Jump to content

Where and What are the places of people being racist online?


Recommended Posts

I know this may seem a stupid question for how others may be involved in posting more when this things occur. But I want to know WHAT the supposed "increase in right-wing supremacists" are saying that is so full of hate and WHERE this is occurring? I'm not implying it isn't true but I tend to miss the specific quotes said by some larger plurality. I know that the CBC has used this excuse to justify preventing commenting on any 'minority' issues of contention.

To me, the media feeds this as much as anything. |Not being signed up with Facebook or some other places, I can't tell. Can some people inform me. 

I'm concerned by how the media "reporters" are as much chiming in to lower the bar of counter-discrimination to 'hate speech' to be even anything 'subtle' or inferred.

I blame the rise of these groups as coming FROM the very left (of which I share many views on) because of HOW they are arrogantly becoming absurdly sensitive to micro-movements. Talk about walking on broken glass now. If they think that speaking MORE to protect SPECIFIC groups and not INDIVIDUALS OR THE WHOLE, this will be certain to only get worse. I can't believe the stupidity. 

I won't say anything further as it only ;makes the issue MORE notable in the consciousness of those of any background who becomes more and more isolated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude.

The left says just about anything that opposes their tslking points is hate speech and racist.

Go to any University for confirmation.

Pro Israel?  Hate monger and racist.

Pro Life? Against Women.

Want immigration controls? Racist.

Anti transgender labels differing from biology? Transphobic and homophobe.

Concerned about Islam? Islamophobic.

 

These terms are just clubs to use as a cudgel to shit down debate.  They use these terms when you disagree with them.  Usually the left lacks facts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I know this may seem a stupid question for how others may be involved in posting more when this things occur. But I want to know WHAT the supposed "increase in right-wing supremacists" are saying that is so full of hate and WHERE this is occurring? 

Facebook and Twitter.  I have had several Canadians tell  me that they have no problem with someone killing a 3-year-old or 5-year-old girl in cold blood if she is a Muslim.  I don't think I would have encountered such people online twenty years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I avoid social media at all costs since a couple of months. I even deleted my Facebook and am not using apps to talk to those I care for.

But to the title of your thread, even if I know your intentions, it seems like you're asking for a snitch fest.

People may speak whatever they want and as a free speech activist, I won't provide you with names of websites or social medias that are invested by extremists. This seems like a snitch request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Facebook and Twitter.  I have had several Canadians tell  me that they have no problem with someone killing a 3-year-old or 5-year-old girl in cold blood if she is a Muslim.  I don't think I would have encountered such people online twenty years ago.

What was the context though? And HOW do we interpret that context in light of just what someone says without the public being allowed access to determine it? 

My beef is as follows: if we permit censure and censorship of online forums, it requires some 'moderators' who have exclusive political power themselves to discriminate without accountability. Our very own media is literally all agreeing with this here where even the 'reporters' are now expressing their own clear and open biases. Yet if they have the sole power to opine at the extended power to censor (and censure), we are forced to require an unusual degree of faith of some specially divined moderator-class of people. Who are these very SUPREME beings that seem to divine upon who is the REAL enemy of society. 

This arrogance IS the CAUSE of the 'terrorism'. We have no way to determine if the very people in power to present what examples of 'terrorism' isn't a function of their own universally aligned conspirators themselves of which they are 'wiser' to assert of the others. 

The news here in Saskatchewan last night, for instance, tells us of a new law that permits police to have absolute powers to investigate WITHOUT WARRANT anyone presumed LINKED to a missing person's case! This example law was derived in relation to an uprising of people asserting the police were ignoring a 'conspiracy' of ignorance to missing aboriginal women en mass. While the FACT of some horrific potential crime may exist by some perpetrator targeting them specifically, this is NOT established. Yet now the kind of PREDETERMINATION of the causes imply that some anti-native hatred is the cause when this is only a correlation without even knowing OF a crime let alone any specific perpetrators. 

And as you see, now this proposed law is one that is utilizing the PRESUMPTIONS of discrimination to justify a new and worse kind of INTOLERATION: a police-class privileged to be 'moderators' without warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twitter and FB  are monitored and censored, in particular conservative posts and groups, and not outright racism either, just anti Liberal.   I admin on an FB group where FB reported a post as questionable content...    it was a picture of Gerald Butt's lapel and pin...      ok the algorthym misinterpreted something, but there is no doubt that they are censoring conservatives, and not simply 'far right' but reasonable posts.

