Scott Mayers

Then close it like you did for "Twitter won't autoban Nazis." The absurd length of this doesn't permit most but a few to maintain consistency on topic. The other you closed comes across as odd without some other justification than you stated. [I was just about to respond in that one when you happened to close it. I won't invest in contributing here if certain topics are censored over others without witnessing obvious abuses.]

If the same treatment were extended to ALL 'supremacists', they'd exclude even the Democrats. Today's extremists aren't merely the 'white' ones. The majority of such groups often sign up with whatever party strengthens their power. As such, if the same kind of logic is applied to ANY 'supremacists' of ANY group, the Democrats would be more likely eliminated over the Republicans because unlike the more solidified extremists on the right, the left-wing has most of all the other 'supremacists' there. For instance, a group like the Black Panthers, a Black version of 'supremacist' would align with the left and act as a unit demograph. Then take each other such similar groups of other races or religions and you have a 'democratic' majority of pluralities of extremists extant in the Democratic party. So given Google, Twitter, and Facebook, tend to favor more 'liberal' licence towards non-white versions of supremacists, any kind of neutral program that seeks out pychological rhetoric supporting the factors that contribute to actual racism and sexism will more likely eliminate the Democratic party over the Republican. This is what is NOT spelled out appropriately. The only alternative way to do this is to seek language that is already biased against specific groups. This would clearly point out where and how the actual discrimination exists apart from the arrogancy of today's majority of media to be propping up only the 'white' variety of supremacists as symbolic of all that is racist.

Altai is not interested in rational discussion that competes against his/her worldview. (S)he should stick to Twitter but possibly gets flagged for being a potential recruiter. It appears that (s)he MAY be multiple writers too.

What is 'handout'? I am asking this without bias to the obvious more right-wing conservative response. This question is rational for everyone because it asks "what level of input do you have a right to take in or hold onto" and by what common standards is a right? If you think of any input, one often thinks of a 'handout' as something negative, a limit of acceptable excess permitted to those receiving something for 'free' where we interpret this as negative. Is it 'fair' to demand a limit to which freedom is excessive and by what standards?

My purpose is to reduce the problem to a thought experiment. This can help everyone here to see possibly that no one is wrong, we are all wrong, or that something is a better option should no option be favorable. I thus used twins, not to necessarily mean they have to be loving towards each other, but to imagine everyone beginning on equal grounds. I think the problem may be reduced to this kind of model to try to show each person's perspective neutrally. Much of reality is careless about humans. As such, the dilemmas that arise may have no ideal solution. If so, the question arises if we should opt to split the share of the world to EACH individual or to permit selfish interests to allow certain cruelties to occur regardless of faults, etc. For example, continuing with this example, imagine that each half of this world of two families beginning with everything equal. Then, like real life, imagine, ignoring the 'parents', that each person/child requires at least 1/3 of the household energy in order to survive in some period. (or 1/6 for both houses together) For my children, then, they each have a 50% share of the energy of my household in some period. Since 1/3 (= 33.3%) is minimally needed to survive for any child in this world, my children are certain to survive since each has (50-33.3 = 17.6% excess energy), while my brother's kids cannot meet ALL the children's needs in the same period because their share EACH is 25%. Since 33.3% energy is needed per kid, all of my brother's kids would die if they had to attempt to live on what they have without fighting each other or asking for my help. One option is to have my brother (twin 2) let his kids fight it among themselves. One WILL at least die in this struggle because there is not enough energy to go around. I COULD offer to take one of my brother's kids in. But what if my brother was being irresponsible and opted not to use a condom at some point (well maybe two times relative to me) and thus only accidentally had 4 kids. Perhaps he had a religious belief too that you should not abort a child regardless of how it would affect others. Would my potential allowance of admitting at least one of my brother's children be appropriate? If I don't, do I 'hate' my brother's child(ren) that I turn away?

I'm already in agreement with this. I'm trying to find common grounds of the confusion. Assume that I live in a house next door to my twin who has the same size house but has 4 kids where I might have 2. Assuming also that we begun 'equal' in income but my brother OPTED to have 4 kids which made their family suffer for having to split their energies to the two extra kids, is it incompassionate of me to turn any of my brother's kids away if they came to my door to LIVE permanently? If one of my kids complains should I let their cousin move in, is my kid being 'hateful'?

