Spheyr
Banned
Did you eat a lot of lead paint chips as a kid?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trump appointee guts UN document on racism, says leaders don't have duty to condemn hate speech
- Thread starter chaos789
- Start date
ilfait
Member
Yes, but please refer to me as a paint chip enthusiast.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
It's a generalization. Just like white people are racist claims. I can say that blacks doesn't work but it is not racism. Generalization, prejudice. Just like russians are drunkards or muslims are jihadists.
It doesn't mean that I am not willing to work with them. Just like they don't avoid me because they think that as white man I am racist.
Some years ago a woman in paranja and with explosive belt blew up the bus. Of course people will avoid women in paranja after that. But that won't make them racist. But according to the left - it will.
But the politics that we should close our eyes over crimes or illegals - the hell I need to pass a difficult procedure to migrate to USA (well I can also do that through work probably, through merit system I can migrate to Canada - at least I was eligible for the first stage two years ago) when people get a free pass just because they live closer? The problem with illegals is that they will never end - the population is always increasing. People are born and want to move to the country because they don't like living in their own and expect to do that freely just because they live close - the idea is close to - as you have a better house than you neighbor it means he should be able to live freely with you.
Last edited:
Derekloffin
Member
25% of black, 25% of white, 25% of brown, 25% of yellow. Diversity and equality
Yes, SOME diversity and SOME equality. It is not an absolute equal or diverse situation though. Now, think, how would you improve either aspect? You'd have to compromise the other. After all 25% across the board isn't diverse, but if we make the %s different to improve diversity, we lose the equality. Like Black and Brown are different, so if we want more equality, we'd actually have to start eliminating these different color so everyone is 1 color.
It is pretty easy to see that a society that is absolutely equal is also completely devoid of diversity, and vice versa. Diversity and equality are competing principles that must compromise somewhere and reach a balance.
LegendOfKage
Member
Was the huffington post engaging in hate speech or racism when they wrote this article?:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
What if Fox News said the same thing? Is what Trump said worse? Sure, in some ways, definitely. He definitely wasn't aiming for diplomacy with his word choice. He's often needlessly belligerent and confrontational. But where is the line? If Trump was being racist when he said what he said, exactly how belligerent and poorly worded could he have been without being guilty of racism? The idea that a government has the ability to objectively decide this is the issue.
I have some other thoughts on the topic, but no time to make them right now.
luigimario
Banned
A statement can be both a generalisation AND racist, as most generalisations are bigoted/racist. With statements like those, is it at all surprising the level of vitriol and violence that is meted upon minorities in the US? And mate, you can be against illegal immigration and still condemn racism..... it's not an "either/or" situation....
Papa
Banned
Good. Read the quotes without the CNN hot take and he makes some very good points. The amount of weasel words in the original version of the document is worrying. I’ve always wondered how 1984-style thought control could be implemented in a democracy as robust as the West’s and hate speech codes are definitely it. The useful idiots just lap it up because they’re high on empathy, which is the weak spot of the Judeo-Christian values that Western culture is based on. He’s absolutely right when he says that the best way to combat racism is through culture and policing actions, not thoughts. How can any reasonable, switched-on person disagree with these quotes?
“The drafters need to focus on behavior and actions - which states can control - rather than attitudes and states of mind”
"What's the evidence for such 'complementarity?' Some commentators assert that a unifying culture (as opposed to multiculturalism) is the best way to promote social trust and combat racism."
He’s calling out the BS dogma that asserts that multiculturalism is a strength and must be pursued (as opposed to just being accepted as a by-product of immigration). What is the evidence for that? Multiple races can live in perfect harmony if they share a unifying culture. There is no evidence that the same is true for multiple cultures. His questioning of the malleability of the term “xenophobia” is also completely on point. These weasel words are the Trojan horse for insane policies that are not in the best interests of the nation. Evidence: see Merkel.
“The drafters need to focus on behavior and actions - which states can control - rather than attitudes and states of mind”
"What's the evidence for such 'complementarity?' Some commentators assert that a unifying culture (as opposed to multiculturalism) is the best way to promote social trust and combat racism."
He’s calling out the BS dogma that asserts that multiculturalism is a strength and must be pursued (as opposed to just being accepted as a by-product of immigration). What is the evidence for that? Multiple races can live in perfect harmony if they share a unifying culture. There is no evidence that the same is true for multiple cultures. His questioning of the malleability of the term “xenophobia” is also completely on point. These weasel words are the Trojan horse for insane policies that are not in the best interests of the nation. Evidence: see Merkel.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
There is no such thing as the "alt left."