The OP is right,  there is a concerted effort to stifle any talk about immigration, legal or illegal, anyone no matter how reasonable is called 'alt-right' or some other label and of course any talk that isn't pro Muslim/Islam.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

I avoid social media at all costs since a couple of months. I even deleted my Facebook and am not using apps to talk to those I care for.

But to the title of your thread, even if I know your intentions, it seems like you're asking for a snitch fest.

People may speak whatever they want and as a free speech activist, I won't provide you with names of websites or social medias that are invested by extremists. This seems like a snitch request.

That's kind of why I was asking. I don't use those media. But I do use forums that actually have real depth. Yet while I know there are some people who 'troll', for the most part, I find people on these forums relatively non-discriminatory on average. We may disagree to some things, but where is this 'hate' speech online supposedly coming from? AND, if so, who could 'moderate' this without themselves being granted 'supreme' powers over others in ways that even those who act like assholes cannot hide? 

No, I'm not asking to 'rat' on sites because I think they should be allowed to exist. I'm making  point about the problem. Let's say, that you are correct about knowing specific sites that DO invest in these extremes. Are you protecting the views they hold or to their right to freely speak in their own choice of assembly? And IF you were against such sites, you can also CLAIM that YOU KNOW they exist, but can't tell me because you, being in some potential power to 'moderate', have deleted their existence from the internet!

Either way, moderation (censorship and censure) are equal means to abuse and why they cannot assert some CAUSE of the terrorism as due to something WE are not privileged to judge the evidence of for ourselves. It's a lose-lose, and in fact WORSENS the problem because such moderation VIOLATES  those they want to isolate. THEY are the CAUSE of the abuse, is my theory, NOT some right-wing extremists conspiring out of some preferential initial causation of their own delusions. That is, those who DO become 'extreme' on the right TOO are victims of some potential cause: being continually persecuted for some crimes they don't commit UNTIL they blow up and give in. If you're required to pay the price for a crime you didn't commit, who is better to 'survive' this insanity, the ones who ACCEPT their cages or the ones who EMBRACE the behaviors they are accused of?

It is cyclic and never-ending when the REAL causes aren't sought out. The real causes are just to INCONVENIENT to deal with: like poverty, isolation, abuse by neglect, etc. We don't need to authoritatively protect people prior to warranted acts. And interpreting 'warrant' by collective associations is MORE terroristic.

Edited by Scott Mayers
Grammar. and added the last sentence above
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO, the hatred of assuming the fault uniquely is DUE to 'right-wing' conspirators (as though they ONLY have such power?) while simultaneously enhancing their OWN (yours too?) conspiracy AND doing so with a favor for things like deplatforming, isolating, or penalizing those on the label of "hate criminal" with the expectation that the targeted class must ACCEPT their sacrifice for YOU!

Favoring a censor class of people of your own group identity is as equally 'right-wing' in mind but you are clever enough to transfer this upon the disenfranchised poor of your own class (for a discrimination against the poor in general of your own racial and beneficial background.) If you want to sacrifice, sacrifice yourself, not others OF the supposed beneficial RACE/ETHNICITY.

I don't need to be treated as a scapegoat for your own families ancestral discrimination or, if non-majority race, your specific ethnically PURE group. I'm saying the left has more numbers BUT the numbers of those not of the majority or of the minority of the majority who benefit by transferring their own debt upon the whole to hide your own recognized fault.  

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

NO, the hatred of assuming the fault uniquely is DUE to 'right-wing' conspirators (as though they ONLY have such power?) while simultaneously enhancing their OWN (yours too?) conspiracy AND doing so with a favor for things like deplatforming, isolating, or penalizing those on the label of "hate criminal" with the expectation that the targeted class must ACCEPT their sacrifice for YOU!

Favoring a censor class of people of your own group identity is as equally 'right-wing' in mind but you are clever enough to transfer this upon the disenfranchised poor of your own class (for a discrimination against the poor in general of your own racial and beneficial background.) If you want to sacrifice, sacrifice yourself, not others OF the supposed beneficial RACE/ETHNICITY.

I don't need to be treated as a scapegoat for your own families ancestral discrimination or, if non-majority race, your specific ethnically PURE group. I'm saying the left has more numbers BUT the numbers of those not of the majority or of the minority of the majority who benefit by transferring their own debt upon the whole to hide your own recognized fault.  

wtf?

Its like you're channelling rue, August and Oleg Bach at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

wtf?

