• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Facebook bans far right groups

JoeMorgue said:
I reaeeeaaaallllly hope you didn't mean that the way it came out.

Please tell me that you understand that you don't get to be racist... when the person you're being racist at is also a jerk?
Click to expand...
If you followed the original post you would see that this was a provoked attack.* Whether it was known beforehand that the jerk was also a Jew is not made clear.

* Not that this makes the attack justified but it is still just property damage.
 
psionl0 said:
If you followed the original post you would see that this was a provoked attack.* Whether it was known beforehand that the jerk was also a Jew is not made clear.

* Not that this makes the attack justified but it is still just property damage.
Click to expand...

By your code, a person with a history of making anti-Semitic comments is not guilty of a hate crime for painting a swastika on a Jewish person's property, only property damage. I'm curious, would someone dressing up in KKK robes and burning a cross on a black family's lawn also be only guilty of property damage? Would it matter if the black family's dog had poo'd in the KKK guy's yard, and thus it was provoked? Would the guy be able to trick you into agreeing that "it was only a joke" despite his tattoo of a swastika on his forehead?

Is there any point where you would see a hate crime?
 
wareyin said:
By your code, a person with a history of making anti-Semitic comments is not guilty of a hate crime for painting a swastika on a Jewish person's property, only property damage. I'm curious, would someone dressing up in KKK robes and burning a cross on a black family's lawn also be only guilty of property damage? Would it matter if the black family's dog had poo'd in the KKK guy's yard, and thus it was provoked? Would the guy be able to trick you into agreeing that "it was only a joke" despite his tattoo of a swastika on his forehead?

Is there any point where you would see a hate crime?
Click to expand...
You are still trying to change the subject. Where there is fault on both sides you can't pretend it is just an aggressor picking on a harmless innocent victim.
 
psionl0 said:
If you followed the original post you would see that this was a provoked attack.* Whether it was known beforehand that the jerk was also a Jew is not made clear.

* Not that this makes the attack justified but it is still just property damage.
Click to expand...

So your story is that he just randomly decided to paint a Swastika on some "just a jerk's house" and by some amazing coincidence that jerk was Jewish and now people are crying racism (or anti-semtisim if you want to get technical.)

Oooookkaaaaaay.
 
JoeMorgue said:
So your story is that he just randomly decided to paint a Swastika on some "just a jerk's house" and by some amazing coincidence that jerk was Jewish and now people are crying racism (or anti-semtisim if you want to get technical.)

Oooookkaaaaaay.
Click to expand...
Why don't you click on the link instead of just making stuff up? :rolleyes:
 
psionl0 said:
There are lots of crimes that come in the vanilla verson, "aggravated" version and the version that includes "with intent to . . .". The latter versions are harder to prove and that should be the case since they attract harsher penalties.
Click to expand...
And?
 
psionl0 said:
It is an extremely wretched world we live in if a person with a history of antisemitic statements drawing a swastika on the property of someone he knew to be Jewish can see you jailed.
Click to expand...

When your statement is corrected to fairly present the actual scenario you were asked to comment on, does it really feel like something you are proud to go to the mat over?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
A dodge... you didn't answer any of the questions
Click to expand...
Sure I did. I just didn't give the answer you wanted to read. If you had read further down this thread, you would have seen that I view the extreme provocation as a mitigating factor in your scenario.

I don't understand why common sense is so bereft in this thread. Clearly any communication that is intended to cause fear or harm is not on. This includes but is not limited making threats or inciting others to make threats or commit harm. It doesn't have to be blatantly worded either.

As long as a reasonable person would view the communication as threatening, it should be legally actionable. Unfortunately, "reasonable person" would rule out a lot of the nut cases in this thread.
 
psionl0 said:
"Recognizing and dealing with" the fact that some recreational drug use is dangerous hasn't been very effective.

That is the consequence of "recognizing and dealing with the propaganda power of social media". One is cute and the other is a "hate crime".
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I can't connect the dots you are going for.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

NPR: Facebook Removed Nearly 3.4 Billion Fake Accounts In Last Six Months

That's billion with a B, and fake accounts, not just sharing. The old rules simply cannot be applied.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I wouldn't know. You didn't do that.
Click to expand...

Can you see the bits in red at all? Apparently you couldn't see them in the original post as well, and they were red there, too. Would it help if they were posted in a different color?

"It is an extremely wretched world we live in if a person with a history of antisemitic statements drawing a swastika on the property of someone he knew to be Jewish can see you jailed."
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
NPR: Facebook Removed Nearly 3.4 Billion Fake Accounts In Last Six Months

That's billion with a B, and fake accounts, not just sharing. The old rules simply cannot be applied.
Click to expand...

It makes me wonder why Facebook doesn't have some kind of verification system so that you have to provide documentary proof that you are a real person before your account can be validated. It might be a bit of work, but it cant be as much work as searching out billions of fake accounts.

TradeMe has a very good system for verifying users are real people - the user provides an address, TradeMe mails you a card, you sign it and mail it back - Verified!
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Can you see the bits in red at all?
Click to expand...
Sure I can. I know what you did. You replaced the words in the post with the (amended) words in the spoiler in an attempt to make it appear as though I responded to something that wasn't there.

I can't even say "nice try". That was a p*** poor effort. :p
 
psionl0 said:
Sure I can. I know what you did. You replaced the words in the post with the (amended) words in the spoiler in an attempt to make it appear as though I responded to something that wasn't there.

I can't even say "nice try". That was a p*** poor effort. :p
Click to expand...

Nope, you're still missing it!

Do you agree with the following statement?

"It is an extremely wretched world we live in if a person with a history of antisemitic statements drawing a swastika on the property of someone he knew to be Jewish can see you jailed."

Just answer the question yes or no.....No BS, no superfluous weasel words, no prevaricating.

If you give anything other than a yes or no answer, I'll regard it as non-responsive, and everyone will see that you're dodging ---- ----again
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Nope, you're still missing it!

Do you agree with the following statement?

"It is an extremely wretched world we live in if a person with a history of antisemitic statements drawing a swastika on the property of someone he knew to be Jewish can see you jailed."

Just answer the question yes or no.....No BS, no superfluous weasel words, no prevaricating.

If you give anything other than a yes or no answer, I'll regard it as non-responsive, and everyone will see that you're dodging ---- ----again
Click to expand...
No I don't agree with that amended statement but that is not what I was responding to.

What happened to "The neighbour is being a domineering, arrogant prick and acting like he owns the whole street, and like everyone has to march to his tune. After much arguing, and noisy dispute, Fred reaches his breaking point, . . ."
 
psionl0 said:
Sure I can. I know what you did. You replaced the words in the post with the (amended) words in the spoiler in an attempt to make it appear as though I responded to something that wasn't there.

I can't even say "nice try". That was a p*** poor effort. :p
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, the words were changed. Originally the statement read "When it goes to court, it turns out that the neighbour is Jewish" which which implies that Fred might not have known that the neighbour was Jewish when he drew the swastika. That was never made clear.

Anyways, I know how this one ends. It turns out that Fred is gay and black and part of the provocation consisted of racist and homophobic slurs.The neighbour, it turns out that he's a Zionist and Fred was merely criticizing Israel in defense of the Palestinian people which was interpreted as anti-Semitism.

Judge Judy wagged her finger and delivered a stern lecture about communication before Fred and the neighbour hugged each other and apologized for acting like idiots.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom