Facebook's Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men From Hate Speech But Not Black Children (propublica.org) 355
Sidney Fussell from Gizmodo summarizes a report from ProPublica, which brings to light dozens of training documents used by Facebook to train moderators on hate speech: As the trove of slides and quizzes reveals, Facebook uses a warped, one-sided reasoning to balance policing hate speech against users' freedom of expression on the platform. This is perhaps best summarized by the above image from one of its training slideshows, wherein Facebook instructs moderators to protect "White Men," but not "Female Drivers" or "Black Children." Facebook only blocks inflammatory remarks if they're used against members of a "protected class." But Facebook itself decides who makes up a protected class, with lots of clear opportunities for moderation to be applied arbitrarily at best and against minoritized people critiquing those in power (particularly white men) at worst --
as Facebook has been routinely accused of. According to the leaked documents, here are the group identifiers Facebook protects: Sex, Religious affiliation, National origin, Gender identity, Race, Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Serious disability or disease. And here are those Facebook won't protect: Social class, continental origin, appearance, age, occupation, political ideology, religions, countries. Subsets of groups -- female drivers, Jewish professors, gay liberals -- aren't protected either, as ProPublica explains: White men are considered a group because both traits are protected, while female drivers and black children, like radicalized Muslims, are subsets, because one of their characteristics is not protected.
Who'd a Thunk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to police speech and expression and you fuck it up every time.
Re:Who'd a Thunk? (Score:5, Funny)
Try to police speech and expression and you fuck it up every time.
Slashdot's moderation system works pretty well.
Re:Who'd a Thunk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the policies are poorly written. Did you expect something else from Facebook?
And I bet some specific populations are inflamed by "White men" being protected while "Black Children" are not.
But you know what? "Black females" are more protected than "Christian children". "Lesbian Iraqi" are protected, while "White Europeans" are not.
"Young Europeans are subhuman scum" is OK by the stated policies. "Muslim schizophrenics are dangerous" is to be censored.
I bet if the article was written by a Fox news reporter, he would have focused on one of the latter examples. Once you know the flawed rules, you can manipulate them to produce inflammatory results.
As for the slide? Who knows why they came up with such an example. Probably because they wanted the right answer to be reached through knowing the policy, as opposed to following one's gut feelings.
Re: (Score:3)
Elderly White Priests (age + race + occupation) get no protection while Black Transgender Atheists (race + gender identity + religious affiliation) get special treatment?! Gawd help us, Facebook is the new Gomorrah!
Poor South American Prostitutes (social class + contental origin + occupation) can go drink a hate speech cocktail while the White Protestant Sex Addicts (race + religious affiliation + disease) who frequent and
Re:Who'd a Thunk? (Score:5, Interesting)
Its much easier than that as their rules are logically inconsistent. I am not allowed to say "Women are shit", as it is a protected class. But both "women drivers are shit" and "women non-drivers are shit" are allowed as aubsets are not protected. So "Woman (both those that drive and those that don't) are shit" should get in, and "All Americans (apart from my mate Bob) are cunts" should pass their filter just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
if we could have a conversation about what the rules should be for once
But that conversation is hard. It's easier to throw rocks at a straw-man (did anyone seriously think Facebook is a paragon of getting this right that we should hold them up as a measuring stick and find all hat/discrimination rules useless?)
Min
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's ProRepublica for you.. and Gizmodo is buying into and passing along their SJW spin.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, in EVERY other forum, it is perfectly normal and acceptable to ridicule and rant against white guys....it is never discrimination if it's against a white guy.
Hell, look on tv, on shows and commercials....any time there is a goof, or buffoon, it is....yep, almost always a fat white guy.
Heaven forbid you have a black guy or gal be the brunt of the joke or buffoonary...you'd get flooded with emails and protests of mysogny or racism.
Hell, for that matte
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh bullshit, white guys are still have more power and prestige in society than anyone else. Whining about how hard it is being a white guy makes you look extremely childish. And that fat white buffoon on the TV? He will always have a hot young wife. Oh look at that, the white guy is uncomfortable with mixed race couples and thinks there are too many of them on TV. Color me shocked.
Re: (Score:3)
Never said I was uncomfortable or "phobic" about it...just that it is currently being so disproportionately displayed on TV that it is jarring enough to be extremely noticeable.