Its like you're channelling rue, August and Oleg Bach at the same time.

So are you agreeing that IF what I said was correct, the apparent condition of our society is CONTRADICTORY? 

If you disagree to this as a reality, then which specific case is true and how can you affirm the violation is causally of one specific side AND not the others?

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

So are you agreeing that IF what I said was correct, the apparent condition of our society is CONTRADICTORY? 

I'm saying that what you said is word salad.  I'm sorry but its just an incomprehensible mess.

Much like the condition of our society come to think of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm saying that what you said is word salad.  I'm sorry but its just an incomprehensible mess.

Much like the condition of our society come to think of it.

Then, without the rhetoric, 

Let X = "One is a terrorist"

Let Y = "One is a right-winger (extremist)"

Then the assumption that X exists and is caused by Y's existence becomes, 

(If Y then X)

and X

Therefore Y

 

Do you see the logical error? [Note that Y implies X existed as a cause; You cannot interpret that "X causes Y " to mean "If X then Y"]

 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Added "(extremists)" for the present accusation by media
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2019 at 5:00 PM, Scott Mayers said:

I know this may seem a stupid question for how others may be involved in posting more when this things occur. But I want to know WHAT the supposed "increase in right-wing supremacists" are saying that is so full of hate and WHERE this is occurring? I'm not implying it isn't true but I tend to miss the specific quotes said by some larger plurality. I know that the CBC has used this excuse to justify preventing commenting on any 'minority' issues of contention.

To me, the media feeds this as much as anything. |Not being signed up with Facebook or some other places, I can't tell. Can some people inform me. 

I'm concerned by how the media "reporters" are as much chiming in to lower the bar of counter-discrimination to 'hate speech' to be even anything 'subtle' or inferred.

I blame the rise of these groups as coming FROM the very left (of which I share many views on) because of HOW they are arrogantly becoming absurdly sensitive to micro-movements. Talk about walking on broken glass now. If they think that speaking MORE to protect SPECIFIC groups and not INDIVIDUALS OR THE WHOLE, this will be certain to only get worse. I can't believe the stupidity. 

I won't say anything further as it only ;makes the issue MORE notable in the consciousness of those of any background who becomes more and more isolated. 

If one is a white, Christian, straight and conservative in this country then you are not allowed to express an opinion and have a point of view. Even if it is the gawds awful truth and factual and expose and dare say anything critical about a non-white , non-Christian, non-conservative or someone gay they will be labelled as racists and white supremos and promoting hate speech by the leftist liberals and the leftist liberal media. The Canadian media right away accused the guy who killed all those Muslims as a white nationalist. They didn't even know at the time who the guy was. The guy was far from being a white nationalist as found out later. The word racist is being used by the communists in our society to try and shut down free speech online especially against those in the white nationalist movement. Islam has killed far more people in the world than white nationalists ever have. Just saying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, taxme said:

If one is a white, Christian, straight and conservative in this country then you are not allowed to express an opinion and have a point of view. Even if it is the gawds awful truth and factual and expose and dare say anything critical about a non-white , non-Christian, non-conservative or someone gay they will be labelled as racists and white supremos and promoting hate speech by the leftist liberals and the leftist liberal media. The Canadian media right away accused the guy who killed all those Muslims as a white nationalist. They didn't even know at the time who the guy was. The guy was far from being a white nationalist as found out later. The word racist is being used by the communists in our society to try and shut down free speech online especially against those in the white nationalist movement. Islam has killed far more people in the world than white nationalists ever have. Just saying.  

That's my concern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, taxme said:

If one is a white, Christian, straight and conservative in this country then you are not allowed to express an opinion and have a point of view. Even if it is the gawds awful truth and factual and expose and dare say anything critical about a non-white , non-Christian, non-conservative or someone gay they will be labelled as racists and white supremos and promoting hate speech by the leftist liberals and the leftist liberal media....

 

True, but much like Europe, Canada has chosen to go down the path of banning "hate speech" to the detriment of free expression rights.   All this does is drive the speech and ideology underground to manifest in other virulent forms.    The leftists and communists have seized upon this as a great opportunity to influence and control media content / platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Then the assumption that X exists and is caused by Y's existence becomes, 

Whatever...

The old reality is that most modern Muslim terrorism is caused by our benefiting from the fruits of Empire (see bush_cheney2004).

The old assumption is that white supremists target Muslims because that's what the Empire's patriots do.

