Postmortem on Mueller

[Berzerker]

Speaking of hate speech, why do you try to have conversations with people who hate you? No one else left?

How is that speaking of hate speech? Next you'll be accusing me of changing the subject. I didn't know BJ hated me, but I try not to have conversations with you. So you talk to people you hate but they shouldn't talk to you?

 

[Birdjaguar]

How is that speaking of hate speech? Next you'll be accusing me of changing the subject. I didn't know BJ hated me, but I try not to have conversations with you. So you talk to people you hate but they shouldn't talk to you?

WTH? Of course I don't hate you. Certainly people do things that are worth hating and they do them for bad reasons, but I'm not much into hating individuals that I know, have met or talked with. It is quite easy to get passionately excited about strangers who do bad things, but who live far away and whom you have never met.

 

[Tristan_C]

Trump obstructed injustice.

 

[Traitorfish]

Thats gonna end well, the response will be banning left wing hate sites and CFC will be no longer.

You complain about political polarisation, but then you assert that a largely non-political forum is a "left-wing hate site". Do you not see any tension, there?

 

[onejayhawk]

You complain about political polarisation, but then you assert that a largely non-political forum is a "left-wing hate site". Do you not see any tension, there?

You can start with "largely non-political."

The ass covering is beginning to get serious. NYT admits that the FBI spied on Trump then tries to justify the action. Rather than quote the paywalled story, here is a crosstown paper lampooning them. It's good for laughs for anyone with the sense to know this was coming.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/04/did-the-ny-times-just-admit-and-defend-obamas-spying-on-trump/

Mueller's team leaked every major twist for two years. Each leak is a felony and the paper is a conspirator. What the paper knew and did not report is another issue with possible legal entanglements. As note above, the White House is signalling a green light to such investigations.

J

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You complain about political polarisation, but then you assert that a largely non-political forum is a "left-wing hate site". Do you not see any tension, there?

Imagine placing CFC in the same realms as say Breitbart, any of the chans or other hardcore hate sites be they white supremacist websites or websites advocating jihad, war and murdering of certain groups, that's how fundamentally disconnected from reality these people are, that they think this is in anyway equivalent to the absolute bile and seething naked hatred that comes from the right.

 

[Berzerker]

WTH? Of course I don't hate you.

I didn't think so, I was responding to Tim and he thinks you and everyone else does.

You complain about political polarisation, but then you assert that a largely non-political forum is a "left-wing hate site". Do you not see any tension, there?

What I said is if hate speech 'justified' shutting down websites CFC would be shut down too because of (left wing) posters who want to kill millions of people based on ideology. The tension would be if I condoned or encouraged their views while complaining about political polarization.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

In America at least, there is more far right terrorism and deaths from said terrorism than from any leftwing group or even Muslims.

 

[El_Machinae]

In the TL;DR of the Mueller report, do they discuss the dedicated hacking and targeted release of information?

One of my major concerns is that the current President is unable to distinguish between the deliberate attack on the democracy from his own victory. Now, this is public, but I don't have reason to think that he's secretly taking action to protect the democracy from additional assaults.

The other concern, that intentional trolls can cause social damage, is more of a social one. I can see why a Troll Farm would do what it does, but it's also rather similar to what partisans do to each other. It's the intentional effort to cause partisan conflict rather than just partisan division that global democracies need to worry about.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I didn't think so, I was responding to Tim and he thinks you and everyone else does.



What I said is if hate speech 'justified' shutting down websites CFC would be shut down too because of (left wing) posters who want to kill millions of people based on ideology. The tension would be if I condoned or encouraged their views while complaining about political polarization.

How many posters on this site have ever said they want to kill people? A handful at most.
It isn't based on ideology. Hitler wanted to kill people based on ideology. Any leftwingers who have ever expressed a desire here to kill people, its based on frustration.

 

[Old Hippy]

. Any leftwingers who have ever expressed a desire here to kill people, its based on frustration.

Kentucky Fried Chicken does that to people...

 

[Cloud_Strife]

How many posters on this site have ever said they want to kill people? A handful at most.
It isn't based on ideology. Hitler wanted to kill people based on ideology. Any leftwingers who have ever expressed a desire here to kill people, its based on frustration.

Reminds me of those people who think Antifa is equally, if not more, just bad as literal neo nazis and standing up against fascism is inherently fascistic

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem with the discussion of 'Antifa' is that anyone can self-identify as Antifa and the term doesn't yet have enough coherence to say "No, that person wasn't actually Antifa". Neo-nazi is easier, because it has a tighter definition. So, we run into problems when people claiming to be Antifa end up attacking people who aren't actually Neo-Nazis.

 

[Traitorfish]

What I said is if hate speech 'justified' shutting down websites CFC would be shut down too because of (left wing) posters who want to kill millions of people based on ideology. The tension would be if I condoned or encouraged their views while complaining about political polarization.

