Facebook Apologizes After Flagging Declaration of Independence As Hate Speech (nymag.com) 370
To celebrate this week's holiday, The Vindicator, a small newspaper in Texas, posted sections of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." Yadda, yadda. You get the idea. But a section of the text containing the phrase "Indian Savages" set off Facebook's hate-speech flags. The post was then temporarily taken down by Facebook, Business Insider reports. From a report: He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. After The Vindicator ran a story on the censorship, Facebook corrected the mistake. "The post was removed by mistake and restored as soon as we looked into it. We process millions of reports each week, and sometimes we get things wrong," a Facebook spokesperson said. And honestly, as far as Facebook getting things wrong, this is an ideal "mistake."
Facebook hates America (Score:5, Insightful)
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natureâ(TM)s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. â" Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, i
Re:Facebook hates America (Score:5, Funny)
TLDR: Hey Britain, we're breaking up with you.
Re:Facebook hates America (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey Britain, we're breaking up with you.
It's not you, it's us. Hope we can still remain friends, but we're not gonna fuck anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't walk away mad just walk away
Re:Facebook hates America (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing this doesn't happen anymore.
Yes, apparently I am 12 (Score:4, Funny)
I reached this one section and immediately thought of Beevis and Butthead:
”He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people”
Hehe. Hehe. “Manly Firmness” hehe. Hehe.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is "fighting words" that started a war (Score:3)
But yeah. a phrase or two in there likely triggered a filter and/or facebook employee.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, are we supposed to annex Canada now? I must have missed that memo.
Re: (Score:3)
Letting through hate speech may make people angry, but it does not make people angry at facebook, or distrust facebook.
Censorship in a misguided attempt to control it makes people distrust facebook, especially when added onto other issues like records and data collection.
They think they're repairing their image when they're making it wors.
Re: (Score:3)
Funnily enough to, that didn't stop him owning hundreds of slaves and using them to work his plantations.
Jefferson neither bought nor sold a single slave.
He wound up finding himself the inheritor of his wife's family's slaves and estate.
His choices were to either not take them and then they and their families would be split up and sold, or take them in and allow them as good a life as possible.
Freeing them was against the law and a hanging offense at that time.
But of course, you don't really give a single shit about historical accuracy and what actually happened, you just want to bathe in cynicism and hate.
Hat
If it were written today (Score:5, Interesting)
In context of the 21st century, I think if it were written today plenty of people WOULD have a problem with the sentence "Indian Savages". Obviously the declaration of Independence wasn't intended as a "hate piece" but by today's morality I can't blame Facebook for automatically filtering it out per algorithm.
I'm not a fan of Facebook or censorship (although I think a private entity like Facebook has a right to keep content non-objectionable ON THEIR SITE- but not off it) but I think there is nothing wrong with Facebook's algorithm in this case- it did what it was written to do- it caught unwanted language on it's system.
I'm pretty sure a lot of Mark Twain's work would rightly get blocked too.
Re: If it were written today (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
Part of your anti-white washing of history conveniently ignores the genocidal brutality of the native population. White people were more effective, but certainly not any more brutal.
Re: If it were written today (Score:5, Interesting)
the genocidal brutality of the native population.
Different regions had different perspectives on war. Some of the pre-US tribes had a semi-civilized diplomatic system before they engaged in any sort of organized violence, but no method to even identify stray cross-tribe killings. Some tribes held an oddly simple revenge model, where any offense was met by a raid, with no actual concern for how much death or damage was done. There is a region where until a few decades ago, all offenses or suspected offenses were punished by death (it was the second generation of missionaries that was able to contact them alive). Some regions saw any inter-tribal offense as grounds to kill the other tribe entirely (until some pale-skinned boat-riders with a wierd language offered booze and guns in exchange for enslaving other tribes).
Not all tribal cultures were genocidal, but most human cultures have a history of brutality (otherwise they would've been conquered by another culture).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the genocidal brutality of the native population.
Different regions had different perspectives on war. Some of the pre-US tribes had a semi-civilized diplomatic system before they engaged in any sort of organized violence, but no method to even identify stray cross-tribe killings. Some tribes held an oddly simple revenge model, where any offense was met by a raid, with no actual concern for how much death or damage was done. There is a region where until a few decades ago, all offenses or suspected offenses were punished by death (it was the second generation of missionaries that was able to contact them alive). Some regions saw any inter-tribal offense as grounds to kill the other tribe entirely (until some pale-skinned boat-riders with a wierd language offered booze and guns in exchange for enslaving other tribes).
