Twitter Says It's Cracking Down on Hate Speech (usatoday.com) 427
With public backlash growing, Twitter says it's taking steps to crack down on hate speech, from making it easier to report alleged incidents on the social media service to educating moderators on what kind of conduct violates the rules. From a report on USA Today: Twitter users will also gain more control over their experience on Twitter with the ability to mute words and phrases, even entire conversations, if they don't want to receive notifications about them, said Del Harvey, Twitter's head of safety. The effort comes as an uptick in biased graffiti, assaults and other incidents have been reported in the news and on social media since Election Day, prompting president-elect Donald Trump to call for people to "stop it" during a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night. The FBI reports that hate crimes rose 7% in 2015, led by attacks on Muslim Americans.
Dun dun dun (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a slippery slope.
You don't have the right to not be offended.
The echo chamber is the reason Trump got elected. It made the American left complacent.
Re:Dun dun dun (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have the right to pretty much anything on twitter, a private service offered for free use. They can decide on their policy for the use of their service.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have the right to pretty much anything on twitter, a private service offered for free use. They can decide on their policy for the use of their service.
This is because our laws are behind times. Twitter is a modern equivalent to a public meeting space. Just like you couldn't enforce "Democrats only" washroom in your private restaurant, it shouldn't be legal to censor on social media based on political views.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just like you couldn't enforce "Democrats only" washroom in your private restaurant
If someone in the restaurant starts yelling out about how you should kill all the Jews, you can absolutely kick them out.
It shouldn't be legal to censor on social media based on political views.
To some people, mass murder is a political view.
Twitter is a for-profit company, not a megaphone (Score:2)
You don't have the right to pretty much anything on twitter, a private service offered for free use. They can decide on their policy for the use of their service.
Hit the nail on the head! A company cannot and should not sit idly by if they think their product, brand, and core business is being damaged by something they could prevent or reduce the impact of.
Slashdot should take note.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
The problem is that one half of our cultural/political spectrum has taken it upon themselves to redefine terms to suit their liking.
So the word "Hate Speech" only means "Disagrees with me"
"Phobia" has gone from "irrational fear" to "Doesn't completely and unconditionally support and embrace"
"Girl" now means "Man with a dress on"
"White Supremacist" now means "White male with traditional values"
"Sexis
Re: (Score:3)
This AC's angry hyperbolic reply misses the point completely. When a company thinks their product or brand is being damaged they can act to protect it. Individual right to free speech is secondary. If individuals think the company overreacted, it's a free market and they are free to take their activities elsewhere to avoid that product/service. It's a two-way street.
Re: (Score:3)
The government has an interest in how, in general, business is conducted. You have no duty to bake a cake for a party following a same-sex wedding. If you are in the business of baking wedding cakes, however, you are subject to rules on how to run a business, and that includes not discriminating against same-sex weddings (at least in some states).
The compelling state interest is that people should be able to do business as long as they behave.
Re:Dun dun dun (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously most people would state that Twitter shouldn't be allowed to do that, but should they be able to ban anyone who talks about China?
Somewhere in there is a line that gets crossed and it goes from perfectly acceptable (or even expected) to ban to morally reprehensible (or outright wrong) to ban. I think most people draw t
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have the right to pretty much anything on twitter, a private service offered for free use. They can decide on their policy for the use of their service.
They certainly think they can, and technically from a legal standpoint they are right. But in reality the users decide whether or not Twitter is allowed to do something and the shareholders won't stand for anything that pisses off too many users.
And I'm pretty sure that most people think that free speech trumps the "right not to be offended" or the "right to control other people's speech", even if they're not as vocal about it for now.
Re:Dun dun dun (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean a baker should not forced to bake a cake for a gay couple? I am confused, both are private services offered yet one cannot decide on their policy for the use of their service.
Re:Dun dun dun (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have a right to not be offended, but Twitter has a right to try and maximize their profits. If people are being driven away from their product because of what they perceive to be offensive behavior, Twitter owes it shareholders to try and combat offensive behavior.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know what happens when you're offended?
Leprosy. You get Leprosy!
Re:Dun dun dun (Score:5, Insightful)
You can keep banging that drum if you like but it gets no less silly.
While people have no right to not be offended, you also don't have a right to offend people: you cannot force them to listen to you and if they leave then there is nothing you can do about it, legally. Whine all you like but if people leave Twitter because they don't want to listen to blatontly bigoted shit all day, that's their perogative. Twitter has decided it would rather keep those people around.
So tough luck buttercup.
Re:Dun dun dun (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I do.
Actually you don't.
the "First Amendment".
That gives you the right to try. Not the right to succeed. If someone refuses to listen to you you do not have the right to go and offend them because the first amendment gives you no right to force your speech on someone who doesn't want to listen to you.
Which is kind of the whole point of these articles. Twitter is giving people the right to not listen. Fools who don't understand the first amendment whine horribly.
Re: (Score:3)
There is being offended then there is being threatened.
It is the difference of saying "Group X of people are getting a disproportional amount of assistance." vs. "Group X should be shot"
Now members of Group X may be offended from the first statement because they feel that they may be placed in harder circumstances and people don't seem to care about that.
vs. Members of Group X being afraid of the people who state the second statement. Where they are fearful of unjust action taken against them.
This is a two
Re: (Score:2)
saying I am going to shoot group X however is different, that is a threat.
I hope you can see the difference between the 2 statements and why one is protected and the other is not
Re:Dun dun dun (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't the stance of "build a wall" to prevent illegal immigration. It is the idea to build a wall because they want to keep out groups of people, because they are not the same as they are.
With those stories of mob violence. There are also stories about minorities being threatened, bullied and abused. Because the Hate speech now got authority behind it, allowing people with the hidden feeling that they are emboldened to act on them.
Now during this election season there was talk about "Second Amendment supporters" preventing a Clinton agenda. And if Trump lost he will rally against a Rigged election. Now if a few votes had changed to the other side... And the other people were causing the problems...
Both sides are in the wrong here. Twitter cannot stop people doing physical harm, but they can stop hate groups from inciting it.
Re:Dun dun dun (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the idea to build a wall because they want to keep out groups of people, because they are not the same as they are.
Isn't that kind of the point of walls? I mean, I have walls in my house to keep out hobos, who are not the same as my family. Does your home have walls, or door locks? Why?
Re: (Score:3)
because they want to keep out groups of people
Yeah, those are called "borders" and that's one of the most important things that every country uses them for.
Re:Dun dun dun (Score:5, Informative)
Let me ask you. Who is a greater threat? A mob of spoiled brat, dragging people out of cars, ganging up on little girls, bashing pregnant women's car windows in ....
Or a someone chanting "Build a wall" ?
This is what is known as the False Dilemma [wikipedia.org].
I am not denying there are people that "hate" out there, and bigots and such, but they are pretty much feckless cowards mostly hiding behind anonymity.
Except there you are denying them. Ok, ok, I'll qualify it, you're downplaying [wikipedia.org] them. Here.
Elsewhere, you made a denial about the 1950s [slashdot.org].
On the other hand, there seems to be hundreds of thousands of people willing to cause mayhem protesting our democratic republic after an election, where people actually get to register their voice, and what is supposed to be a "peaceful" transition of power.
And here was have Exaggeration. [wikipedia.org]
Or that is what Hillary and the Left were claiming just 4 months ago.
Sorry, the REAL danger are the precious snowflakes throwing temper tantrums like spoiled three year olds who don't get the toy they wanted, who are literally kicking and screaming because someone (over half of Americans who voted) said "no".
Yes, this is belittlement [wiktionary.org], and discrediting [wikipedia.org]. After all, if you can portray them as unworthy, you can dismiss them. And hey, remember all the complaints about Agent provocateurs [wikipedia.org]?
Bet you can't acknowledge that instigators may be operating under a False Flag.
symbiotic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter is a private service. If it wishes to offer its users the tools to block certain messages, then that's between said users and Twitter. It sounds optional, so what's the big deal?
Re: (Score:3)
I would feel exactly the same whoever it is. I've worked with web forum software that allowed users to block certain other posters, and even Slashdot allows that to some extent if you decide to read only at certain moderation levels.
It sounds to me like some people are upset because they've relied on unmoderated services to basically allow them to harangue all and asunder, and they're being very cranky now that Twitter is finally instituting what so many other online services have. It's hard to be a bully a
Re: (Score:3)
When Twitter through Milo Yiannopoulos out for leading a Twitter campaign against Leslie Jones, right up to and including faking Jones' posts, there was all kinds of declarations that Twitter would die. But I think the Milo types are in fact in the minority, and even if they left, there would be little material damage to Twitter, beyond the fact that its model doesn't really have a clear path to long-term sustainability at all. But it's hard to imagine how it will improve if it becomes known as the place re
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt that the government has all sorts of information on me. However, I find it unlikely they have my gait in a database. I'm not saying you can't match a gait to a person, I know you can, I just doubt they have my gait on file, I also doubt a jury would convict based on a gait because I don't think the public would be convinced of the technology.