Richard Spencer claimed alt-right.
Who is claiming to be "alt-left."
ilfait
Member
Me. Do I have your sword, Phoenix?
Papa
Banned
No, but you have his giant purple dildo.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
But I am not arguing. I just annoyed with the tendency to "as there is not enough that we should take something and replace with something else".
In the past when mother or teacher introduced a new child to play it did not mean that I should have had to replace one of existing classmates or friends with the new one.
You're a fucking moron because Mexico isn't a race. It's a nationality, fucking moron. Not a race, fucking moron. Do you understand now, fucking moron? And Mexico is a shithole. Last year, there were 25,000 murders (compared to fewer than 10,000 in America despite America having 3x the population...) Last year, more than 100 politicians were murdered. An entire city's police force was arrested for murder and corruption.
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
Lol I can’t see you lasting long here.
LegendOfKage
Member
Okay, so here's my part 2.
Now to look at that stupid, poorly worded quote:
That is the main quote that people started to use to call Trump a racist. From a standpoint of diplomacy, it's a horrid quote. Just appalling. But there's also a brilliance to it from a political standpoint. It did exactly what he wanted it to do.
The main thing to note is that there's an indefinite modifier used, but it's used for the GOOD people. The good people are made to be the exception, not the rule. But that's not specifically stated either. He never says MOST are bad, he says SOME are good. There's the implication, but it's not stated. This allows people opposed to his message to spread it out of anger, and it allows those who support stronger boarder control to dismiss his critics with the idea that "Hey, he said some are good people! What do you want, to pretend that they're ALL good people? If Mexico had all good people, people wouldn't be wanting to leave Mexico!" and so on.
It also did the other thing that he wanted it to do. GOP Candidate 1: "I support a tougher stance on illegal immigration." GOP Candidate 2: "I also support a tougher stance on illegal immigration." GOP Candidate 3: "I too support a tougher stance on illegal immigration." Donald Trump: "these people are rapists and drug dealers!"
That definitely separated him from everyone else who had a similar stance, didn't it? But was it racism? That's the question. For the sake of argument, let's say that we both feel it was an example of racism. Several important questions arise from that, though. If what Trump said was racism, what about what the huffington post said? Is it racism because it speaks negatively of a minority group? Is it racism because of the word choice? Is it racism because of a poor use of indefinite or definite modifiers? More importantly, is it racism because of who said it?
Ever watch those you tube videos where they attribute Obama campaign promises or speech excerpts to Trump, and speak to liberal voters who are outraged by the hatred and horrible polices? And that definitely can go the other way as well. Tell Trump voters about Obama polices and some cherry-picked quotes, while attributing them to Trump, and I'm sure they'd be super supportive of our former president. It's very easy to demonstrate people accept things from a member of their in-group, that they would be repulsed by from a member of an out-group.
Now imagine people in power in government being able to decide who's guilty of racism, and who isn't. Who is engaged in hate speech, and who isn't. Who should be fined or jailed for their opinion, because one group finds it subjectively too hurtful. You would trust anyone to do that fairly and objectively? You would give that kind of power to a government, and honestly expect it not to ever be wielded against you or someone you agree with?
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
Change “they’re rapists” to “their rapists” and consider how radically different that sentence is.
M. Crassus
Member
This must be a joke post. Era is 90% marxist or marxist sympathizers and they would be considered complete lunatics in Western Europe.
It's Jeff
Banned
It's been at least five minutes and I'm still laughing. I fucking love this post.
Guys, I am italian, so I am not 100％ aware of the differences between American left vs left of the rest of the world, so if I say something wrong correct me.
In theory, there is no left in the american politics: there are democrats and republicans, which are both right, different kinds of right, but still right.
So every time I hear Hillary/Obama/Al Gore is left, I laugh my ass off.
Left means socialism, basically.
Far left is Communism.
Being a Commie in the US used to be a crime, now it is slightly more accepted, but still not very welcomed.
So ResetEra is the worst kind of democrats, the ones that basically contradicts their own theories and ideals and beliefs with a constant witch hunt attitude towards everyone who doesn't normalize to their standards.
ResetEra, however, is not a den of Stalinists/Titoists/Mao Tse Tungists. Not at all.
Honestly, I don't even know what political identity they have, I know a lot of Hillary supporters that are actually open minded and accept opinions different from their own.
Do not standardize, people, it goes both ways.