Not all tribal cultures were genocidal, but most human cultures have a history of brutality (otherwise they would've been conquered by another culture).
It's almost as if "Native Americans" isn't actually a single homogeneous group.
Re: If it were written today (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
And I am sure the reason that I see no Native Americans where I live (in an area of the country surrounded by Native American place names, Indian settlement/burial sites, and even living in a county with the name of a tribe) was because they all just got up one day and decided to take a little stroll out West.
Large number of Indians were killed by disease (Score:4, Informative)
When the settlers came, they killed off a huge amount of indians via disease. You can read Squanto's account of America after his return; a land that was full of people was basically a ghost town.
It's crazy, but disease probably wiped out an order of magnitude more people than the US did.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, many Indians were in fact savages. Savagery on both sides just makes both sides savages, it doesn't make the term "savage" any less appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if they are like where I live, they are too busy running casino gambling, bingo and cigarettes without taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If it were written today (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, you know, we can admit that "savages" describes tribal people with little technological advancement
How much technological advancement is needed in your mind to represent a nation, or a civilization? They clearly had a well formed system of art, societal structure, justice and political structure.
who raped and murdered each other for 10,000 years before white people showed up, then happily raped and murdered them too.
Did they rape and murder more than Europeans did to each other? I'd be interesting to see your logic behind that. I'm sure they had wars- just as Europeans did. Certainly some tribes and the Aztecs had some questionable practices that were pretty brutal, but the same can't be said for all of them.
Part of your anti-white washing of history conveniently ignores the genocidal brutality of the native population. White people were more effective, but certainly not any more brutal.
I think that that is probably subjective, but that I would disagree. There is no evidence they were more brutal than the white people. People are people wherever you go. I also suspect that it varied dramatically based on tribe. Can you blame the Swedish for Belgium's brutal tactics in the Congo? Or the Irish for the holocaust in Germany? You can't blame all natives and their nations for what one or two tribes might have done.
Re: If it were written today (Score:2, Insightful)
Certainly some tribes and the Aztecs had some questionable practices that were pretty brutal
You heard it here, folks; carving the still beating hearts out of (lowballing) 4,000 people in 4 days in order to celebrate the building of a temple is a "questionable practice". Rather akin to jaywalking in many ways.
There is no evidence they were more brutal than the white people.
Even if that were true, the Deceleration isn't comparing them to all white people in all of human history. There's loads of evidence that natives (even the kindler, gentler North American variety) were far more brutal than the British colonists / budding revolutionaries who wrote the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If it were written today (Score:3)
P.P.S. jaywalking and carving out beating hearts, both deplorable.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly some tribes and the Aztecs had some questionable practices that were pretty brutal
You heard it here, folks; carving the still beating hearts out of (lowballing) 4,000 people in 4 days in order to celebrate the building of a temple is a "questionable practice". Rather akin to jaywalking in many ways.
More or less questionable than executing women because somebody said they were witches?
Re: If it were written today (Score:3, Insightful)
More or less questionable than executing women because somebody said they were witches?
The institutionalised slaughter of tens of hundreds of thousands of people over hundreds of years, vs the execution of a few dozen women in an isolated area during a moral panic?
I dunno, man, they're so close that I can barely tell them apart. It's like trying to decide what's worse: the transatlantic slave trade, or that one guy who locked his daughter in the basement. An impossible task, to be sure.
Re: If it were written today (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep, communism wins. Also crusades are a shit example; they pale in comparison to the very similar Islamic rampages through Europe. Then there's Genghis Khan, who probably beats both of them combined when it comes to the body count.
Holocaust is a decent example though. Not because of "the numbers", though. We're talking about barbarity, and the total death toll is just one aspect of it.
Re: If it were written today (Score:3)
Don't forget the Taiping Rebellion, where the Chinese had to fight off the deranged escapades of delusional Christian converts. As many as 100 million died between 1850 and 1864.
Your own source gives contradictory numbers about total dead, but it seems to lean more towards a figure like 20-30 million rather than your 100. It also points out that the majority of those were due to famine and disease rather than "barbarity" as you would have us believe.
The more important issue, though, is that you've mischaracterized the entire conflict. This is explained by your own source:
"The Taiping Rebellion began in the southern province of Guangxi when local officials launched a campaign of r
Re: If it were written today (Score:5, Insightful)
How much technological advancement is needed in your mind to represent a nation, or a civilization?
