wrong; if both appear to agree with eachother? :shrug:

Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry (2006 Jewish Quarterly)

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:22 am

Caodemarte wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:21 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:10 am
...I agree with the general point here, but would warn that ideas having caused direct harm in the past is a poor predictor of whether they will cause harm in the present or future. Ideas about homosexuality being a sin against God, for example, or ideas about racial purity and miscegenation: these have clearly caused direct harm in the past, but are very unlikely to gain much traction now. I see the Protocols in this category, in that they are so thoroughly discredited that few take them seriously other than those who are already anti-Semitic. ...
I live in the US where violent hate crimes do occur. Anti-Semitic propaganda, such as the infamous document cited, are routinely cited as justifications by the perpetrators for attacks on Jews and temples. I believe the situation is similar in every Western country. Check out the situation in Eastern Europe, where the cited document is widely circulated among hate groups. Other area have their own hate crimes where similar propaganda against different targets is cited.
A claim that a document or idea inspired violence is not the same as that document or idea inspiring violence. Have you any example of someone providing anti-Semitic propaganda likely to inspire violence here on DW?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:32 am

Mr Man wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:08 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:10 am

I agree with the general point here, but would warn that ideas having caused direct harm in the past is a poor predictor of whether they will cause harm in the present or future. Ideas about homosexuality being a sin against God, for example, or ideas about racial purity and miscegenation: these have clearly caused direct harm in the past, but are very unlikely to gain much traction now.
Are you joking? Is hate crime a thing of the past?

Murder of Jo Cox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox
No, people commit crimes due to hatred, but the question is whether anyone is likely to be murdered because of something posted here on DW. If you can remember anything likely to cause murder, please cite it along with your reasons. As I said, a PM is OK if you wish to spare the perpetrator.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3362
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Mr Man » Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:30 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:32 am
Mr Man wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:08 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:10 am

I agree with the general point here, but would warn that ideas having caused direct harm in the past is a poor predictor of whether they will cause harm in the present or future. Ideas about homosexuality being a sin against God, for example, or ideas about racial purity and miscegenation: these have clearly caused direct harm in the past, but are very unlikely to gain much traction now.
Are you joking? Is hate crime a thing of the past?

Murder of Jo Cox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox
No, people commit crimes due to hatred, but the question is whether anyone is likely to be murdered because of something posted here on DW. If you can remember anything likely to cause murder, please cite it along with your reasons. As I said, a PM is OK if you wish to spare the perpetrator.
The question is not just whether anyone is likely to be murdered because of something posted here on DW. Who made that the question?

Are you cool with Dhammawheel publishing video's by Mark Collett?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:34 am

Greetings Mr Man,

Someone posting a link to a video to substantiate their position is hardly "Dhamma Wheel publishing videos"...

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:33 am

Mr Man wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:30 am
The question is not just whether anyone is likely to be murdered because of something posted here on DW. Who made that the question?
As you brought up the case of murder victim Jo Cox, I thought incitement to murder was your concern. If you state the question, I'll try to answer it.
Are you cool with Dhammawheel publishing video's by Mark Collett?
I'm not familiar with the name, but I'm OK with a subscriber to Dhamma Wheel linking to anything that does not run afoul of the ToS. I don't think there should be a list of proscribed names which has us reaching for the "ban button". According to who compiles it, it would stretch all the way from Hitler to those reprehensible acolytes of Ajahn Chah who advocate an eternal citta.

Caodemarte
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Caodemarte » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:49 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:34 am
Greetings Mr Man,

Someone posting a link to a video to substantiate their position is hardly "Dhamma Wheel publishing videos"...

Metta,
Paul. :)
Yes, it is. If DW publishes it, DW is legally and morally responsible.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:11 pm

Greetings,

No it's not. If that were true "legally", Twitter, Facebook and Google would not exist, given they contain links to external sites of dubious nature.

Similarly, what you define as "morally" is just you expressing your morality and/or personal preference... there's no objective or Dhammic way to substantiate your authoritarian book burning attitude as some grand truth.

You saying something doesn't make it so.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3362
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Mr Man » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:15 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:33 am
Mr Man wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:30 am
The question is not just whether anyone is likely to be murdered because of something posted here on DW. Who made that the question?
As you brought up the case of murder victim Jo Cox, I thought incitement to murder was your concern. If you state the question, I'll try to answer it.
But I didn't "state the question".
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:33 am
Are you cool with Dhammawheel publishing video's by Mark Collett?
I'm not familiar with the name, but I'm OK with a subscriber to Dhamma Wheel linking to anything that does not run afoul of the ToS.
Posting anti-semitic, racist, misogynist content isn't against the ToS is it? So you are cool with anti-semitic content on Dhamma Wheel?