I know what you said. My point is that characterising a non-political forum as a "hate site" because you consider the alleged views of certain individual posters offensive is difficult to interpret as anything except a contribution to the political polarisation you affect to decry. You cannot credibly present yourself as an advocate of political compromise while maintaining that anyone who is not with you is against you.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The problem with the discussion of 'Antifa' is that anyone can self-identify as Antifa and the term doesn't yet have enough coherence to say "No, that person wasn't actually Antifa". Neo-nazi is easier, because it has a tighter definition. So, we run into problems when people claiming to be Antifa end up attacking people who aren't actually Neo-Nazis.

Ultimately Antifa don't want to kill/deport/subjugate ethnic,sexual, racial, religious and other minority groups, whilst Neo-nazis, White seperatists, Militia movement etc, do, that's what makes the comparison absurd, one exists to stop the latter but apparently that's bad

 

[El_Machinae]

Broadly, yes. As I said, the problem is with self-identification. Any specific person claiming to be Antifa can be behaving in a fascistic manner.

Remember, 'Nazi' is a subset of 'fascist'. By putting on a swastika, you're claiming solidarity with a movement that's vastly more clarified than 'antifa' is (or even will be).

Antifa currently suffers from the No True Scotsman problem. If a person assaults a non-fascist, but claims to be antifa, it's hard to figure out whether 'Antifa' committed the assault or not. My concern is that people will morally defend the assault merely because they hold solidarity with the idea of Antifa.

 

[Traitorfish]

Broadly, yes. As I said, the problem is with self-identification. Any specific person claiming to be Antifa can be behaving in a fascistic manner.

What, like, propounding the virtues of national regeneration through struggle? Extolling the virtues of racial purity? Giving long, boring speeches trying to reconcile a fascination with modern machinery with the idealistion of pre-modern agrarian society?

Or when you say "in a fascistic manner", do you just mean "like a jerk"?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well,uncritically believing the falsehoods spread by other people in order to violently try to silence someone not deemed to be in the protected in-group. To first seek the power of the state to force silence, and then use criminal actions to silence while then encouraging the state to crack down more 'on them' than 'on us'.

If you want to define fascism with a racial purity component instead of merely requiring in-group purity, then I guess we're saying that they're "like fascists" instead of "actually fascist".

As I said, it's an identity issue. Some group can be behaving in a way that I describe in my first paragraph, and call themselves "antifa" hoping that other people then give them a pass.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well,uncritically believing the falsehoods spread by other people in order to violently try to silence someone not deemed to be in the protected in-group. To first seek the power of the state to force silence, and then use criminal actions to silence while then encouraging the state to crack down more 'on them' than 'on us'.

If you want to define fascism with a racial purity component instead of merely requiring in-group purity, then I guess we're saying that they're "like fascists" instead of "actually fascist".

Are you actually describing fascism, here, or simply zealotry? Is the implication that fascism is not a distinct political tradition, but just a word we use to describe zealotry in a political context?

 

[Berzerker]

Imagine placing CFC in the same realms as say Breitbart, any of the chans or other hardcore hate sites be they white supremacist websites or websites advocating jihad, war and murdering of certain groups, that's how fundamentally disconnected from reality these people are, that they think this is in anyway equivalent to the absolute bile and seething naked hatred that comes from the right.

Hate speech is hate speech, telling me there's more on other websites is irrelevant. Laws against hate speech wont (or shouldn't) care if there is more there and less here, both will be in violation of the law. I dont read Breitbart but I'd be surprised if its writers argued in favor of killing the millions of left wingers in the country. Something like that might appear in the reader's comments section like postings here but that wont matter if hate speech is banned.

Reminds me of those people who think Antifa is equally, if not more, just bad as literal neo nazis and standing up against fascism is inherently fascistic

Attacking protesters is worse than protesting

How many posters on this site have ever said they want to kill people? A handful at most. It isn't based on ideology. Hitler wanted to kill people based on ideology. Any leftwingers who have ever expressed a desire here to kill people, its based on frustration.

Kill the right wingers isn't ideological? Both wings are frustrated.

You complain about political polarisation, but then you assert that a largely non-political forum is a "left-wing hate site". Do you not see any tension, there?

I wasn't clear enough and what I did say could be interpreted to mean I was calling CFC a left wing hate site, the response to banning hate speech would include CFC for the left wing hate speech posted here. It doesn't matter what CFC does otherwise, the hate speech would be grounds for legal action.

I know what you said. My point is that characterising a non-political forum as a "hate site" because you consider the alleged views of certain individual posters offensive is difficult to interpret as anything except a contribution to the political polarisation you affect to decry. You cannot credibly present yourself as an advocate of political compromise while maintaining that anyone who is not with you is against you.

The polarization I decried was a Congress defined by partisan gerrymandering. I dont know if identifying hate speech increases or reduces polarization, I dont see this tension. But I wont be the one characterizing CFC as a left wing hate site, the people enforcing laws will do that and all the proof they need are posters advocating, endorsing, encouraging, or 'observing' the need for killing millions of Americans.