Beyond stone age would be a good start.
Did they rape and murder more than Europeans did to each other?
Yes, they did. Don't idealize - murder rates are much higher in primitive societies, and tribal warfare has far higher casualty rates per capita than modern warfare*. The 20th century set every record for scale -- Mao murdered more than anyone in history -- but for percentage murdered, tribal living is the worst.
*With the possible exception of old-school naval boarding actions, which were right up there with tribal warfare for appalling casualty rates, for pretty much the same reason: when matched forces go all-in until one side is incapable of continuing the fight, 50% casualties on the winning side is common.
Re: (Score:2)
How much technological advancement is needed in your mind to represent a nation, or a civilization? They clearly had a well formed system of art, societal structure, justice and political structure.
As much or more than mine. At least, to be on equal footing. If you lag behind my civilization, then your civilization is... lesser. But even a hive of of ants is still a "nation". Just one I don't mind crushing nonchalantly. If aliens come down and casually vaporize the moon or hand us magical eternal megawatt batteries, then hey, I for one welcome our new vaporizing overlords. ...And none of those examples are technology. Arts, social structure, justice, and politics.... aren't tech. Signs of civilizat
Re: (Score:3)
The concentration camps were manned and run by members of the SS, not your run of the mill Nazi conscript. And yes, you can blame all SS for what some SS did - they were all volunteers, and all fanatically dedicated to carrying out their Furher's wishes.
Re: If it were written today (Score:4, Interesting)
Indian savages were the bioweapons of their time; indiscriminate killing machines paid off by the crown to slaughter it's enemies. Got a settlement that's giving you trouble? Offer the Indians some beads, guns, and booze. No more settlement.
Of course it was a bioweapon that also had a mind of it's own and tended to blow up in your face, which was rather a large downside.
Re: (Score:3)
c6gunner - you just described the United States foreign policy in the Middle East - Irag, Libya, etc. How's that working out? The ongoing civil war in Libya is causing oil disruptions - it might even push gas prices up above $4.00 this summer. That might dent your pocket book due to your rebel flag adorned pickup truck that gets 8 miles per gallon. How sad.
And how the f**k did your ignorant, racist, historical lie get modded up? You must be a clever little sock puppet.
European invaders were the real bi
Re:If it were written today (Score:4, Insightful)
Censors never expect their own speech may one day become censored.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's kinda funny how, what you see as a perfectly acceptable instance of filtering out "bad speech", I see as a perfect example of why filtering "bad speech" is wrong.
I find it perfectly acceptable for a private institution like facebook. I don't personally use facebook, but if I did, I'd be quite happy with not having to wade through all the racist and intolerant crap you see some places. There are very few places where terms such as "Indian Savages" are used in an intelligent and useful way.
I would not find it in the least bit acceptable if the government ran censorship like that however and censored any text. A private company- yes, that's fine. The government...
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't it? That particular part of the US declaration of independence relates to the settler's desire not to be restricted in waging war with native Americans. Something that is today widely regarded as something between a mistake and genocide.
Historical documents, no matter how lofty and idealistic, are often filled with nasty little details that reflect more of the realities of the day than we'd like to remember.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't it? That particular part of the US declaration of independence relates to the settler's desire not to be restricted in waging war with native Americans. Something that is today widely regarded as something between a mistake and genocide.
Historical documents, no matter how lofty and idealistic, are often filled with nasty little details that reflect more of the realities of the day than we'd like to remember.
Fair enough. I'll concede that at least part of it might therefore be considered hate-speech. That certainly wasn't the whole point of it, but was at least part of it.
Re: If it were written today (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't it? That particular part of the US declaration of independence relates to the settler's desire not to be restricted in waging war with native Americans.
Nonsense. Far from imposing restrictions on waging war, the British crown had a history of encouraging Indian attacks against the colonials. THAT is what this passage is complaining about. It's pretty damn clear: "has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages". As in "has actively worked to have indians slaughter our frontier colonists".
Historical documents, no matter how lofty and idealistic, are often filled with nasty little details that reflect more of the realities of the day than we'd like to remember.
Yeah, especially when you misinterpret them due to some misguided desire to find nasty little details.
