Hatebase Tries To Scan For Precursors of Genocide In Language 190
An anonymous reader writes "Hatebase, a new crowdsourced database of multilingual hate speech from The Sentinel Project, is an attempt to create a repository of words and phrases that researchers can use to detect the early stages of genocide."
China-Friendly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hatebase as in hate speech, as in ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, calm down.
This is the same as any NLP crowd-sourcing tool; it's simply designed with a focus on correlating vocabulary with prejudicial sentiment. No one is planning to use it to pass restrictive laws. It's just useful for people who are involved in a country, but are not fluent speakers of $foo or involved in the right subcultures, to know that a certain word has now acquired a negative connotation.
Maybe those people should butt out, sure, but you're jumping the gun a bit, here. If they could force everyone to use ``political correct speeches", they wouldn't need this app in the first place.
Re:Hatebase as in hate speech, as in ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the same as any NLP crowd-sourcing tool; it's simply designed with a focus on correlating vocabulary with prejudicial sentiment.
In case some of you were wondering about the acronym. That becomes:
This is the same as any natural language processing crowd-sourcing tool; it's simply designed with a focus on correlating vocabulary with prejudicial sentiment.
To take the conjugation one step further it becomes:
This shit be the same shit as any goddamn shit where we get other motherfuckers to do the fucking dirty work of working out when shit-talkers, shit-talking in some other fucking language, be talking shit is a way that means that those fuckwits mean to start some shit.
Of course, sometimes you can take conjugation a bit too far.
Re:Hatebase as in hate speech, as in ... (Score:2, Interesting)
we can approach the solution with realism and healing, instead of idealism and revenge
Realism/Healing vs. Idealism/Revenge
You should write speeches for politicians. This is an excellent false dichotomy. While I'm also a liberal, I'm hesitant to label myself as such because all too often the term is used to indicate that one is a member of the PC-Police, such as yourself. If there was a Ministry of Truth you'd be a great writer for them. It's sad that the flamebait you responded to has more truth in it than your attempt to rationalize political correctness -- oh, I'm sorry, your attempt to approach the 'problem' with realism and healing.
Save your bullshit for your Sociology class. Fuck your inclusiveness, I'm an individual.
Maybe I missed the point. I apologize if your post is a tongue-in-cheek. Now that I think about it, it's so absurd I really hope so. Of course, it's also the type of thing that Sociology professors say with a straight face.
How to (Score:3, Interesting)
Ha, only 729 ethnic or national slurs?
Come on, even I could do better than that :-)
The programming seems interesting too: non ascii characters in the Search box will break the site.
Re:Mostly false positives, will be used for "hate" (Score:2, Interesting)
That's exactly my point--the Tea Partiers *wish* they were brave and fanatical enough to be terrorists, but they're too cowardly and self-centred either to put up, or to shut up.
I don't agree with Al-Qaeda's objectives but I can still recognise that their dedication to their cause is nothing to sneer at.
Also, while dismissing people's religious beliefs as "pychopathy" is perfectly valid in some contexts, it is not very smart at all in others.
BTW, I don't expect anyone to get the "Mindless" thing without having studied Zen [wikipedia.org]. (In 15+ years, not many have, so you're in good company.)
Re: Hatebase as in hate speech, as in ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of "stupid moron",
All of the American left, right, center, up, and down supported the use of Islam, Christianity, and religious identity in general as a weapon against the Soviets. Islam was not as uniformly hostile and violent back then as it is today, although the CIA made awful choices of which Muslims to partner with.
The Russians began a large-scale campaign of terrorist funding in 1964. The reason so many Islamic terrorist organizations speak the language of anti-American postcolonialism is because their founders learned it at Patrice Lumumba University.
It is largely the left today that allies with the Islamic right wing. Look at what happened to Michelle Bachmann when she reasonably suggested that people in sensitive wartime posts with possible Muslim Brotherhood connections should be vetted; not fired, not punished, but simply vetted. She was mocked and condemned for such a thing, and called a racist. Look at what happened to Amnesty International's Gita Saghal when she protested Amnesty's alliance with the Taliban; she was fired and Amnesty shut down its womens' rights division so that no more uppity women would interfere with the great deal Amnesty has with the Taliban. Look at what happened to Eric Allen Bell when he criticized the website Loonwatch as "a terrorist spin control network"; the Daily Kos banned him. Look at what happens whenever anybody references the Muslim Brotherhood or the Hamas charter in the Guardian's comments section; their post is immediately deleted.
The right has its own alliances with Islamic terrorism. During the 1990s, it was Republicans who got into the news for praising the Taliban. Grover Norquist partnered with Abdulrahman Alamoudi to raise terrorist funds for George W. Bush. More recently, within the past few weeks, the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) banned Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer from receiving an award for fear that he might criticize Norquist or another Republican fundraiser, Suhail Khan.
This discussion is not about Democrats or Republicans, it is not about the worker and the capitalist, it is not about the rich and the poor. It is about the double standard of modern society's tolerance of hate speech and actual genocide if done in the name of Islam, and the triple standard of ostracizing anybody who opposes the hate speech and genocide.
The question is in the air as to whether Hatebase will end up like the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, which has made the decision not to report hate speech by Muslims in its reports on hate speech in the United States. Their excuse is (paraphrasing) "the Jews do that", and evidently the SPLC does not want to risk being associated with the Jews.
Will people speak up or remain silent?
Re: Hatebase as in hate speech, as in ... (Score:0, Interesting)
Are you shitting me? YOU are the useful idiot. You actually buy the laughable lies told to you by al queefa regarding their reasons for murdering Westerners?
Yeah. All their murder started only since Ronald Reagan. The other 14 centuries of oppression and murder are nothing compared to the blind leftwing's blaming of Reagan, Bush 1, (strangely nothing about their national embarrassment "hero" clinton) and bush 2 aka dick cheney's lapdog.
You are a fool who thinks so short-term it'd be funny if it wasn't dangerous to your and my freedom.
Thomas Jefferson (who I personally think is a bastard hypocrit but I digress), had to deal with rampaging muslims over 200 years ago. Where was george bush? Where were the commies and osama bin goatfucker?