Contemporary threats to free speech

[lyndon taylor]

Worth a read.

James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ntolerance

The answer is no, and Damore was fired. The 26-year-old promptly became a martyr for an alt-right that believes that losing your job for being a sexist arsehole is an injustice equivalent to facing centuries of structural oppression. Damore is convinced that he lost his job because of what he thinks, rather than because of how he behaved, and that he is being punished by a culture of “political correctness”, which is what used to be called human decency.

He is not alone. Donald Trump received his strongest support at the polls among Americans who believed that men, Christians and, in particular, white people, were being unfairly discriminated against. The new right feeds off this narrative of victimhood. It’s seductive. It allows the vertebrally challenged to feel justified in their crass and reactionary opinions, and righteous when they face a backlash. It’s not you, it says – it’s them. You have been used to privilege, so equality feels like prejudice.

[Sam Vara]

Worth a read.

James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies

Damore might, of course, have included things which are factually wrong in his memo. But how does this tie in with bigotry and bullying?

[Mr Man]

Worth a read.

James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies

Damore might, of course, have included things which are factually wrong in his memo. But how does this tie in with bigotry and bullying?

"James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies"

Is the title of the article.

[Sam Vara]

"James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies"

Is the title of the article.

Indeed, but I'm none the wiser as to who the bigots and bullies are for knowing that Laurie Penny entitled her piece that way.

[Pseudobabble]

It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies

These people don't make sense, they think it's the content that matters.

How can the author not see the formal identity between an argument for discriminating against X, and an argument for discriminating against Y?

[Mr Man]

One year under Trump: A shrinking space for protests

Scott Michelman, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's DC chapter, argued that "there has been an astonishing level of hostility toward the First Amendment in 2017", referring to the constitutional protection that affords those in the US the right to free speech and to assemble, among other freedoms.

"The president sets a tone for the country in lots of ways, and Trump has signalled to his supporters that free speech isn't a value of his and it shouldn't be a value of ours," Michelman told Al Jazeera.

"That's given permission and encouragement to anti-free speech forces across the country, whether they be law enforcement or policymakers."

Throughout Trump's first year in office, right-wing state legislators introduced dozens of bills designed to curb the activities of demonstrators in nearly 20 states, according to the ACLU.

Several states - among them North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Tennessee - have passed such bills into law.

North Dakota passed into law bills that criminalised protests on private property, increased penalties for riot offences and barred demonstrators from wearing masks to conceal their identities, among others.

In Oklahoma, new laws ostensibly made it possible for authorities to hold anyone arrested for trespassing financially accountable for any damages to property and punished protesters who knowingly trespass on "critical infrastructure".

This month, Durham County, North Carolina introduced a new proposal that would require protesters to give 48-hour notice before holding any demonstration on publicly owned land.

"The wave of anti-speech fury on the part of prosecutors, law enforcement and political forces will pass; but that's not to say that we should be complacent with it and think it will pass without hard work," Michelman concluded.

"Free speech is deeply ingrained in our political and social fabric, and people are going to continue to raise their voices for it."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/y ... 30984.html

[Sam Vara]

...

Many thanks, Mr Man. Some of these represent the usual piecemeal assault on free speech, which is a great pity. Once the right has gone, it is difficult to get it back. Some of them look as if they are designed to limit damage arising from the circumstances in which free speech occurs. I think the only remedy for these is to reestablish a culture in which opinions can be aired without violent confrontations. A change of heart, which can only start with the individual.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Julian Assange says Google and Facebook have become an 'existential threat to humanity'

The chief of the whistleblowing platform, who describes himself as a "geopolitical analyst" on his Twitter profile, believes the tech giants have evolved into powerful "digital superstates".

"While the internet has brought about a revolution in our ability to educate each other, the consequent democratic explosion has shaken existing democratic establishments to their core,"

"Burgeoning digital superstates such as Google, Facebook and their Chinese equivalents, who are integrated with the existing order, have moved to re-establish discourse control," he said.

"This is not simply a corrective action. Undetectable mass social influence powered by artificial intelligence is an existential threat to humanity."

On the topic of digital threats, he said: "The future of humanity is the struggle between humans that control machines and machines that control humans."

"Nuclear war, climate change or global pandemics are existential threats that we can work through with discussion and thought. Discourse is humanity's immune system for existential threats. Diseases that infect the immune system are usually fatal. In this case, at a planetary scale."

Metta,
Paul.

[Sam Vara]

Greetings,

Julian Assange says Google and Facebook have become an 'existential threat to humanity'

The chief of the whistleblowing platform, who describes himself as a "geopolitical analyst" on his Twitter profile, believes the tech giants have evolved into powerful "digital superstates".

"While the internet has brought about a revolution in our ability to educate each other, the consequent democratic explosion has shaken existing democratic establishments to their core,"

"Burgeoning digital superstates such as Google, Facebook and their Chinese equivalents, who are integrated with the existing order, have moved to re-establish discourse control," he said.

"This is not simply a corrective action. Undetectable mass social influence powered by artificial intelligence is an existential threat to humanity."

On the topic of digital threats, he said: "The future of humanity is the struggle between humans that control machines and machines that control humans."

"Nuclear war, climate change or global pandemics are existential threats that we can work through with discussion and thought. Discourse is humanity's immune system for existential threats. Diseases that infect the immune system are usually fatal. In this case, at a planetary scale."

Metta,
Paul.

My earlier post on this thread about David Reynolds' response to Google and the Damore case contains clear evidence that Google employees are considering tinkering with the software so that searches produce results which are politically acceptable. All the information on a topic will be there, of course, but it's possible that we won't find a dissenting viewpoint unless we dig deep and put in a lot of time and energy. Coupled with the idea that a slow, considered rebuttal is no rebuttal at all in the age of 24 hour news, there is the very real possibility of a monopolised narrative. Who controls the information flow controls the people.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Google Has An Actual Secret Speech Police

More than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies around the world help police YouTube for extremist content, ranging from so-called hate speech to terrorist recruiting videos.

All of them have confidentiality agreements barring Google, YouTube’s parent company, from revealing their participation to the public, a Google representative told The Daily Caller on Thursday.

A handful of groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and No Hate Speech, a European organization focused on combatting intolerance, have chosen to go public with their participation in the program, but the vast majority have stayed hidden behind the confidentiality agreements. Most groups in the program don’t want to be publicly associated with it, according to the Google spokesperson, who spoke only on background.

Metta,
Paul.

[robertk]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lloy ... SKBN1F825Z

[chownah]

Greetings,

Google Has An Actual Secret Speech Police

More than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies around the world help police YouTube for extremist content, ranging from so-called hate speech to terrorist recruiting videos.

All of them have confidentiality agreements barring Google, YouTube’s parent company, from revealing their participation to the public, a Google representative told The Daily Caller on Thursday.

A handful of groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and No Hate Speech, a European organization focused on combatting intolerance, have chosen to go public with their participation in the program, but the vast majority have stayed hidden behind the confidentiality agreements. Most groups in the program don’t want to be publicly associated with it, according to the Google spokesperson, who spoke only on background.

Metta,
Paul.

Should google be required to not censor anything at all ever?
chownah

[Leeuwenhoek2]

Worth a read.

James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ntolerance

I can't figure out if you are writing tounge-in-cheek / as satire or not.

If it is "fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies" then once I label you a bigot and/or a bully it's fine to discriminate against you.
That is the kind of karma that leads to mutual destruction and encourages more bigotry and bullying.

FYI: There is some level of evidence our political beliefs are heavily influenced by certain mental tendencies which are based on biology. Political beliefs, especially political tendencies are likely to be in roughly the same class as sexual and gender expression.
Thus, political belief, sexual expression and skin color are related.

And why do you say it's worth a read? If you can't take the effort to explain why then it's probably a better use of my time to read something else. By the way, that comment applies to quite a few of posts.

[Leeuwenhoek2]

It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies

These people don't make sense, they think it's the content that matters.
How can the author not see the formal identity between an argument for discriminating against X, and an argument for discriminating against Y?

I thought I know something of logic but I can't figure out what you are trying to say.
Can you expand on your thought?

[Mr Man]

Worth a read.

James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ntolerance

I can't figure out if you are writing tounge-in-cheek / as satire or not.

Hi Leeuwenhoek2
I'm not sure what you think is tounge-in-cheek/satire.