My personal theory, and as such may be wrong, is that ResetEra is the place where real homophobia, racism, white supremacy, religious segregation, etc take place and thrive.
Think about those anti-gay conservationists that were spotted with male escorts, or that white woman civil right activist who pretended to be black.
I wouldn't even be surprised if some members over there who claim to be black transexuals were, in reality, straight whites. I also.believe that many Hillary supporters actually voted Trump.
But again, that's just me.
In theory, there is no left in the american politics: there are democrats and republicans, which are both right, different kinds of right, but still right.
So every time I hear Hillary/Obama/Al Gore is left, I laugh my ass off.
Left means socialism, basically.
Far left is Communism.
Being a Commie in the US used to be a crime, now it is slightly more accepted, but still not very welcomed.
So ResetEra is the worst kind of democrats, the ones that basically contradicts their own theories and ideals and beliefs with a constant witch hunt attitude towards everyone who doesn't normalize to their standards.
ResetEra, however, is not a den of Stalinists/Titoists/Mao Tse Tungists. Not at all.
Honestly, I don't even know what political identity they have, I know a lot of Hillary supporters that are actually open minded and accept opinions different from their own.
Do not standardize, people, it goes both ways.
My personal theory, and as such may be wrong, is that ResetEra is the place where real homophobia, racism, white supremacy, religious segregation, etc take place and thrive.
Think about those anti-gay conservationists that were spotted with male escorts, or that white woman civil right activist who pretended to be black.
I wouldn't even be surprised if some members over there who claim to be black transexuals were, in reality, straight whites. I also.believe that many Hillary supporters actually voted Trump.
But again, that's just me.
DasPenguin
Member
This is a reply that would fit on 90% of Trump's tweets btw.
luigimario
Banned
We are just quibling over semantics really. The reason why I would class it as racism/bigoted and hate speech is because of what those words imply. Saying the vast majority of mexicans that crossed the bored illegally are rapist or drug dealers or both, dehumanizes them, implies they are inferior human beings. And the reason that is dangerous is because of what follows after a group has been dehumanized to that extent.
Hate speech is very easy to define, it is speech that incites hatred against a group, be it religious, ethnic or sexual. So telling the american populace, that the mexicans that they know are most likely drug dealers or rapists, will ofcourse, incite hatred towards them. The huffpost article isn't hate speech, its a story reporting the facts of what SOME of these groups go through and it also contains some nuance and depth, something Trump and his supporters seem to lack.
There are more intelligent ways to be against illegal immigration. I'm all for secure borders, but I think we can still do that whilst retaining a modicum of decency.
AaronB
Member
It's a definition, but applying it is the problem. The words people say are interpreted by others, and the interpretation is like a Rorschach test. People see different things. This has mainly been coming up in relation to Trump. He said that the people who come illegally from Mexico are not Mexico's best, but depending on how you parse his words, it could be interpreted as anything from outrageously racist to practically a tautology (people who cross illegally are by definition criminals).
Or take his alleged "Sh**hole countries" comment. It's definitely undiplomatic, but what else is it? People can look at that and understand it to mean that many immigrants who come to the US are coming from countries with dysfunctional governments and institutions, and it may be preferable to have more people coming from places like Scandinavia, which is generally held up as the model of governments and societies that are functioning well. Many people immediately called that racist, since Scandinavia is white.
Then add another layer with dog-whistling, where people attempt to reconstruct secret meanings out of what other people said. The result is that an extremely wide range of things could be called hate speech. People in the American right are doubly concerned that much of the media and UN bureaucracy disagree with them and would probably be ungenerous in attempting to brand whatever they say as hate speech.
Dirk Benedict
Member
We keep talking about left wings and right wings. I'm getting hungry for buffalo wings.
Spheyr
Banned
I always want wings.
Azurro
Banned
It would be interesting to see the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me. When people talk about illegal immigration, you are talking about human traffickers, it's not like you can just hitch hike to the border, walk a couple hundred meters to the right and then hop in. The smugglers are part of networks of organized crime, linked or part of cartels usually. Bad things are going to happen when you get in touch with them.
Last edited:
Vampire On Titus
Member
I'd say a non trivial amount of fairly apolitical gaming side posters could be. Probably not the majority but a non-trivial amount. Some just migrated because it seemed like the thing to do. However, if you're arguing that Reset Era's moderation and a SIGNIFICANT portion of it's members aren't far, far, identity politics consumed left then you're either blind or lying.
Also the whole "I'm not far left, I support(ed) Hillary" thing is a canard. People tried to pass that line during the previous democratic primary because Bernie was further left policy wise. This is a ploy. These people are far left. They're so far left that they're obsessed with identity politics and the idea of a woman president to the exclusion of everything else, including policy.
So yes, plenty of very far left supported Hillary. Especially on NeoGAF in 2016. They knew they wanted a woman president first and everything else came second.
pickleslips
Member
I find it interesting that this site is so right wing now after all the users who dont condone sexual assault left
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Are you saying I condone sexual assault because I'm a member of this site?
Speak up.
dolabla
Member
You mean the users who have deluded themselves into thinking they have the moral high ground over others (I'm guessing you fall into this category?)? The ones that run on emotions (with their fuck this, fuck that, or get fucked!) rather than facts?
Yeah, we're glad they're gone. They did this site a huge favor. Real discussions can actually take place now.
Last edited:
Dirk Benedict
Member
Yet, here you are. Guess which site would have banned you for doing the same thing? It isn't this site! At least, not anymore.
danielberg
Neophyte
Condone? Uh Why are you blaming right voters for something that lefty voters have actually done lol?
Blood Borne
Member
I will never ever understand the insistency and the necessity to define what is hate speech and what is not. Just seems like an insidious way to control speech.
MMaRsu
Member
Uhhm he's talking about Evilore
This is the center where speech is allowed, and discussion and debate is encouraged. This is how off the rails some folks have gone when they view the center as right wing.
Unless you've gone off the rails and personally insulting folks, asking questions and debating points is allowed here. Your not part of the problem if you have moderate views. Your not part of the problem if you believe people should come into the country legally. Your not part of the problem if you think people shouting down speakers at public universities is problematic. Your not part of the problem if your happy the economy is doing well under Trump.
Your not part of the problem if you actually have original thought, that isn't part of the groupthink echo chamber.
Welcome.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Dude they have a question upon signing up "do you believe everyone has a right to their own opinion"
If you choose yes you receive a permanent ban notice.
Obviously I kid but it would make it easier on the mods if they did .
Going through Resetera is like
There is few decent people over there that foolishly believed it would be better then GAF, but old Gafs cancer was most of the members of Resetera.
Not saying its rosey here we have lefts, rights, ups and downs here lol , but thats because we allow people to have an opinion.
Last edited:
SaviourMK2
Member
Of course it's their duty. The fucking job of leaders is to unite people under their nation, not promote fear and violence. What the fuck is wrong with people.
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
How is using my freedom of speech while you use your freedom of speech problematic?
Apparently being a leader doesn't mean that you actually have to lead.
Vampire On Titus
Member
Heckler's Veto is censorship, not an expression of free speech. It's you deciding what gets to be said and what other people can hear on the basis of your own subjective morals. The definition of censorship. Protest outside the venue all you want but shouting down an invited guest speaker isn't "them using free speech and me using my free speech." It's someone attempting to use theirs and you censoring them.
Literally shouting down speakers and preventing them from speaking isn't an action in support of free speech, you must know that.
ruvikx
Banned
'Hate' is subjective, i.e. that's the lesson we've all learned (or at least should have) over the past decade. One group's 'hater' is another group's defender & 'normal'. There's no universal right versus wrong here, at all, just conflicting agendas & goals. Just look at how the Hungarians are labelled xenophobic/racist/bigots because they want their country to remain Hungarian. Who has the right to label them haters? No one, unless that person themselves hates Hungary to the extent they wish to flood the country with foreigners (Muslims, namely) & destroy Hungary's identity.
That's just one small example (among countless others) of the impossibility of allowing one side to define who the 'haters' are. Just watch this liberal BBC journalist froth at the mouth & spew her venom @ Hungary, i.e. a so-called 'progressive' woman who in reality from a Hungarian perspective is merely a deranged hater of Hungary:
I know that rape and sexual violence happens routinely in the drug cartels and human trafficking that flow in and out of Mexico.
Nothing in the op's statement is wrong per see. The UN stance on this issue is fucking hillarious, especially since they have member states that have called for the genocide of a people.
Clearly you can't, because according to the left, not supporting illegal immigration is racism.
What a fucking joke
Mahadev
Member
There's a difference between condemning and banning hate speech, I'd have no proplem, in fact I'd prefer it if my government condemned hate speech. Banning it on the other hand is not only authoritarian but completely pointless. Europe has worse far right parties that are quickly becoming very popular and they have very strict anti-hate speech laws.
Papa
Banned
What if the unification is predicated on fear and violence?
Similar threads
- Locked