Does anyone here not agree that there appears to be an odd discrepancy between supporting the Immigrant with the same force as the Aboriginal? Is it rational to hold compassion for one but not the other? Can you be compassionate to both? Since this is about 'hate crimes', if one is considered to 'hate' the Immigrant, should they not be demonstrating compassion for the Aboriginal and vice versa?

But I think your own self reflection on this is itself contributing to WHY, though. I agree to your opinion minus the belief of the unique presumption of anti-Christian (which YOU mean of the more fundamentalist and/or evangelical Protestant varieties) and to being anti-straight. If you want to help, you have to step away from your own personal opinion regarding religion and think more 'globally' or you are just as culpable AS those on the left doing this because they TOO are doing it for a 'religious' set of reasonings that I think is at the root of the problems. Only a religious mindset considers censorship justifiable and all define those against theirs as 'hate' (or 'terrorists') relative to their own cults. I don't believe that if you were in power that you'd NOT do these things but with more stronger biases as is proved time and again where the 'conservative' uses religious IMPOSITION to define laws. I also KNOW that our Conservatives here are the first to SPY on its constituents, use deceptive tactics assuming the 'ends-justify-the-means' where their own strict religious beliefs are claimed to be strict AND you'd define anyone that is NOT particular and in line with the "Christian" view as Blasphemous and worthy of the worst. I'm FOR open sex choices and religious freedoms as long as they are NOT of government by and for the people AND they only speak on these issues where actual violations against people in particular instances occur. So I agree with your point in the first paragraph.

I'm saying KEEP your own religious beliefs about INTRINSIC factors about us regarding culture or religion OUT of politics because they are comparative to expecting science as an institute to favor 'alternative' religious-science views to play a essential role there. Legislating beliefs that are based ONLY upon some subset of people's beliefs regardless of concern to prove nor disprove is abusive where used in politics anywhere.

WHICH religion? People's initial adaption of any morality comes from the individual as a child and is ONLY 'selfish' at that point. To repeat, though, I am NOT against people believing in anything. Religion derives as a reflection upon an afterlife and only takes on other characteristics of 'kindness' where it exists based upon some expectation about that afterlife. Thus it is ART and has no place in politics. [note that I'm FOR supporting museums and preserving historical things. But ONLY where we don't extend this to literal SPECIFIC people. ART is ALL OF OURS. No one person nor group OWNS any culture such that they require laws that make their cult PROPRIETARY. This goes against my FREE power to CHOOSE what beliefs or lifestyles I chose.

And there's your stereotype being imposed upon me. I am not your 'we'. I had no choice to be born here and do not have a right to claim some part of England if I had genetic roots from there. The point is about what 'cultural' attributes are considered 'good' or 'bad'. If you DEMAND OTHERS to see you the way you want, do it on your own time and space, ...not in conservative laws that dictate THAT we 'own' some homage to artificial irrelevant behaviors to ALL people individually.

Yes. I have a problem with it when it is IN GOVERNMENT laws. The 'hate' laws are forms of religious ethics as they don't have any grounding to speak on behalf of each individual NOR the whole. The word is an 'emotional' one. Our system here is WAY MORE RELIGIOUS then the U.S. It is anti-free-speech and along with many of the other laws being put in place to 'protect' us, these laws prejudice classes of people for the sake of some other class and makes it offensive to those NOT in those protected classes. Who has a right to define behaviors of speech as worthy of being considered immoral? Obviously the one speaking is begged to SHUT UP for having specific thoughts expressed by these laws. And while many involved in supporting these may not claim any religious association, they ARE being so because these kinds of laws are "blaspheme" laws based upon mere etiquette,. If it is okay to have religion in politics, then it is indifferent to WHICH religion it is because there will always be some who are certain to be abused at the expense of those IN those religions.