Re: Who'd a Thunk? (Score:5, Insightful)
So who has more power and prestige in society: black men or white women? How about black women vs gay black men? Trying to rank demographics is what makes you a racist mother fucker and part of the problem. Yes, having white guys as the brunt of the jokes does a stereotype make, and it's sad. But it's not nearly as sad as trying to defend the stereotype because you feel achievement should be ridiculed. When we see past the stereotypes of who is being ridiculed, attacked, and disparaged is when racism will truely cease.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So who has more power and prestige in society: black men or white women? How about black women vs gay black men? Trying to rank demographics is what makes you a racist mother fucker and part of the problem.
So close and yet so far. We're not running some sort of "Oppression Olympics" where the most oppressed demographic wins, at least not outside the minds of a bunch of internet commenters with a persecution complex.
But things that people are biased against tend to have an additive effect. Pick some category
Re: Who'd a Thunk? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this argument is that it's to do with medians and not individuals. If you pick a random white guy in the USA and compare him to a random woman of any colour, or to a black guy, then the odds are that he will have had more luck in the opportunities presented to him (which, for some reason, we now call 'privilege'). But there are a lot of individual pairs of white guy and black guy for which the converse is true. Do you think Obama had fewer opportunities than a white guy growing up in a trailer park?
I'm a white guy, and I was fortunate to be born to comfortably off parents who valued education enough to send me to a good school and who encouraged my interests in a field that turned out to be in high demand. Every day on the way to work, I cycle past a few white guts who live on the street and have problems with substance abuse. Saying that we both have more power and prestige because we're white is nonsense. Some of us have more power and prestige because we have been really lucky. That correlates strongly with skin colour for various entrenched reasons to do with wealth distribution and social attitudes, but is in no way caused by skin colour.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a better word to describe this phenomena than “privilege”?
Yes: luck.
Re: (Score:3)
A rich black guy has every bit the same opportunity as a rich white guy. A poor black guy has the same opportunities as a poor white guy.
While I am not a sociologist, quick search for social mobility shows that poor blacks are more likely to stay poor [pewtrusts.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who'd a Thunk? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh bullshit, white guys are still have more power and prestige in society than anyone else.
Let's put "White male owned business" on a company website and see how much prestige it will gain. Or let's have a "Men in tech" conference, or a "White lives matter" demonstration or a "whitecupid.com" dating site, and then we can revisit your statement.
Re:Who'd a Thunk? (Score:4)
Let's put "demographics of homeless in USA" and check how "privileged" males are in comparison to females.
It's easy to pick up the top 5% slice, dissect it, and claim any demographics prevalent there is "privileged".
Look at the bottom 5%.
Look at suicide rates. Look at life time expectancy - and causes (work-related usually). Look at incarceration times for the same crime, per gender.
What you're doing is trying to help middle-class minorities to dominate the elites. But when you look at the bottom - at the poorest - you aren't doing SHIT! Because these most oppressed don't fit your narrative - because getting the shortest end of the stick are white men!
Re:Who'd a Thunk? (Score:5, Interesting)
Try putting a black sounding name on a resume and see how much prestige it gains
Actually you would get hired. That's one of the most sought after demographics, especially in Silicon Valley.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you would get hired.
You're assuming that because it plays to your own prejudices. You have no evidence it's true.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't worry, it's a temp policy (Score:5, Interesting)
As TFA states these are arbitrary policies that change all the time. People started complaining about the open discrimination and hatred for white males, and Facebook could not say "nuh uh" with the prevalence of posts doing exactly that. So for a while (read: until the coast is clear) they will address those issues.
Pretty much how all authoritarian systems work, and history is chalk full of examples. Some are quite famous, but of course "it couldn't happen to me..".
Slashdot's racial bias (Score:2)
Hey....why not give us white guys this one, eh?
I mean, in EVERY other forum, it is perfectly normal and acceptable to ridicule and rant against white guys....it is never discrimination if it's against a white guy.
Maybe the non-white guys are using the wrong text editor?
Just add an 'Ignore' button (Score:3)
Clearly the solution is to stop policing speech and let every commercial web service turn into a swirling maelstrom of racial slurs.
No, the solution is to make it easy for people to choose not to listen. In real life when some hate filled bigot is rambling on most of us are usually blissfully unaware of it since we choose not to go to whatever event s/he is speaking at.
