Facebook HATE GROUP

[Tattooed Goddess]

But where does it stop? Now we can't watch viral videos because it has digusting and objectionable content to some people. Watching some guy get beheaded over in a 3rd world country or splattered by a car is completely disgusting to see, and even some of the video comments are mocking the death of some poor person who didn't make it across the street, but should that mean its not allowed to be seen or commented on?

Should the sites that allow these comments and videos be shut down because, say, someone like my Mom couldnt bear to watch it? Should i prohibit videos of people jumping off of buildings because i had a loved one die the same way?

This is about freedom of speech, even if its offensive, rude or different. Does that person getting their head cut off make me more inclined to raise my children to want to behead others? Or for myself to want to behead someone? Not necessarily. Or else the Saw Movie Franchise would have been responsible for a lot of murders copying the mantra that its ok to murder people with flaws.

People who are evil are going to do evil no matter what anyone has to say about it. People seem to forget that. Does it mean we put up with everything? No. But it also doesnt mean that you hold everyone accountable for feeling the exact same way about it that you do.

And i'll admit i didnt read all the pages in this thread. But i've seen enough of the argument that "So you think hating gay people is a good thing" that i get the jist of some of the attitude from both sides.

 

[Gillette]

The response here is disgusting...damn near as bad as the group itself. A huge part of the freedom of speech, kids, is learning to tolerate the opinions of others with whom you disagree.

This lynch mob mentality to silence others is revolting.

This isn't chastisement?

It wouldn't bother me in the least. I'd think they were idiots for doing it, especially considering the nanny-state mentality of those policing this place, but I'd otherwise pay it no mind.

The point of distinction, in my opinion, exists where expression becomes action. Expressing hatred in and of itself, while certainly ugly, is not something I consider to be worthy of suppression. Once the rhetoric becomes incitement to act, the line has been crossed and sanctions should follow.

My point is that sometimes if the hate speech or propaganda is gradual and insidious enough that by the time words become action there is sufficient acceptance of the position that the action will not or cannot be halted.



Suppression of expression is almost never a good thing, and should never be applied without the most clear necessity.

I'm glad you say almost. That means you recognize that sometimes it is.

After all, what constitutes offensive material is entirely subjective and will vary from person to person...so whose standard of acceptability do you propose to judge all others by?

By his own. As I will do by my own. As you have done in this thread by your own. Doesn't that seem obvious?

The burden is on each of us to express our views when and as we feel necessary. In the case of this facebook group the only recourse that has a chance of effectiveness is to report it at which point facebook determines whether or not they want this group to exist on their site and those reporting & those of the group itself have to abide by the site's decision.

 

[2322]

Key word bolded.
What in that hate group implied respect of gays to you?

Not a thing.

The problem with the anti-censorship argument with regard to hate groups is that it relies on each individual weighing what is said and reaching the right/rational/intelligent/balanced/educated conclusion about it. Have you taken a good look at your fellow man? There are entirely too many sheeple who are too lazy to do their own thinking and arrive at their own conclusions. The very fact that advertizing works is proof of this.

Not your choice to make. Simple as that. You're in no more position the suitability of your fellow man to decide what is right or wrong than your fellow man is. If people are too lazy or indiscriminate by your standards, then that's the same as saying, "I know what's best for everyone else," and we know how great that works in practice. If you think that's the case then you're no better than the hate groups who think they know better.

What starts as a small group spreading hate unchallenged becomes a larger group, and as they spread that hate unchallenged more sheeple will think, "hey, no one is objecting so it must be okay", and on it grows.

Apathy -> desensitization -> acceptance.

The nazi comparison is apt. It was the steadily increasing propaganda against the jews that made it possible to sway an entire nation into compliance with the holocaust.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

The two of you advocate doing nothing. Fie on you.

Well no, using that same advertising analogy, how many people actually go out and buy a product because of an ad? Very, very, few out of the total audience the ad reaches, the usual range is 1%-6% for print and TV.

I've said nothing about challenging speech with which we disagree. I'm all for that if you feel strongly about an issue. What I have been railing against is censorship. I thought it would be obvious that if I was promoting free speech that I naturally had no problem with opposition to unpopular speech. At no time have I advocated doing nothing in response despite what you've said. I carefully articulated my position by saying in my first post:

I have no problem with Facebook deciding what to do what they want with their own property.