The new assumption is that right-wing terrorism is a reaction to perceived left-wing in-sensibilities - apparently progressiveness is also driving right-wingers crazy.

Put them all together and...it is what it is.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

 The old reality is that most modern Muslim terrorism is caused by our benefiting from the fruits of Empire (see bush_cheney2004).

The thing they always miss is that refugees come from our intervention in the ME, but that it's ultimately a positive in the long run if the west integrates the refugees that came from ending despotic regimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thing they always miss is that refugees come from our intervention in the ME, but that it's ultimately a positive in the long run if the west integrates the refugees that came from ending despotic regimes.

Except that that despotic regimes are enduring and becoming more established. Benefiting from a renaissance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Whatever...

The old reality is that most modern Muslim terrorism is caused by our benefiting from the fruits of Empire (see bush_cheney2004).

The old assumption is that white supremists target Muslims because that's what the Empire's patriots do.

The new assumption is that right-wing terrorism is a reaction to perceived left-wing in-sensibilities - apparently progressiveness is also driving right-wingers crazy.

Put them all together and...it is what it is.

And to me, this is all over the place. 

My point is that the 'cause' of these terrorist acts are never correct and so bounce back and forth between trading who will be the next predator and victim rather than deal with that real problem.

The real problem ORIGINATES and is exacerbated by poverty or some real factor of neglect. And when those who out of starving for necessity can't get the attention they need for trying in the normal whispers they are expected to communicate their concerns with, they BLOW UP. And this IS normal and expected.

The media's reaction to which I even opted to open this thread about here in Canada has today a closed mind with common interests and has begun to allow more and more of their reporting staff to be openly expressive with another common in-sync condemnation  of acts with CONCLUSIVE language about who is at fault without concern for proof. This is circumstantial evidence of a coordinated interest that you would normally expect to have competitive variation of views.

WHEN there are opposing views to this kind of cooperative unproven accusations being presented, the stories are selected in a way that purposely presents the caricature of the most vial an NON-representative average of the people. In this way, the very media presentations (and likely the media owners hidden behind a protected shell of corporate secrecy) are themselves CONSPIRING to shape who they FEEL is the real 'conspirators' with specificity and actually BECOME the cause as they openly LABEL a specific subset of society as a real genetic and ethnic extreme. 

This last incident let out the emotive conscious thinking of the media reporters (not just who they are opting to favor reporting) that indicated their own personal bias against their perceived enemy CLASS: right-wing extremists. They reported an increase in 'right-wing' extremism that they, with faithful certainty, assures us IS the problem with the counter EXTREME suggestion to counter: MORE CENSORSHIP! 

How does the media get on board with favoring 'censorship' UNLESS they themselves are being run by some INTEREST in common? 

Besides the variety of views being presented, the nature of media to be supporting an increase in censorship.....even on their 'forums' against public disapproval, suggests with MORE 'certainty' that their own 'certainty' of what they report is NOT to be challenged, censored, and proof of them being aligned with their own EXTREMISTS behind the scenes. 

The communications media is not a 'right' of specific people to OWN. That would be like someone dictating whether I can breath the air I do because they claim to OWN it. And that IS TERRORISM!

When groups of normally unaffiliated peoples of an abused class are targeted, often more and more hideously and indirect as possible, the idea is to ENTICE segregation, like those settlement walls and barricades in the West Bank of Palestine by Israelis, this forces those victims to BE more extreme to overcome such oppression themselves. 

The rhetoric of those in power reverse this role and why they NEED those 'apparent' victim-class minorities to BLOW UP. When one blows up, they are reacting in an overtly violent way and APPEARS more violent than the ones who manipulated their intention to make them blow up. This, when reported BY the people holding a targeted class hostage, do it in a way that hides or distributes accountability of themselves but THEN has a JUSTIFICATION to directly RID those they were holding hostage as they can point a finger at them and say, "SEE, THEY are the violent extremists".

What do you think will occur WHEN the stereotyped class, out of now having a common reason to conspire themselves for being violated as a class, will do when THEY are possibly the next ones in power? The cycle will not stop. The more OVERTLY violent extremists suggests THEY are the ones NOT IN POWER. But only the hidden extremes IN POWER can be controlled: by preventing them from CENSORING and ISOLATING the 'weak' opposite extremists.