What these social media sites need is an "ignore" button that essentially blocks that person from any contact with the user who chooses to ignore them. This would have to be coupled with some mechanism to prevent users from creating multiple accounts as a means to get
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble with that idea is that every new user would have thousands of bigots to block, unlike in real life. Until they've all been blocked, the site could resemble at least a moderate storm of racial slurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Or better yet, grow up and accept the fact that other people will have different opinions. Hating people for their ideas isn't that far from hating them for what they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Let users share block lists. Hate bigots? There's a list for that. Hate conservatives? There's a list for that. Hate furries? There's a list for that.
I remember the howls of rage from the Free Speech Warriors here when that subject came up on Twitter.
Or better yet, grow up and accept the fact that other people will have different opinions. Hating people for their ideas isn't that far from hating them for what they are.
u wot?
No it really isn't. Your ideas are the most fundamental thing about you and what ma
Re: (Score:2)
How is this for a solution:
You have a relation score to other users based primarily on how much you've liked/disliked (or thumbed-up or -down, or +/-1'd, whatever) their posts. That relation score determines how likely you are to see something else from that user in the future. If you like a lot of some user's posts, you'll see more stuff from that user. If you dislike a lot of some user's posts, you start seeing less of their stuff. However, that filtering is transitive. You will also see more of the stuff
Somewhat misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
The reason for the headline is that "children" is not a protected category, while skin color and gender both are.
It's entirely about the words.
"white men" are protected exactly as much as "black men" or "white women" or "black women", because both the noun and the adjective refer to protected categories.
"black children" are protected, likewise, just as much as "white children" or "white adults" or "black adults"-- the second word in the phrase is not a protected category.
Re:Somewhat misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
Misleading all around. But "black children" shouldn't be protected less than simply "black" but it appears to be the case in the article.
Re: (Score:3)
Black children have two attributes : "black" and "child".
They are not protected from attacks against their "child" attribute, only against their "black" attribute.
Blacks only have single attribute, which is protected, and therefore are totally protected.
That's the reasoning.
In reality however, humans have many, many attributes, and only a few of them are protected, so attacks are possible on anyone. People are not totally defined by their race and gender, thankfully.
Re:Somewhat misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To people who don't know what it means. The idea of protecting white people over blacks or vice versa is bereft of morality, but the idea of protecting people from discrimination based on race is not.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole concept of "protected class" is bereft of morality...
No, that's just bullshit. Facebook does many things wrong, not wanting race based attacks all over their site is not one of them.
Re:Somewhat misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
is quite a bit different than
a U.S. congressman wrote a Facebook post in which he called for the slaughter of "radicalized" Muslims. "Hunt them, identify them, and kill them," declared U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican. "Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all."
one is racist (ALL whites) and one is talking about "radical" islam, meaning the people we are actually at war with, ISIS and other groups
it makes perfect sense why one of them, while still pretty harsh, isnt to the same level of being racist
attacking a violent subset vs attacking a group based on their color
facebook has a problem, but the comparisong isnt quite apples to apples
Re: (Score:2)
Are all radical Muslims terrorists now?
While the point could be valid (Score:5, Insightful)
The author goes off the deep end when her ideology comes out somewhere halfway through the summary. To wit, the bit where she decries the disallowing of hate speech against white men in particular, because it's of course not possible to hate-speak against whitey for ~reasons~.
Re:While the point could be valid (Score:5, Interesting)
"Hate speech", at least in US law, isn't just speech that expresses hate; that's Constitutionally protected. Hate speech laws pertain to acts that are already criminal such as vandalism or criminal threats, and incitement of imminent violence.
In the US it absolutely is possible to commit a hate crime against white men. In fact SCOTUS in a landmark 1993 decision upheld the conviction of black teenagers who assaulted a white teenager under hate crime laws, holding that considering hatred as an aggravating (i.e., complicating) factor in a crime does not violate the First Amendment.
Now hate speech in particular usually takes the form of groupintimidation. Burning a cross on a lawn isn't just a personal message, it's for the entire group. Since white men are (in most situations) a large and (again in most situations) high status group, it *is* quite difficult to do the intimidating form of hate speech (although not necessarily other kinds like the harassing forms). However it is certainly a logical possibility.