Now, if the new administration does away with juries for crimes involved in protesting Trump, I would be in trouble if I joined in the protests and th
Re: (Score:2)
Every been in ANY Federal or State office building? Walked past one? Chances are, you're on file.
And, BTW, Post Offices are included. Just because the US doesn't have the level of panopticon surveillance that, for example, the UK has, does not mean that it's not sufficient. . .
Re: (Score:3)
You know, if Trump hadn't suggested using Second Amendment rights against Clinton, and had said he'd accept the results of the election, I might actually pay attention to your complaints. Any anti-Trump rioters are basically doing what Trump suggested.
"Why isn't anyone using us"? (Score:5, Interesting)
And the wonder why people that might consider using them go elsewhere.
"Shame about that speech you have over there, shame if anyone called it hate speech."
Now with Coffee (Score:2)
"Why isn't anyone using us"?
And they wonder why people that might consider using them go elsewhere.
"Nice things you're talking about over there, shame if anyone called it hate speech".
Re: (Score:2)
Staff from monarchies, theocracies, kingdoms, cults and Communist governments? Boring users who know never to have or be fun? Celebrities and their staff?
Local government services? Political parties and foundations? NGO's? Teams of SJW? Sports? Newspaper staff doing web 2.0?
Once freedom of speech before, during and after comments is gone, all the very best users go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what is wrong with giving people filters so they can decide who talks to them or not?
It's only free speech if I can force my bigoted opinions on everyone. You don't have a right not to be offended so that means I have the right to chase you down and offend you no matter how far you run. I'm sure the founding fathers said something about how endless streams of mindless, bigoted shit are super important or something because first amendment and freeze peach.
Re:"Why isn't anyone using us"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter was caught red-handed applying filters to people they ideologically disagree with
Like Milo?
Re: (Score:3)
They shadowbanned Scott Adams.
Nope. It's especially hilarious as Mr. Adams went on twitter to complain about the shadow banning, which everyone saw, pretty much demonstrating that he was not in fact shadow banned.
Twitter is not ACID. Shit goes missing every so often. The left wing "we hunted the mammoth" guy---precisely the sort who you claim twitter loves---has had tweets go missing too.
But basically go on twitter and start screaming about how awful blacks or Jews are.
There are tons of people sreaming abou
Re: (Score:3)
fascist noun Any public official I personally disagree with politically.
Umberto Eco wrote about fascism in 1995, after living through it:
http://www.nybooks.com/article... [nybooks.com]
Trump passes all 14 of the tests of fascism. Now, it would be non sensical to claim this was biased against Trump since it was written 20 years before Trump had any political aspirations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is literally not a single statement above that's actually truthful in any way.
And he's a Trumpanzee. Coincidence?
Re:"Why isn't anyone using us"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly what is wrong with giving people filters so they can decide who talks to them or not?
I agree with that, of course you should be able to filter things. I think the problem that happened with this election for the left is Dems built their own echo chambers. The mainstream media's a corporate/left echo chamber (6 major companies own all the media, they have similar interests, with only Fox really disagreeing on a few points), it's all based in NY/DC/LA/Atlanta where everyone's an urbanite and has similar attitudes, the opinion of the "man on the street" is literally the first guy who comes walking by outside the studio, and then Dem voters get on FaceBook and Twitter and share these same articles from HuffPo back and forth and block anybody who says "you know, that's not entirely accurate..." because they're a hateful nazi. And of course, never, EVER, look at a right-wing or conservative blog or news site because no matter how well researched and cited the article is, it must be evil lies and conspiracy nonsense. If it were important, Anderson Cooper would let me know! And then election night rolls around and they're SHOCKED when things didn't go as they expected. People on the right weren't. The only states I got wrong on my map were NH and Wisconsin.
And no, people on the right are not in "right wing echo chambers." You can't be in a right-wing echo chamber because the entire culture is left wing, the TV media is left wing, and your friends on facebook are spamming those same HuffPo articles. The right saw the left's side and said "these people are delusional." The left never saw the right's side, and it's scary now, because my FaceBook feed is full of hysterical people who believe Trump is literally Hitler and all their friends and neighbors are secret Nazis because they never heard an opposing viewpoint the entire campaign. Actually now they've moved on to stage of grief 3: bargaining, and they're passing around shit about how faithless electors might save them, or this HuffPo delusion piece about how some loophole could still make Bernie win...? Shit you not, that's the article.