Interestingly enough the very next paragraph which Jefferson wrote for the Deceleration was originally a condemnation of the British for failing to stop the slave trade. It was struck out of the final draft because the southern colonies objected, but, in the context of this discussion, it seems rather unlikely that in one breath Jefferson would be complaining "you won't let us kill the injuns" while in the next he's saying "you won't stop enslaving Africans", don't you think?
Re: If it were written today (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 wasn't a thing, and the young United States of America didn't pursue westward expansion, manifest destiny, continentalism, or any of those other nasty bits. Jefferson himself didn't preside over the Louisiana purchase, opening up quite a bit of territory west of the Mississippi. Jefferson was extremely anti-slavery, not being himself a prominent slave owner, and he immediately freed all his slaves as soon as the declaration was signed.
The British weren't saints. Neither were the American colonists, nor the native Americans.
Re: If it were written today (Score:2)
Sure, because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 wasn't a thing
Oh it was definitely a thing, it just has absolutely nothing to do with the Deceleration. Kinda like how the Microsoft EULA is also a thing which has nothing to do with the Deceleration. You can't just name random documents to try and support your position.
and the young United States of America didn't blah blah blah
Equally irrelevant.
The British weren't saints. Neither were the American colonists, nor the native Americans.
Who said they were? You seem to be arguing with yourself now. The fact that the Brits and the colonists did some bad shit has nothing to do with the meaning of this particular passage, or the broader question of whether "Indian sava
Re: If it were written today (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. What's why that document and the Constitution need to be thrown out. As the supreme justice Ginsberg said, she wouldn't use the Constitution as the basis for any sane form of government. She wants to stop using it.
Fuck that. (Score:5, Insightful)
"rightly"
There is no reason to block Mark Twain.
Listen here, I"m no right-winger, but facts are FACTS:
1) People were racist in the past
2) a lot of people
3) and they tortured and they maimed and they killed and they raped
4) and they wrote fiction, nonfiction, history, and philosophy about it
This is our inheritance as human beings. Any notion of "rightly blocking" racism, violence, sexism, etc. is nothing more or less than book burning.
If a politician today says something racist, by all means don't vote for them.
But if Mark Twain or Thomas Jefferson says something racist, and you decide that this means that we have to erase Mark Twain or Thomas Jefferson from history, all I have to say is: human history belongs to all of us, and it's both unpleasant and educational. So a big fuck you to the book burners.
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK to have an automatic filter that rejects some posts (as long as the filter works mostly correctly and there are no negative consequences for a false positive). Though in this case they should have had famous public domain texts that are acceptable in the database so that parts of those texts could be posted without triggering the filter.
Re: (Score:2)
If the majority of colonists had wanted to commit genocide there wouldn't have been any full blood Indian left.
Re: (Score:2)
But the native americans in those days WERE SAVAGES. Let's keep our language aligned with reality ok? Fuck peoples' feefees.
Political system and organization: check. Language, culture and arts: check. Social structure that looked out for all people: check
A couple of tribes (Iroquois, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs and a few others) had political systems, most didn't (their groups were just too small to need them). They all did have a spoken language (obviously) but only the southern empires (Mayan, Aztec and Incas) had a written form of language. The social structure part is present in many groups and isn't really part of any definition of civilization.
In fact, what we use as the "line in the sand" for what defines a civilization is writing. Which would mean onl
Re: (Score:2)
Stone age, no written language. Primitive, not "culturally different" or whatever PC delusion you'll spout next. Sure, "savage" also implies aggressive against the colonials, not simply primitive, but that was objectively true.
Re: (Score:2)
malice indistinguishable from incompetence (Score:3, Insightful)
Because of the clear leftward lean of Tech/social media companies, there will be a natural inclined to suspect every thing they decide to remove from their systems or block. This is a self created position that is the result of past actions that seemed pretty clearly anti-one-political-party.
I think people understand that this sort of thing is possible and can accept that mistakes happen, but that cant be accepted when the organizations like Facebook have burned up whatever good faith they had.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't let the fact that they said it was a mistake get in the way if a good rant, eh...
It's just the result of them using algorithms because there is too much material for humans to review. It's a non story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
um (Score:2, Insightful)
Fake news is not an imaginary thing.
When only 7% of journalists are Republicans [washingtonpost.com] in a country as evenly divided as ours, there is NO WAY the news is unbiased or biased in favor of the right.
When those almost totally left wing reporters then provide coverage of a Republican president that is more than 90% negative [washingtonpost.com] even as the economy is booming and consumer confidence is at an 18 year high [marketwatch.com] it's a sign that something is off-balance in the newsrooms.