So if the 'first' person claims all of some territory and demands all others to pay a duty where they have no other FREE lands to choose from, that first person OWNS the land and the people (as slaves)? My point is about ownership and inheritances. No one has a 'right' to some claim regarding properties where these are defaulted essential to ALL people. Also those who expect it fair to BENEFIT from inheritance, has to accept the DEBTS too. That is, if it is alright to take the BEST qualities of one's ancestor's as stereotypes, they should require the NEGATIVE stereotypes. P.S. I don't know what it is with asserting "Rule of Law" as though it is something unique. In translation is means Rule of Rule or Law of Law, nothing more than saying that laws are what governments create. If merely being 'ruled by some law' is meaningful, then it doesn't matter who is in power to make the laws. That statement "Rule of Law" is thus without meaning.

I've lived in both here and the U.S. Many THINK we are more 'left-wing' socialists. The opposite is true. We are more 'conservative' because we demand conservation of the English Anglican and French Catholics (or intermixes of the two) with absolute priority. We have no law of actual 'freedom of speech' where we have hate-laws that are still way stronger than the U.S.. The concentration of wealth here is also more 'conserved'. "Communism" has never actually existed. It is an 'ideal' aim of Socialist Union countries that base voting THROUGH their direct fields. Like that workers of say a paper mill would elect their head supervisor among them, and they in turn among other people of the same level in other industries vote for a higher level and so on through 'unions'. The 'ideal' of communism is an 'anarchy' similar to right wing groups but where they hope that people would get to a point to voluntarily get along. THAT's the only real KINDS of problems with communist aimed governments. Right wing governments believe more in a right is MIGHT, at the strongest extreme, they too have an Anarchy concept: but it is based solely on FORCE of one's will over others by ANY MEANS necessary. This is 'barbaric' and non-concerning of 'democracy' in the least. So don't get on your high horse about those on the left. The "right" wing utilizes irrational bully religions because they want....DEMAND others obey their will with the idiotic claims that their 'gods' favor them by 'nature'. If you hold a right wing view, you lean towards an anarchy that favors only kings and queens, and powers ONLY GRANTED to those who 'own'. This is ant-democratic and worse than the socialist (pro-Communist) versions of similar extremes because at least the left has compassion... even if misplaced. But the problem among them is the relative selfishness that you get of 'groups' advocating in a similar extreme to the gun lobby, not something INTENDED by the meaning of 'communal' as Communist refers to. Since the 'right' is only wanting to destroy a democratic power (power of the people equally) of management that 'government represents, the major interest of any form of 'government' by them is to be as 'police servants' to the fortune of those who own. If inheritance were actually out of the question, this MIGHT be fair where everyone could begin without 'ownership' and EARN it. But this is not the case. And it is why they prefer the extreme religions with Gods that Threaten people not to accept their unfortunate lot in life with a promise of reward in an afterlife should they remain obediently subservient to those 'owners'. I agree with you on the unfair treatment of people that adds anger to people for being presumed 'well off' for being white when they aren't. The discrimination of laws that favor people based upon genetic roots (and associated 'cultures') are imposing a stereotype of not only those they specifically target as the prior benefactors and abusers, but they stereotype themselves and impose this upon others they think SHARE their struggle based on irrational qualities. A woman, for instance, doesn't require supporting a law that demands a default trust in any of their sex's accusation of men simply for being a woman. So the feminist who acts as though the 'advocate' for all women as though they all share the identical problem and view is itself vile stereotyping when it involves laws that treat the whole class, "women" as having a 'minority status.'

I'm not sure which of the major groups in Mexican ancestry, the Mayans or the Aztecs, have had a 'culture' of human sacrifice. I'd like to see them demand a right to their tradition!

We are all from the same Earth. How does it matter whether one is at some place 'first'? Non-humans were more 'native' to almost most lands outside of Africa. Also, mentioning Africa, how far back is it appropriate to go to claim some 'ownership'? Note that I'm not for a lot of takeovers in recent times (like Israel's taking over Palestine). Also, what about people NOT fortunate to be born with inherent ownership? Are they aliens from Mars that should accept their 'fate' of requiring to be slaves simply because of bad luck. I'm FOR our Aboriginal natives here as individuals. I'm NOT for any 'cultural' inherentance' concepts (ie. 'heritage') though. But some think it is a crime here to speak against issues that merely relate to anyone 'conserved' in our Constitution. Why are these people so much 'truer' Canadians than others. I've never known any of those places my ancestors lived nor even know of most of my natural family. Do I own their culture if I was adopted by others? And, what about mixed nationalities? This topic is more about the freedom of people to speak. No amount of 'etiquette' laws should prevent even the more vile languages. For the most part, the treatment against people to force them to shut up is MORE violent and a cause for them to BE more violent for not being taken serious for their concerns.