And pretty much no one on my FaceBook feed has come to realization their media's been lying to them. Nope. Trump is Hitler, their neighbors are Nazis, we're all gonna die. They're still swallowing the fear mongering retardation from the MSM, like that Steve Bannon is an anti-Semitic white supremacist. The proof of this is that during a bitter divorce his ex-wife said he didn't want their kids going to a Jewish school with Jewish girls. Never mind that Andrew Breitbart was a Jew, half the staff at Breitbart is Jews, Milo is a Jew, and Breitbart shills hard for Israel and documents all the anti-Semitic hate crimes from the migrant crisis that the European media covers up. Nope, because of something from a vicious divorce settlement that's proof he's whispering in Trump's ear that it's time to fire up the ovens so everyone panic.
It's insane. I don't know what if anything will ever break these people out of their bubble. Maybe once they get past Depression they can be brought to Acceptance with the hopeful thought that "hey, it wasn't your fault, Anderson Cooper was lying to you. Maybe you just need to get your news from multiple different types of sources, and judge them appropriately, because nobody's unbiased or 100% right all the time?" God I hope.
So cracking down on freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that those on the left consider support Trump to be "hate speech" I assume what this really means is cracking down on the freedom of speech.
People have been investigating those so called "Trump-caused hate incidents" and a lot of them turn out to be faked. There is no "hate backlash" brought on by Trump. What you're seeing are the people who lost the election trying to smear the winner to take away from the fact that THEY LOST and that America does not want to go down the path they've been pushing.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
We have documented video evidence of leftist rioters smashing cars and windows, setting street fires, blocking freeways, pulling people out of their cars and beating them. The "hate crimes" from Trump supporters are someone's FaceBook post describing a completely ridiculous sounding event. "I'm a transotherkin POC and was minding my business when an evil white man in a red hat knocked my ice cream cone out of my hand and screamed in my face 'go back to ISIS yew Mexican!!!!!'" Totally happened. Or some rando
Who watches the watcher? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with this is that it will be up to Twitter to define "hate speech". Is it saying hateful things to someone? Is it threatening someone? Is it saying things they disagree with?
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter has the right to decide what they define as "hate speech" it's on their intellectual property that people are tweeting. As long as they're not breaking any laws, Twitter can do whatever the hell they want.
Re: (Score:2)
No they can't. The users decide whether Twitter is allowed to do something, and Twitter is under obligation via their shareholders to behave themselves. Don't tell people they have to bend over and take it just because you agree with restricting freedom of speech website by website.
Re: (Score:3)
Some users are pressuring them. But Twitter has come to the point where they know that if they cannot toss out the hate-mongers and trolls, they're likely to lose a large portion of their user base. Frankly, getting rid of the hate spreaders will help Twitter, not harm it. And then all the haters can go found their own web site, like the White Supremacists did, but then again, since no one is forced to read Storm Front's vile crap, I guess that's the fear, that the hate mongers will simply run out of oxygen
Re: (Score:3)
Is it saying things they disagree with?
That's exactly what it is. You'll find quite a few of the 3rd wave feminists and TERFs using this as a means to shutdown discussion, or launch harassment against people, even going as far as trying to get them criminally charged. [nationalpost.com] Also facts are hate speech, and if they happen to be threatening you? That's not hate speech. Also if you quote their statements or rhetoric [heatst.com], that's hate speech too. This shouldn't be a surprise though, Twitter decided to create the Orwell sounding "Trust and Safety Council" [twitter.com] w
Re: (Score:2)
Then they wonder why/how Trump got elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Expecting next cultural backlash in ~2.5 years here in Canada. The current government is trying to make using the wrong gender pronoun a crime.
I see you've reverted to your usual tactic of providing links that don't remotely back up what you claim they say.
The new era of censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that would push me to vote for a despicable candidate like Trump if the other side is attempting censorship.
Doubling down (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously certain tech companies hate that their censorship and propaganda failed, so they are doubling down. Time for competing products to rise up, assuming you don't get sued out of business for the next couple months at any rate.
Re:Doubling down (Score:4, Informative)
What the hell is it with Trump supporters and this persecution/plot mentality.
Oh right fascism [nybooks.com], #7 on the list if you're interested.