When those same left wing journalists (who insist they are "ma
Dang (Score:2)
Savages? (Score:2)
I thought they were all programmers.
Facebook was right (Score:2, Insightful)
The Declaration of Independence does contain hate speech against Native Americans. These are the same Native Americans that the SCOTUS has sided with regarding US violation of multiple treaties. Here's one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The language in that document regarding Native Americans was hateful, racist and unjust then, and it still is now.
Facebook's algorithm was right.
This doesn't mean Facebook hates the US, or freedom, or white people. This does mean that our past, present, and future are f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Hate speech" wasn't invented as a concept until the late 20th century, so regarding a two-centuries old text by the standards of political correctness makes about as much sense as criticizing its spelling and capitalization by current standards.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hate speech" wasn't invented as a concept until the late 20th century, so regarding a two-centuries old text by the standards of political correctness makes about as much sense as criticizing its spelling and capitalization by current standards.
Doesn't mean that we as an evolved modern society can't recognize the faults in it. We can acknowledge that in those days they didn't consider it immoral, but that living in a more enlightened time that we do.
Slave owners probably didn't think they were bad people or that they were doing wrong. In their time it was acceptable. We today can recognize it was wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Competition for scarce resources does that to humans. All humans.
Sometimes these resources are land, water, cattle, or fertile women. Here are some examples from your past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Exterminating a native population because you don't want to deal with them is savage.
What do you see when you look in the mirror?
Re: (Score:2)
... wasn't invented until the late 20th century? Are you sure about that?
The more [wikipedia.org] things [wikipedia.org] change [wikipedia.org] the more they stay the same [wiktionary.org].
Come out from the shadows, Anonymous Coward. Show yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Not hate speech, some tribe were brutal savages that committed atrocities, even to other tribes.
Your link to Souix issue has nothing to do with that fact.
Re: (Score:2)
My link to the SCOTUS ruling in favor of the Sioux has everything to do with the now established legal fact that Native Americans have been treated unjustly by the United States of America, and that this is evidenced in the very language of the Declaration of Independence, properly identified by Facebook's algorithm.
Conflicts between the Utes and Navajo, for example, were no different than conflicts between the Germans and the French, or the Mongolians and the Chinese.
Thank you for helping point out that sa
Re: (Score:2)
Some indeed have been treated unjustly, horribly.
I correctly differentiate between the various tribes and nations, some had very evil cultures.
Some tribes deserved worse than they got, they were evil savages.
But wait, there's more! (Score:4, Funny)
How many of you remember when NPR tweeted out the Declaration of Independence line by line and a bunch of Trump supporters got mad because they thought it was about Trump? It happened last year, and it happened again this year.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/julia... [buzzfeed.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the classic, "I'm not really stupid, I was just joking!" defense.
Always a winner.
i am waiting... (Score:2)
were sorry about 1776 & 1812, we just wanted to own our own piece of the pie, but we screwed it up and freedom is just a mirage in the desert
Not going well at all... (Score:2)
Um... they're not wrong (Score:2)
Just because the Dec of Independence (and by extension America) has a lot of good parts doesn't mean we should pretend the bad didn't exist.
Re: Um... they're not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes sense. Kinda how the phrase "white supremacist" clearly implies that all white people are supremacists. Or how "Islamic militant" is obviously a deceleration that all Muslims are violent terrorists.
Oh wait ...
H1B Made the Code (Score:4, Insightful)
Shadow of Greatness (Score:2)
Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
-an American president, 1995
As so clearly demonstrated FB’s automated “flagging”, the United States no longer enjoy any forms of freedom of s
Re: (Score:2)
You're very confused. Facebook is a company and can erase anything they want on their systems. Freedom of speech only has to do with government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and since they can be liable for content, they have the right to delete anything out of an abundance of caution.
Re: (Score:2)
"corporations shouldn't be regulated. Let the free market decide!"
Yeah, we found out how well that worked out. Let's try it again, but with the predominant methods people use for modern communication. It'll be different this time!
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe corporations should be regulated, but the content on the website is correctly their choice. Especially since they can be liable for it. Can't have it both ways, if you think Facebook should be punished for hosting KKK or anti-gay hate-group rantings or inciting to violence, then they get to delete what they want.