This response is unclear to me for some reason. (Fragmented phrases lacking specific interpretation?) Can you rephrase?

You couldn't compete with me on this question. I'm an expert on logic and could run circles around you on this presumption until you couldn't NOT not be religious. "Secular" is just a word that means 'secondary to' SPECIFIC beliefs, regardless of what they are. As such, the means of a government to be 'secular' means the intent to manage is NOT to dictate one's particular beliefs about what is or is not 'moral' or 'just' in society but to be FAIR to ALL people's beliefs by looking at ONLY those common beliefs. ONLY an intolerant system that DICTATES what is or is not moral through some person(s) claiming to be the select authoritarians of God's actual opinion proves uninterested in the actual PEOPLE it represents but want (and needs) to CONTROL the thoughts of them. Thus, imposing the claim that they and they alone KNOW the true God, they are attempting to just BEG that they should be obeyed without question. If a 'god' is superior, it doesn't need those like you to TELL us what Nature is without evidence. If it is so powerful, it can do this without religious authorities.

Doesn't it suck when we try to encourage others to 'apologize' but when or where it occurs, it gets used later as the needed evidence to get vengeance regardless?

It is 'hidden' in that the news is treated as though this was NEEDED technology uniquely about 'terrorism'. It hides that the means of power of the moderators to do this implies ABSOLUTE redirecting of any content by the SELECT people privileged to be empowered to do the spying. That means the USE of it is NOT restricted NOR able to BE restricted by those empowered to use this for ANY means favorable to them uniquely. It also requires absolute censor (spying) of our communications systems.....a directly OPPOSING reality that the U.S. had run into and what Snowden was all about. I also disagree with the presumed determination of what a 'terrorist' is according to our political powers and is continuously being forced down our throats through media owners and/or run by the very KIND of people who resort to 'terrorism' itself (Specific genetic/environmental '[in]heritage' supporters). This is a form of forcing false stereotypes about others with an intentional association to race or sex more specifically. Others that believe their genetic roots are some 'right' to own but not necessarily that other groups should be denied are relatively 'moderate' about some groups but NEVER all. Targeting today's 'non-female' and 'non-minority race' is no different than those of the past thinking the opposite. "Terrorists" are relative "freedom-fighters" depending on perspective only AND more often hide the real economic abuses but making them out to be religious extremists. This makes it easier to call them 'terrorists'.

This is just a side note on the term "ISIS". I don't like this one as it appears to be uniquely favored of the anti-Muslim, pro-Judaeo-Christians who know it can help to mask the actual Egyptian root of 'Isis' as the cause of all these religions. By linking a convenient acronym that reminds us of some neutral historical factor about the source of these religions, the hope may be to taint others from learning of these roots. Ironically, if actually understood, the "Israelis" were "Is-ra-els' (Assyrian rulers of the Egyptian favor of the sun's rays as reflective of ONE god/nature uniqutely). Though not 'censorship', fear of how rhetoric can be emotively empowering just as such conveniently re-labeled words, is why many FEAR others speaking freely.

This is what makes 'banned' books, for instance, MORE interesting. The 'martyr' effect also can only occur in reflection of some form of censor (and censure). The reason for the present censoring is coming from the minority GROUPS who are relatively newly empowered and censorship is a form of vengeance rather than justice. This effect is the 'peer' pressure power of the very highschool cliques. Regardless of today's MORE acceptance, the KIND of acceptance is being favored towards censorship of those stereotyped without logical cause of the prior states where these groups now empowered want to exclude absolutely. But this just TRADES abusers, not STOPS them. They still maintain stereotypes even if altered. But note that they demand the 'positive' ones for themselves in light of that past, and 'negative' ones upon those that remind them ever so remotely of that past.