The underlying causes cannot be solved by equalizing through FAVORITISM nor HATE of select groups that are NOT relevant to the problem.  And when the focus is aimed towards a subset of the victim class with some larger plurality (for or against) based on superficial standards, you don't solve the problem itself. You just trade push the problems onto more isolated individuals who become the next oppressed class based on the defining factors of that superficial classification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

True, but much like Europe, Canada has chosen to go down the path of banning "hate speech" to the detriment of free expression rights.   All this does is drive the speech and ideology underground to manifest in other virulent forms.    The leftists and communists have seized upon this as a great opportunity to influence and control media content / platforms.

What gives any government/politicians the right to deny anyone their freedom of speech? I am the government, so why would I want to deny my rights to want to exercise my right to my freedom of speech? I did not give any politician the right to deny me my freedom of speech. Who do these politicians think they are telling me what I can and cannot say? Do politicians work for me or do I work for the? It must be the latter I guess. Politicians have and still are abusing the power that was given to them and this needs to end. The hate laws were created just for the reason of silencing conservatism opinion and white nationalism free speech while liberals and socialists freedom of speech is never silenced but protected.  This also needs to end. So true. The liberal leftists and communists and even the environmentalists have seized upon being allowed to deny our right to freedom of speech. They do control the mainstream media and their leftist liberal actors and activist journalists. 

Edited by taxme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thing they always miss is that refugees come from our intervention in the ME, but that it's ultimately a positive in the long run if the west integrates the refugees that came from ending despotic regimes.

First, I disagree that's why they're coming. They're coming for economic reasons. A study of the migrants who have flooded into the EU has shown most are economic migrants. And almost none of the ones entering Canada are legitimate refugees either. They're people fleeing poverty in Haiti and Dominican Republic and Mexico and Romania and Nigeria.

Second, that big point of yours "IF THE WEST INTEGRATES' them. That is the big concern among most of us. Have you seen, for example, what a classroom looks like in most schools in most cities in Canada today? Most of the kids seem to be either foreign born, or born to immigrant parents. How are they supposed to assimilate into Canadian values when there are so few Canadian kids anywhere around?  Add in the religious beliefs of Muslims, which make views diametrically opposed to ours mandatory, and the likelihood many of them will not assimilate seems high. There was an unreleased federal report someone got hold of not long ago which said as much.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials are digesting a significant report that defines absorptive capacity as “a two-way process that encourages adjustment on the part of both the newcomer and the receiving society.”

Indeed, the internal report, obtained under an access to information request, shows that immigration analysts are worried that the “absorptive capacity” of Canada is going down.

“Declining outcomes of recent immigrants have shown that integration is not automatic,” says the report, which surveys emerging problems with immigration flows and the pressure it’s putting on Canadian sectors.

 

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

 Second, that big point of yours "IF THE WEST INTEGRATES' them. That is the big concern among most of us. Have you seen, for example, what a classroom looks like in most schools in most cities in Canada today? Most of the kids seem to be either foreign born, or born to immigrant parents. How are they supposed to assimilate into Canadian values when there are so few Canadian kids anywhere around? 

This is so true.

Even adult immigrants are hanging out with almost exclusively adult immigrants; they babble a bit of English if you're lucky, and sometimes French.

See the electoral map for Montréal, where most migrants live, versus the Rest of Québec for yourself;

 

1024px-Quebec_general_election_2018_-_Re

 

That's not a coincidence that the most left-leaning and Liberal parties won Montréal and Gatineau (near Ottawa). That's not at all.

CAQ campaigned on nationalist ideas, mild nationalism.

And the immigrants said f you to the Québecers big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

First, I disagree that's why they're coming. They're coming for economic reasons. A study of the migrants who have flooded into the EU has shown most are economic migrants. .Second, that big point of yours "IF THE WEST INTEGRATES' them. That is the big concern ...

First, we would both need to see statistics on this as I thought this started with Syria and boats from Libya.

Second, I wrote that knowing that integration is a separate and complex topic, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

First, we would both need to see statistics on this as I thought this started with Syria and boats from Libya.

Second, I wrote that knowing that integration is a separate and complex topic, yes.

Without looking harder for what I original read I came up with THIS which basically says that even under the EU's very generous assessments, 60% are economic migrants.

But realistically, we know almost all are economic. How do we know this? Because they didn't stay in Turkey, didn't stay in Italy or Greece, didn't stay in any of the southern European countries where they were safe. Instead they headed north towards the richer countries of Northern Europe.

I might add that your belief that all the war in the ME is OUR fault seems bizarre. Are the locals just peaceful naive children who, were it not for us, would be living in paradise?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...