Caodemarte
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Caodemarte » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:36 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:11 pm
Greetings,

No it's not. If that were true "legally", Twitter, Facebook and Google would not exist, given they contain links to external sites of dubious nature.

Similarly, what you define as "morally" is just you expressing your morality and/or personal preference... there's no objective or Dhammic way to substantiate your authoritarian book burning attitude as some grand truth.

You saying something doesn't make it so.

Metta,
Paul. :)

When caught, the sites you mention remove links which violate the law because they are legally and morally responsible. They remove links which are not illegal, but violate their internal polices (Facebook removes murder videos, Twitter often removes tweets and bans offenders). They apply such standards inconsistently and publish dubious links to increase their audience share. Is this the role model for DW?

In Buddhism you are indeed morally responsible for your actions or inactions. In this case, the owner and administrators are responsible for the Buddhist site and what it used for. They decide what kind of audience they want to attract; what they will allow and not allow. Each poster is also responsible for what they post. I understand the argument that one can only do the best one can to meet one’s responsibility, but the argument that there is no responsibility at all is not convincing.

Justsit
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Justsit » Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:18 pm

On March 21, the US Senate passed into law the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA). This law holds websites accountable for posts by third parties, resulting in US Craigslist deleting its entire Personals section due to fears of legal action against a few thinly-veiled paid sex ads.

While currently only directed at online sex trade, the application of this same logic to other sites could indeed be problematic for website owners who operate in the US.

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Modus.Ponens » Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:19 pm

Anti semitism is as unpleasant a plague as it gets. It's funny that the far right, the far left, and the islamofascists all have deranged opinions of jews, for often contradictory resons.

The solution to bad speech is better speech. Shaming anti semites won't do anything to changes their minds. Therefore I want to provide a list of good arguments to debunk antisemitism. I left the politics section for the sake of my own sanity. But I always get nervous when anti semitism thrives. So here are a few counter arguments to the main anti semitic claims, for those who want to engage in the politics section and debunk anti semitic nonsense.

Claim #1 - "The jews control the world"
Answer - The current climate of the far right, far left, and islamofascists feeding of each other is not pleasant to watch. These are notoriously antisemitic groups. which means jews are one of the first groups victimized by this negative spiral. How would a group in control of the world be also in favor of their own demise? It does not make sense. Anti semitic pogroms have happened numerous times in history.

Claim #2 - "The jews control the media"
Answer - First, some people who are claimed to be jews are not actually jewish. Rupert Murdoch is an example. But the most important point is the following: the cultural norms of jews have allowed the group to succeed in many walks of life throughout the generations. When a subculture values hard work, intense education, and entrepeneurialism, as well as stable families and a healthy sense of social cohesion, they are bound to succeed. Instead of complaining that jews are over represented here or there, other groups can adopt their cultural norms and enjoy the same success. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "To say that the jews were lucky to have arrived in California just when Hollywood was being created, is the same as saying that a baseball player was lucky to arrive there with a bat just when a homerun was being hit.

Claim #3 - "The jews control the Nobel Prize comittee"
Answer - This is easily debunkable if anyone bothers to go through the list of the achievements of the jewish Nobel laureates. The polio vaccine, Einstein's theory of relativity, Heisenberg's pioneer work in quantum physics, Richard Feynman's work on quantum electrodynamics, etc. Mathematics has a similarly impressive list of jews in the Fields Medalists and the monetary prize is almost non existent. Just because approximately 25% of Nobel laureates are jewish does not mean they control the comittee. But people with no sense will enjoy the incredible advances in medicine and technology made by jews, while criticizing them.

Claim #3 - "The holocaust never happened"
Answer - This grotesque claim is has no basis in reality and is used by liars to further their agenda. Here is a video presentation of a book by Michael Shermer debunking the revisionist "history" of holocaust deniers.




Claim #4 - "Israelis are the new nazis"
Answer - Another vile accusation. Considering how the Hamas has written in its foundational charter that their goal is the anihilation of the jewish people, it is clear who are the new nazis. Similar terrorist groups, and the numerous dictatorships that sponsor them, have declared again and again their desire to complete the holocaust. Just because the actual new nazis pretend to be victims does not mean that they actually are the victims. The main victims are the children of these anti semites who are used in a war they did not ask to inherit, sometimes even used as human shields. And, of course, the other main victims of these vile anti semites are Israelis. Considering also that there have been 6 wars since Israel's creation, started by Israel's enemy nations, I cannot see how the Israelis are the oppressors here, instead of a people acting in self defense.

Claim #5 - "Israel does not have the right to exist"
Answer - Israel was created by the division of the Great Mandate for Palestine by the United Nations, under the instructions of the UK. The UK gained control over those territories after WW1, specifically against the Turkish empire. The UK promised land to the people who declared alliance with them in WW2 and fought by their side. That included jewish and arab muslim groups. The Great Mandate for Palestine is now Jordan, Israel and Palestine. Israel has the approximate area corresponding to the jewish population at the time of the partition plan. Claims that the jews were migrating to Israel in a colonialist anticipation to create a new state ignore the two facts that jews were fleeing Hitler's persecution and that there was a similar movement of sudden migration from arab muslims to the hithertoo mostly deserted land. So Israel has the right to exist.

Claim #5 and #6 - "Israel is an ethnostate" and "Israel is an Apartheid state"
Answer - This is a claim made by white nationalists and far leftists, respectively. Israel is 20% arab, and 18% muslim. So it is neither a racial, nor a religious ethnostate. Its preferencial migration policy for jews comes from very obvious and understandable historical reasons. Also, all citizens can be members of parliament, government, army, police forces, etc. Muslims have more freedom and life quality in Israel than in any other islamic country. So, no, it is not an Apartheid state.

Claim #7 and #8 - "Postmodernism is a jewish conspiracy" and "Communism is a jewish conspiracy"
Answer - Many prominent jewish philosophers, intellectuals, and economists lambasted the postmodernists and the communists. Giants such as Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, are just a few of the names that opposed both forms of lunacy. The fact is that there are jews of every political persuation and many of them have opposed each other publically and vigorously. There is no conspiracy based on ethnicity or religion. Radical leftists coordinate efforts because they share the same ideology.


I believe the two main motives for anti semitism are historical religous hatred and the fallacy of "disproportional representation implies conspiracy".

- The religious hatred from christians (which is fortunately a lot rarer these days), comes from blaming the jews as a whole for the death of Jesus. There were jews being burned by the inquisition 1500 years after the death of Christ. The religious hatred from muslims comes from the death of Muhammad. Muslim anti semites cannot admit that those who live by the sword end up dying by the sword.

- Finally, the fallacy of "disproportional representation implies conspiracy" works under an assumption that cultural norms are irrelevant to the success of the individual who follows them. The disparities between subgroups within America, or within any country in the world, are the rule, rather than the exception. Even arbitrarily defined subgroups have disparities between them, such as left handed vs right handed. But if we consider subgroups who have their own subcultures, then we expect that the differences observed are predictable by the differences in cultural norms. And that's what ends up being observed, such as with jews and east asians. The problem with disproportional success is that when there is a section of a successful demographic that fails, the stakes are higher and the failure gets amplified attention. Especially by people with a racial agenda.

A few final thoughts: within every group of humans there are good people, there are bad people, and there are people who are a mixture of good and bad. Most humans are normal, a mixture of good and bad. Whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, whatever, are all human and therefore contain human virtues and human flaws. Jews are no different, which means you will always find bad jews if that's what you're looking for. And that's what conspiracy theorists do, they look for bad people. But this means they don't see good jews, or just the majority of normal jews. To take the flaws of a few people in a group and extrapolate them to the entire group leads to false conclusions, it punishes the innocent, and is dangerous for society as a whole.

PS: I'm not jewish. I just get really upset with anti semitism. It is usually a mark of a totalitarian mindset. So I'm trying to do my part in the promise of "Never again!"
"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4397
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by SDC » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:40 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:08 am
The community as a whole? Dhammawheel is as it is now as a direct result of the admin team. It is your responsibility. Your choice. You manage this forum.
So wait, now you want the staff to tell you what you can or cannot say? Didn't you call me an "arrogant schoolmaster" merely for arguing with you? How many tongues do you have available to speak with?

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that was you in the Lounge years back constantly engaging in political discussions, doing well to represent the need our community had for a political section. Or was that someone else? But now it's all our responsibility and you claim to play no part. You are hilarious as always.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11762
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by DNS » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:50 pm

Mod note: I removed the post with the video attachment from Mark Collett about Jews in the porn industry, not because it is from Mark Collett (I don't know about him), but due to being off-topic and about porn.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 8 guests