Re:While the point could be valid (Score:5, Interesting)
That's pretty twisted, and is a slippery slope start.
I mean, that could be used if someone wanted to create an art exhibition of burning crosses, nooses, etc......it is imagery, but with this logic, someone could say it was "hate speech" even if none were intended, because someone claimed it intimidated them or hurt their feelings.
There should be no such thing as hate speech or hate laws......
The things they are added to are already illegal.
It is already illegal to threaten someone.
It is already illegal to assault, or kill someone.
Especially the murder one...I mean, the person is dead....what makes it worse if it was due to race? Someone kills a white guy.....dead.
It is worse if they killed the white guy for his money, or if they killed him for his race?
Dead is dead....so, no, there should not be "hate crimes". The crime is already against the law.
Re: (Score:2)
"I mean, that could be used if someone wanted to create an art exhibition of burning crosses, nooses, etc"
As with many crimes, the intent matters.
"It is worse if they killed the white guy for his money, or if they killed him for his race?"
Is it worse if they kill him for money, or by accident?
Is it worse if they kill him for his race, or because they thought he was a threat?
The end result is the same. Should the punishment be the same?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I should have been more specific, and said "murder"....although in context, I would have thought you would have understood that as a given....accidental killing and self defense are not murder which is illegal.
So, the question is....is it worse to murder a white guy for money than it is due to his
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference between murder and not murder is intent. Within the realm of murder, negligent manslaughter is a less significant crime than murder 1. All determined by intent, not outcome. Do you want to do away with that? Even within First degree homicide, there are aggravating factors that make the crime legally worse, like murder during a robbery, or murder during a kidnapping, including murder for profit.
So at least in some states, murdering for money gets you worse sentence, just like murderin
Re: (Score:2)
I think you confuse intent with motivation. Punishment should fit the crime, not the motivation. To do so is a step towards thought crime. I'm not saying it's a slippery slope. I'm saying it's just wrong.
Murder is the crime of killing someone with intent. Whether I kill someone because they slept with my wife or because I owe them money, it is the same crime. If I kill someone because I hate them for their their race or because of a grudge, why should one act be a hate crime and the other not?
Re: (Score:2)
What's the difference between intent and motivation?
Murdering someone for sleeping with your wife is not the same crime as murdering someone for money. Usually a profit motive is aggravating, leading to a worse sentence. Crimes of passion are usually charged with lesser homicides. It'll depend whether you plot to kill the guy or just kill him in the heat of the moment.
Hate crimes are attacks on people because of the type of person they are. They terrorize that type of person. Hate crimes are terrorism
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you confuse intent with motivation. Punishment should fit the crime, not the motivation. To do so is a step towards thought crime. I'm not saying it's a slippery slope. I'm saying it's just wrong.
IF motivation is taken out of the question, then murdering someone for their money versus killing someone in self defense are both equally bad crimes. A person got killed, the difference is the difference in motivation of the person doing the killing.
Also, are you familiar with the term "mens rea"?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the deep end anymore, this is the new normal.
In the past 20 years, Critical Race Theory has become the dominant philosophy in the Humanities in higher education. It is based on the idea that everything is a power struggle between classes, much like Marxism, except that the classes are divided by race and gender lines instead of economics. Individuals do not matter. Your defining characteristics are your skin color and your gender.
Racism has been re-defined to mean power + prejudice. Since white m
Re: (Score:2)
Re:While the point could be valid (Score:4, Insightful)
I never understood that twisted definition. I hear this commonly said, but it is completely made up. The words are "hate speech" not "denigrating speech targeted against a discriminated group"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:While the point could be valid (Score:5, Insightful)
You need a society where there is systematic abuse of white men
You mean like a society that has decided the only unprotected people are those that are both white and men?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:While the point could be valid (Score:5, Insightful)
>It's impossible because it's not possible for them to be victimized in that way.
Yeah, that's what the racist would say. Can't possibly murder a negro; at most it's damage to property, right?
>Having your feelings hurt != hate speech.
Concrete discrimination against whites today starts from exactly the ideology where whitey cannot possibly be hurt, or damaged, or discriminated against in any way. So we have things like gender-based admission quotas that stop applying the second that the proportion of women to men increases past 1:1, 3:2, or whatever it was; and assistance for the underclasses that're deliberately inapplicable to white people regardless of background.