What I do not care for is the intolerant mob mentality that forced the group to be shut down. It's as bad as having a pro-gay group being shut-down by the same mechanism.

And no, I've never reported homophobic speech at LPSG. I think it better to try to convince people of the error of their thinking than to tell them they have no right to be respected.

I hope this resolves your concern.

 

[Gillette]

But where does it stop? Now we can't watch viral videos because it has digusting and objectionable content to some people. Watching some guy get beheaded over in a 3rd world country or splattered by a car is completely disgusting to see, and even some of the video comments are mocking the death of some poor person who didn't make it across the street, but should that mean its not allowed to be seen or commented on?

How do you equate graphic images to hate speech?
I think you've lost the plot.

 

[D_Portelay Porquesword]

This whole hate campaign issue is nothing new.

People are overly sensitive these days, as a result more and more conflict results in a burdened legal system treading water, processing frivolous law suits of the offended people. Most of which have taken issue and personalized every day occurrences such as spilled McDonald's coffee or on the lack of common sense side, the housewife trying to dry her dog in the microwave.

I don't agree that hate in any form should be promoted via the web, esp among the younger set.

Freedom of expression has been perverted and twisted into a vehicle for some nutbars to promote their brand of hate.

I grow weary of the hate issues and promoters that seem to have reared their ugly heads here of late. Esp the fighting among members here on this website. Be responsible for yourselves, your actions and stop passing the buck and avoiding the fact that the rules were broken.

I hope the parents of the kid that started the FB hate group found out about what he/she was up to.

 

[Pendlum]

I agree with Nick8. I don't this mob mentality that people are talking about. The closest thing is the person who shelled out that guys name to the college groups, and that is just one person. The report function is just a streamlined way of protesting in this case. It could be reported a million times, but it is still up to the owners of Facebook (or the people the designate to handle situations like this) on the actions. Would you rather everyone write emails to Facebook outlining their disgust? I think in this case that the report function is the internet version of the protest sign. I agree with jason, HG, etc, that censorship isn't a good thing, but this isn't censorship. Facebook isn't a real public forum. It only sort of has that feel to it. But it is still a business. If they want, they can setup their own web server and then nobody could stop them. Short of DDOS and things like that. THAT would be more akin to mob mentality, not clicking report.

 

[HazelGod]

This isn't chastisement?

Your myopia is astounding. You've assumed, quite erroneously, that my repudiation of your characterization of my message would be rooted in something as pedantic as verbiage. Of course I was chastising. Or berating. Or even lambasting. All that searching, cutting, and pasting to prove something that was never in dispute. :no:

I'll repeat: try again, with an eye toward the larger picture.
(Hint: look again at what I quoted and focus on the why, rather than the what)

I'm glad you say almost. That means you recognize that sometimes it is.

Actually, it means that I recognize the inherent folly of dealing in absolutes...nothing more.

 

[Gillette]

I've said nothing about challenging speech with which we disagree. I'm all for that if you feel strongly about an issue. What I have been railing against is censorship. I thought it would be obvious that if I was promoting free speech that I naturally had no problem with opposition to unpopular speech.

I'm all for the idea of a balanced debate so that anyone reading can get informed on both sides of an issue and/or view. However, where the facebook group has the power to erase those opposing views that isn't a viable option.


Here's the thing, these people haven't been vanished or muzzled, they've only been denied the right to spread this particular view on this particular site. Facebook has the right to determine what they are or are not willing to host. By the same token I would tell a friend to STFU or leave if they launched a platform on pro-choice during a dinner party I was hosting even though I am pro-choice myself. Whether I agree with the position or not the fact that this person making an ass of themselves is my guest which reflects on me as the host, hence, I don't want it. Is it still the bogeyman of censorship if I'm in agreement with what I want discontinued on my turf or is it a simple case of 'my house, my rules, suck it up'?

I don't see reporting this group as censorship. I see it as asking the host, "Is this okay by you?".

The crazies and the hate filled have avenues aplenty to express themselves. I don't see one private entity saying, "not here", to be particularly restrictive.

 

[Gillette]

You chastise people for reporting their objections to a facebook group.

No, I didn't. Try again, with an eye toward the larger picture.

Your myopia is astounding. You've assumed, quite erroneously, that my repudiation of your characterization of my message would be rooted in something as pedantic as verbiage. Of course I was chastising. Or berating. Or even lambasting. All that searching, cutting, and pasting to prove something that was never in dispute. :no:

Verbiage is key, HG, I read posts not minds.
With regards to my myopia : right eye -2.75, left eye -2.50 if you must know, but you needn't use the larger font on my account.