Complaining about free stuff... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump said "Stop it" to a few of his people that were acting badly. Where's Obama and Hillary saying "Stop it" to BLM and to the Portland rioters?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Stop it" vs. 50 paragraphs of mush.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump said "Stop it" to a few of his people that were acting badly.
But not to many of them. Some, in fact, he appointed to be his advisers. Like that chap who ran (runs?) Breitbart.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have "stop it" confused with "censor it". Publishers don't need to "stop it".
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have "stop it" confused with "censor it"
No, you have seemed to forgotten about the post you wrote and replied to. You're essentially complaining that I didn't reply to an entirely different post which i probably haven't even seen.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they've both asked people to make the transition as peaceful as possible and told the public to accept the results of the election.
Re: (Score:2)
But have they explicitly told the rioters to stop rioting? People are getting hurt. Property is being destroyed. I don't think Obama and Hillary care. They love this shit.
Keyword Filtering...Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been hoping for this for a long time. I'll start by filtering out "Liberal" and "Conservative" and go from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget "democrat" and "republican". You can hardly find anything more offensive
Re: (Score:2)
Alternate title (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No one has right to free speech on Twitter. It belongs to Twitter. You have the right to hate speech in your home, you don't have the right to hate speech on the intellectual property of a company that expressly denies it. Never have.
Twitter has the right to censor what you say, so does Facebook, My Space, Slashdot, or anywhere else online.
You also have the right to start your very own Twitter alternative that welcomes hate speech if that is your prerogative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey look, the onion wrote an article about you: http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
Under Trump, hate speech is encouraged! (Score:2, Informative)
Now that Trump has been elected, we enter a new era where white men now have license to say whatever insulting, sexist, and racist things they want. In other words, hate speech is encoraged. Therefore filtering out hate speech would be unnecessary and heavily discouraged.
On a more serious note, filtering out “hate speech” must be considered carefully. In the 60’s, you could shut anyone up just by labeling them a commie. Today, you can squelch any dissenting opinion you want by labeling
Re:Under Trump, hate speech is encouraged! (Score:4, Funny)
To the British, the American colonists were “assholes”
Wrong tense. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Trump has been elected, we enter a new era where white men now have license to say whatever insulting, sexist, and racist things they want.
Could you kindly tell me where I can get this license? Because I recently get a ticket for insulting without license and the fine was steep.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is we've changed the definition of words so much people can't tell up from down anymore. When I was a kid, "racist" meant someone who judged a person on the color of his skin instead of the content of his character. Today if you do that, judging the content of the character of a man who pulls a gun on a cop or tries to crush his skull in with his bare hands as "worthy of being shot," you're racist if that man is black. Today, if you judge someone by the content of their character instead of the
Twitter's format is a big part of the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Twitter itself is a huge part of the problem in the coarsening of political debate. The emphasis on short, snappy "soundbite" statements and the e-peen benefits of being retweeted serve as powerful incentives for people to forgo civility and mean that the most extreme voices, whatever their persuasion, get the most prominence.
When you are trying to fit your thoughts into a character limit, what kind of clauses are you going to cut? How about:
"I see your point, but have you considered..."
"I understand why some people are attracted to that argument, but..."
"I know there are exceptions to this rule..."
"I might be oversimplifying here..."
"This is purely anecdotal, but..."
Twitter is a remarkably effective tool for stripping conversations of all of the little niceties, qualifications and acknowledgements that keep things civil. It's a platform for thumping certainties, hysterical over-reactions and wanton attention-seeking. I've known rational, well-spoken people, often well-regarded in their professional fields, who turn into flaming morons on Twitter.
It's not a problem of Twitter's moderation policies or editorial stances, but rather a fundamental problem with the medium. Being mischievous, maybe 140 characters should be the minimum rather than the limit.
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter is to discourse what PowerPoint is to information. Short and dumbed down.
Being mischievous, maybe 140 characters should be the minimum rather than the limit.
Now that would be an interesting concept for a forum/social media site -- a requirement for a minimum size of at least 500 characters. If you don't have anything thoughtful to say, you can't say it.