Re:While the point could be valid (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, tell that to one of my white friends who escaped from Zimbabwe after her father was killed over the land they had. Her and her family escaped, but had a rather traumatic time getting out of the country (car jacked once, and her mother raped for being white).
Now that's racism.
Re: (Score:2)
Over the land they HAD? I mean I sympathize with them, and wish they never had to live these traumatic and racist events but please don't forget the historical perspective....
Historical perspective? White-owed farms in Zimbabwe were purchased from Robert Mugabes black government. You want to call all trades ever performed null and void?
Re:While the point could be valid (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's immoral to use race as a discriminator, then it's immoral regardless of the targeted race. If the racetype is used to determine the morality of the discrimination under the guise of fighting such discrimination, then the philosophy is illogical and self defeating.
You need a society where there is systematic abuse of white men before they could possibly be the victim of hate speech.
No. The individual situation matters, not some generalized assumption. You just need one person or institution in a position of power to discriminate for/against someone based on race for it to be an example of racism. The best thing for society is to provide a way for grievances to be heard in as unbiased a way as possible, equally, for ALL citizens. Your position (which is the popular GoodThink atm) demonizes specific groups (white/straight/male) by uniting everyone else against them (I'll let you draw the obvious historical parallels). By assuming it's just not possible for them to be discriminated against, you place them on second tier status, dehumanizing them.
Re: (Score:2)
>By assuming it's just not possible for them to be discriminated against, [...]
Moreover this assures that discrimination is exactly what will happen.
Re:While the point could be valid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: While the point could be valid (Score:5, Interesting)
Look again at society. If you want to see how disproportionately white men can be and are punished simply for being male and white, go to any court but especially family court.
Re: (Score:3)
Look again at society. If you want to see how disproportionately white men can be and are punished simply for being male and white, go to any court but especially family court.
Men may be discriminated against in family court, but that is because of their gender, not their race. I have been discriminated against because of my gender many times. The worst was when I was a girl scout*. I endured some horrific abuse from the other scouts that felt I had no right to be there. But the only anti-white discrimination was in other countries. For instance, in China, they often have a higher posted admission prices for foreigners, which in practice means non-Asian looking.
*Yes, I was a
Re: (Score:2)
The worst was when I was a girl scout.
Got any pics?
Re: (Score:3)
Look again at society. If you want to see how disproportionately white men can be and are punished simply for being male and white, go to any court but especially family court.
Black men in criminal court would beg to differ. And not just a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let's take the statistics. Blacks commit ~60% of all violent criminal offenses yet the prison population is ~40% black and ~40% white. Other statistics show similar discrepancies, with blacks being 16 times more likely to commit a crime yet only being 4 times more likely to end up in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
how mindbogglingly privileged and powerful women of any ethnicity are over men of any ethnicity.
Yes, as long as they're not ugly and/or fat. A fat chick is pretty low on the totem pole.
For instance:
Lucy Liu > Jackie Chan > the "Chut up" girl from Donnie Darko
Re: (Score:2)
>I am white, and I don't get offended at people insulting my race.
Calls for structural discrimination against whites is always an item of racism that you, even if you weren't white, are obliged to oppose; or fall short of the generally-approved ideas concerning the abolition of racism.
Re: (Score:2)
anti-white speech seems more funny than offensive
I wonder if these people [news.com.au] find it funny.
Re: (Score:2)
it's true those jokes about the Nazis throwing people into ovens are funny because Jews are white
Let's try.
"What's the best thing that ever came out of Auschwitz? Empty train wagons!"
vs
"What's the best thing that ever came out of Gitmo? Body bags!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Male drivers is also not protected. And statistically, males make up a greater proportion of the accidents, that's why the insurance premiums used to be smaller for women in the UK, until sex discrimination laws disallowed that, and made insurance companies charge the same as for male drivers.. Have to hate it when ideology trumps reality (I'm male, and was all for keeping the female discount, as that's exactly what reality was showing).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The model used for insurance payment is valid. If females drive less than males, so have less accidents, ,then overall, for a given set of money, a female driver is a safer bet in that slice of time.
SJW (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, this is SJW message shaping at its best (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, the article makes it seem like whites are protected while blacks aren't. That isn't the case, everyone in a group gets equal rights to censorship.
However this is a clear example of Simpson's Paradox, if you split up your sample set enough, you get contradictory results.