Zero Tolerance + Instant Action = False Positives (Score:2)
Don't be surprised. Don't be outraged. It's very simple. If you want ZERO tolerance for specific words and you want immediate action, then you're going to get false positives. Zero tolerance is implemented to prevent tragedies.
"No, you may not bring your loaded pistol on this plane."
"You have murdered 300 people, you're going to prison for life. The State may just kill you."
But there are things that seem extreme to people with no rational worldly context. Words, of all things, do not need zero tolerance mea
When context matters (Score:2)
I am no fan of Facebook and I do not have an account. But maybe Facebook is trying to fight a losing battle here! I think most humans would make this mistake since it would appear to be a no brainier in the PC correct, overly sensitive, I'm a victim society we have in America.
When one first
1984 +34 (Score:2)
Hate speech (Score:2)
...the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Sounds like hate speech to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Noble Savage was a literary movement (Score:2)
From Encyclopedia Britannica [britannica.com]: "Noble savage, in literature, an idealized concept of uncivilized man, who symbolizes the innate goodness of one not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization.
The glorification of the noble savage is a dominant theme in the Romantic writings of the 18th and 19th centuries, especially in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. For example, Émile, ou, De l’education, 4 vol. (1762), is a long treatise on the corrupting influence of traditional education; the auto
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I read somewhere that two-thirds of colonial citizens didn't care who won the Revolutionary War. Fast forward 242 years, two-third of American citizens don't care who wins the presidential election. Some things never change.
Well, the benefits for independence weren't as strong for the average person back then as might be expected. Sure, it is everyone's rights to self-determination but some of the grievances like "high taxes" might not have been completely fair- I think I read once that Britain paid more to defend the American colonies than they received in taxes. (obviously Britain also got a benefit of using the colonies to ship raw materials home that was used to improve the home economy too).
It is almost certainly a good
Re:We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions (Score:4, Insightful)
Do other countries have such guilt for existing as the U.S. seems to have?
Most countries and borders that exist today are there because of war and taking from natives.
Re: (Score:3)
Anzac regions... South America.... also have pushed out native populations. Africa and the Middle East long history of enslaving each other and fighting each other. Same with Asia. Europe has more than it's fair share of bloody hands.
Yes, every country is guilty of at least some atrocity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the ones that sincerely try to deal with their past wrongs. This in general means democracies. If you think we have problems in this regard, consider South Africa.
Re: We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions (Score:3)
They have property rights same as everyone else. Don't be a spaz. The fact that reservations are designed to be a Communist Utopia is irrelevant to the individual rights of the natives themselves.
Those who prefer a true capitalist community tend to move off the rez and live elsewhere. Those who prefer the "traditional native society" tend to stay there. We don't have some berlin-wall type structure keeping them from finding a better life on the other side; they have the freedom to choose.
Re: We Don't Have To Stand Behind Past Decisions (Score:2)
Right, I forgot, poor people can't make choices. They're just mindless automatons following a predefined program. Thank you so much for reminding me that I shouldn't think of them as human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And because there are canine teeth in your head you think it's in your best interest to act like a dog, to justify your own savagery?
Your self-congratulatory back-patting may cause you to pull something. Be careful. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
>"We don't have to stand behind it today. We shouldn't."
Indeed. I wouldn't ever deny the horrible things that happened in history. But I won't ignore the great and wonderful things either. What happened to the Native Americans was way beyond unfortunate- something that inevitably seems to happen whenever ANY more technologically advanced culture on the move encounters another. History is full of it, all over the world. Going back far enough, I am sure my European ancestors were slaves or slave owner
Re: (Score:2)
There is a big difference between "I don't support the racist bits" and "erase all of that from history."
The former is perfectly justifiable. The latter deserves the guillotine.
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce, this article and it's entire thread remind me of a Johnny Cash song, recorded live: "Folsom Prison Blues".
When I was just a baby
My Mama told me, "Son
Always be a good boy
Don't ever play with guns, "
But I shot a man in Reno
Just to watch him die...
At that point in the recording the audience of prison inmates cheers wildly.
I feel like I'm in the middle of that crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We won. Fuck off. You know what? The next group that wins won't give a shit either. No nation has ever been built on self pity. I stand behind victory and building great things. You go ahead and stand behind being a victim. It may make you feel better for yourself, but it really does cut into long term survival rates. The universe doesn't give a fuck about what you feel.
Are you sure? [wikipedia.org]
Re: Filters should not replace human review. (Score:5, Funny)