Re:Twitter's format is a big part of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
We have certain expectations of polite behavior in person, and someone who violates those norms gets punished by the way everyone around reacts to them. This doesn't carry over to the internet though - worse, you can probably find people who will support you in your asshole-ish behavior.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Confused (Score:2)
Epistemic closure is not a good thing. (Score:2)
I'm torn. On the one side, harassment has been redefined on the Regressive Left to mean "disagreed with a Radical Regressive Leftist." So when I hear there's people harassing people on social media, I'm reminded that some of the professional victims crying about this harass themselves [imgur.com] for victim credentials, while others dox and [imgur.com] harass others [imgur.com] while running an industry blacklist of their enemies. Both of which are allowed to continue unopposed due to them sharing the politics of the people running the sit
Re: (Score:2)
We just saw an entire election be decided because one side refused to step outside of their bubble for 6+ months at a time
I know, right? Something like 40% of Trump voters are still Birthers. Can you believe living a bubble of deception like that? Crazy!
A better service (Score:2)
Look, twitter would be a better place if it removes comments like "you stupid bitch" and "you neckbeard racist". They are content free attacks that diminish the value of what one gets out of tweeter.
I would equally ban Killary/Drumpf postings. If you cannot make a point without a childish nickname, go some place else. This does not censor content, it censors non-content and has no bias per se to the left or right.
This sounds like a mess... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
Re:Just delete Trump's account (Score:4, Interesting)
Calling Mexicans rapists is the textbook definition of hate speech.
I'm actually interested in where he said this. Do you mind linking the actual quote? Let me also add this: you said that he "called mexicans rapists". Are you asserting that he implied that all mexicans were rapists, or that the entire population of Mexicans contains people who are rapists, but not necessarily all of them?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the relevant quote from Trump's speech on June 16th, 2015:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Re:Just delete Trump's account (Score:5, Funny)
So, not all Mexicans, then? Just some of the illegal Mexicans crossing the border? Which makes sense because 80% of central American women and girls are raped during their illegal border crossing [huffingtonpost.com]. So, somebody's doing the raping. I'm so glad we elected Trump! Once he builds that border wall and we cut down on people crossing illegally, so many women and girls won't be raped! It's wonderful! Can you believe those despicable, evil people who voted for Hillary, the pro-rape candidate? Why do they love rape so much? Clearly that's the only reason they voted for her: to keep rape alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Your discourse is so weird that I'm actually unsure of whether you are a pro-Trump troll or a pro-Hillary troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-Trump. Trump never said all Mexicans are rapists. He said we're getting bad people crossing the border, including rapists, which is a true statement. Nothing to do with a genetic propensity of Mexicans to rape.
Also, once he secures the border, yes, the number of women and girls raped during the border crossings will decline. So, I'm kind of disgusted by the leftists who are incensed about Trump's poorly worded statement, but really don't give a shit about the actual women and girls being raped every day
Re: (Score:2)
You are somehow able to cherry pick a fragment out of a 20 second speech to make claims
If you go all day and only say one racist thing. You've still said something racist today. It doesn't matter if someone has an 8 hour long speech and only says one racist thing. They've still expressed a racist opinion. If you live to 80 and then rape a woman the police wouldn't be impressed if you told them "I'm not a rapist, I've gone 80 years without raping someone and you're cherry picking 2 minutes out of my life".
Now, if the phrase being quoted was used out of context (such as what was said before
Re: (Score:2)
You guys need to double and triple down on that "let's call everything racist" tactic. Worked great for you.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I am.
These racist idiots aren't giving me a lot of reasons to be proud.
Although if the black community has to answer for black on black crime, then the White crime. That's how I feel. So yes, I am ashamed that idiots that I knew growing up continue to be race hating morons.
It's hard to tell my girlfriend that the idiot who told her to go back to her country, is an isolated incident.
Re:I am not ashamed of being white. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am.
Feel-free to hate yourself, but at least do it for the right reasons - because you are an idiot. You have no control over your race, and your race on the whole, despite what SJWs will get you to believe, isn't any more racists than Hispanic, Asian, Black, or Arab.
No shame (Score:2)
I am. These racist idiots aren't giving me a lot of reasons to be proud.
Just because someone else acts the fool doesn't mean they are your responsibility or that you should be embarrassed by them just because they happen to share your skin color. I was born white and had no control over it. I see no reason to be ashamed over something I had no control over nor any reason to apologize for it. I'm disgusted by the racist behavior of many white people but I'm equally disgusted by the racist behavior of non-white people. Skin color is never a reason to feel ashamed no matter wh
Re: (Score:2)
This is no such thing as racial guilt.
Re: (Score:3)
She has to go back.
If people have to start going back to their home countries, they're going to have to vivisect the average American and mail off about a dozen parcels. Most of us are so mixed up we have no idea where our ancestry comes from, and even those who think they do are frequently wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Stich must be distraught.