This is a direct result of SJW demands for censorship with a healthy dose of discrimination, you get a patchwork of rules that is neither based on word of law or common sense and can be cut and paste to fit pretty much every model.
You can boil down and extend every SJW argument using the same logic and see that what they are asking for is not protection but discrimination.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What SJW want is to use their victim status to seize power and make whatever rules they feel like at the moment. An algorithm can't give them what they want because they don't want something that has limits and rules, they only want absolute, aribitrary power that doesn't have to explain itself consistently.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to, they destroy their own platforms over time... see Twitter.
So slashdot has to propagate the ignorant outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, this is taking the example way out of context. It's a perfect example of training material giving examples that on the surface seem legitimate and the having the less obvious example be the right answer. The example is done to prove a point and make people pay attention to detail. When talking about "protected" in today's world, everyone thinks of anything but white men. That's the point here. The right answer of an entire race is hiding with subsets of a gender and race.
Had they shown a picture of black people, one of a white woman store clerk and one of white kids, people would have just chosen the picture of black people and not ever thought of why they did. To teach, you need to provoke thought, not just make it easy to select the right answer without knowing why.
Facebook's crime: banning racist posters (Score:2)
Didi Delgado, whose post stating that “white people are racist” was deleted, has been banned from Facebook so often that she has set up an account on another service called Patreon, where she posts the content that Facebook suppressed. In May, she deplored the increasingly common Facebook censorship of black activists in an article for Medium titled “Mark Zuckerberg Hates Black People.”
You don't have to be white to be a racist.
And we know ... (Score:2)
Seriously, consider the source.
BeauHD SJW to the rescue (Score:2)
You idiots. (Score:2)
The protected category of race includes black children and white men.
A great way for me to never listen to you again... (Score:2)
...is to speak honestly. Now I don't have to debate or wonder whether the OP is insane. They cut straight to the end. See, our culture is getting more efficient every year!
Thank you.
Clickbait Headlines (Score:2)
No Win Situation (Score:2)
Honestly, FB is in a no-win situation and should go hardcore for the First Amendment (which exists specifically to protect unpopular and/or offensive speech) and just be hands off with user content unless there are threats of violence or encouragements of harming one'self or another or violating the laws in the US... The race card in general and hate speech specifically is subjective and the term is already abused routinely by the fascist progressives on a daily basis.
Weird choice of examples (Score:2)
Obvious solution (Score:2)
The obvious solution is to keep adding protected classes. Of course the end result of that will be that everybody falls into a protected class, effectively making hate speech towards anybody off-limits. That means we'd all have to be nice to each other, or stop using FaceBook. Either way works for me.
Science is absolutely biased. (Score:2, Funny)
Biased toward facts and truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
Sounds like Oblivion to me. The Bible never refers to Hell as being a place where souls continue to exist in endless torment. Hell is always described as a fire or a lake of fire or a blazing furnace or everlasting destruction. These all describe destruction of the soul.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bible never refers to Hell as being a place where souls continue to exist in endless torment.
While there are many individual passages which are ambiguous on this point, the Bible as a whole is clear that Hell is a place (* actually two places, but that's not important here) of conscious torment for the wicked:
"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he sha
Re: (Score:2)
If given the choice, I would choose to be obliterated.
Why? What is so awful about the life which God freely offers to you through His Son Jesus Christ? Is there nothing which you enjoy - or once enjoyed - about life?
Life in this world can be very awful indeed, but that is entirely due to the effects of sin (not only yours, but also that of everyone else). Pain, disease, death, despair, hard labour, oppression, addiction, unsatisfied desire - all of these are present in our world only because of people (humans and angels) rebelling against God: they were not pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so you think we should be protecting racists? [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We have this thing called "sarcasm".
You should look into it.
Re: (Score:2)
They A/B test protected classes, then measure the outrage.
We all know the real list.
Ok to make fun of:
-white males and asian males
-fat people
-rednecks, creationists and pro-life
Mostly ok to make fun of:
-blonde girls
-gays, especially if they're rich and work in Silicon Valley
-mexicans
-midgets
-transgenders
Not ok to make fun of:
-women, but only womyn-born, excluding natural blondes
-african-americans
-muslims
-handicapped
Interestingly, that list is also sorted according to what people truly wished they were.