Censorship is not something uniquely about 'communism'. Censorship also belonged to Christianity and what the Inquisition was about. I'm against censorship for the sake of the individuals, NOT groups, like Christians, who are as much FOR censorship IF they could have their way. While I share concerns with you, I wouldn't want a system dominated by ANY cult. These are systems of thought that LACK a means to disprove some person's motivational claims and morals. As such, religion should NOT be a function of government in any way. As to immigration, I also share concern but NOT our of fear of 'diversity' but out of the concern of diluting of the already diminished capacity of the poor HERE to get work. It is also more important that change occurs in the countries of origin of the immigrant because where 'unjust' systems of politics and/or economics of another country exist, the default behavior of the suffering animal is to reduce to reproducing without concern of whether the environment can maintain their offspring. This is an evolutionary fact and thus would only encourage MORE abuses of those other countries on their own BY OUR OWN encouragement. What we agree with regardless is a right to disagree with the capacity to argue our cases. Censorship even in subtle ways by 'media' controlled uniquely by others is counter to progress OR any means to conserve people's rights. (My meaning is the literal factors in between communicators. Air, for example is also a medium.) So this is NOT about any particular political ideology. Almost ALL people, individual or in groups, can tend to abuse other's means of communicating to one another by affecting successful communications between people. It's the one thing that has to be AGREED to by any cooperative system of management that is expected to be 'democratic'. (Note that 'republic', that is named for the right-wing party in the U.S., chose that word to emphasize promoting a distinctly separate class of rulers based upon intelligence and wisdom (see Plato's Republic for the roots of this.) The concept of placing a priority of having leaders that are AUTHORITATIVE is precisely those who favor strict controls WITHOUT the 'democratic' concern of other's opinions. This top-down 'right-wing' preference IS THE means of any governments favoring this with priority, INCLUDING Communism, which FAVORS the concept of 'censorship'. Though the U.S. IS a 'republic', the emphatic interest of the right-wing in economically 'free-market' economies is to have the power TO manipulate the people though the power of 'ownership' of government (as a 'private' property of those privileged). As such, this NECESSITATES their interest in CENSORSHIP. In fact, I fear MORE our right-wing parties here in Canada MORE than the left- OR center- wings ....even IF we had to accept the stupidity of things going on today,...precisely because the right-wing ideologies ARE always intolerant of people being considered 'on par' with each other' welfare. And right-wingers ALWAYS spy and moderate people's media, thus are experts AT censoring. [Why else would Donald Trump have the preference to eliminate those people's views by firing those who don't 'censor' themselves against his own beliefs?] It is always greater for the minority sincere haters to NOT be censored. So this argument is strictly about the concept of DEMOCRATIC (people owned governments), not private personal ideas that counter the right of people to have freedoms collectively.

Then you EARN your own counter enemies who think as you do. You are the terrorist with the big weapons of favoritism of those in power. So again, I don't trust those of you asserting who the 'haters' really are. If POWER is all that matters, then the reflection of those OTHER extremists only appear more harmful for lacking the big guns of power as they are more desperate than you at present.

WE need 'freedom' from LAWS being made REGARDING religion, a formal separation of church. You can't have a system that serves to promote a constituted favoritism for 'owned' cultural heritage based upon nothing but genes as though the ARTificial constructs of past people's behaviors somehow transfers over to our progeny. I know stupid people think we 'own' heritage specifically. But it then JUSTIFIES the hate inherent in those of the same genetic lineage. Shouldn't all the religions who were actually granted complete control of the evils of things like the Residential schools be the ones particular held up in court|? Why is no actual evidence FOR abuse and no literal direct charges made? Why has the judges LOCKED out any right to prosecute the teachers of these crimes that the very teachers' foster religions are now in power successfully making it look as though some 'WE' were all at fault? I am DICTATED that I am religious and though can have a freedom of conscience, as long as I particularly keep it to myself because I have no magical protection of a God ... I uniquely am not allowed to dispel those lunatics. I am dictated that I believe in the select historical cults related to people who have similar color of 'white' skin but have no actual inherent fortune. Ironically, Quebec HAD the right idea and would have evolved to integrate until Senior Trudeau fostered a means to save the minority cult-thinkers of Quebec by promoting their segregation through language and culture laws that permit them UNIQUE favoritism FOR their beliefs. This is NOT actual freedom in any sense of the word EXCEPT for your cult beliefs.