I'll repeat: try again, with an eye toward the larger picture.
(Hint: look again at what I quoted and focus on the why, rather than the what)

No.
I'm a literal person and my habit is to read the specific case and the arguments pertaining to it. If you want me to see a larger picture, paint it.

 

[B_Nick8]

I've said nothing about challenging speech with which we disagree. I'm all for that if you feel strongly about an issue. What I have been railing against is censorship. I thought it would be obvious that if I was promoting free speech that I naturally had no problem with opposition to unpopular speech. At no time have I advocated doing nothing in response despite what you've said. I carefully articulated my position by saying in my first post:

For the record Jason (and HG), proponents of all speech free, perhaps we need to clarify. Did the "reporting" of that group constitute censorship, something in which I do not believe? I don't think so.

As far as I'm concerned, I was bringing to the attention of FB's private owners a group about which I had what I felt were legitimate concerns and objections. And I used the Comments section to be quite explicit about what those concerns and objections were. I was very clear that I did not wish to be part of a site which either allowed and/or encouraged groups of that sort, that if they were allowed to continue I would disassociate myself and that I would encourage anyone else I knew to do the same. That is my right. Just as I would not choose to hang out in a bar or nightclub which included elements which made me feel uncomfortable or unwelcome or generally detracted from the quality of my experience.

This is not because I do not choose to engage in meaningful debate with those who disagree with me; quite the opposite. I enjoy that. It's because there are those with whom it has been my experience that no meaningful debate is possible. I am certainly not about to spend the time to start an internet sensitivity training group or give them a seminar on conflict resolution.

If any censorship resulted, ie: the shutting down of what apparently you feel is a legitimate expression of free speech, your comments might be better directed at the owners of FaceBook themselves because it is they who bear responsibility for such censorship as may have occurred (although, to them, it may simply have been a prudent business decision). To my mind, all we've done here is register our disapproval. Hitting a report button only puts the subject on the front burner; it's up to the powers that be to make a final determination. I understand that you are both making a larger point for the benefit of lpsg's members but I don't see anything (aside from the odd comment in this thread) that doesn't meet your First Amendment standards so perhaps we can dispense with the civics and philosophy lessons.

 

[HazelGod]

Verbiage is key, HG, I read posts not minds.
With regards to my myopia : right eye -2.75, left eye -2.50 if you must know, but you needn't use the larger font on my account.

I was once -4.75 left and -5 right...LASIK, baby. Just do it. :wink:

I'm a literal person and my habit is to read the specific case and the arguments pertaining to it. If you want me to see a larger picture, paint it.

I did...in brilliant hues, no less. You're a very intelligent woman, and I haven't the patience to do anyone else's thinking for them. If you can't (or won't) understand what I've said, then this is where we come to a close on this matter.

 

[HazelGod]

For the record Jason (and HG), proponents of all speech free, perhaps we need to clarify. Did the "reporting" of that group constitute censorship, something in which I do not believe?

Of course not...but this was never my point in the first place. I've never been looking at the narrow constraints of this one incident.

I understand that you are both making a larger point for the benefit of lpsg's members but I don't see anything (aside from the odd comment in this thread) that doesn't meet your First Amendment standards so perhaps we can dispense with the civics and philosophy lessons.

Apparently, we cannot. You're citing statute when others are discussing the rationale behind their ever coming into being. Perhaps too much time has gone by without us seeing that philosophy tested in open court...or perhaps too many today can't be arsed to shed their ignorance and understand the why. This is what makes groupthink such a revolting phenomenon.

If any censorship resulted, ie: the shutting down of what apparently you feel is a legitimate expression of free speech, your comments might be better directed at the owners of FaceBook themselves because it is they who bear responsibility for such censorship as may have occurred

Bollocks. This is on par with blaming the manufacturer of a firearm for the death of the person you shot. You knew goddamn well what the end result of your action would be when you pulled the trigger. The purpose of this thread was to have an unpopular message silenced, plain and simple. The mechanism and semantics are immaterial to me...it's the intent that I find so appalling.

 

[D_JJzzkk11]

A few people here seem to be forgetting that facebook is a private organization - and that statements, groups and profiles made on it need to abide by their rules. There is no more "freedom of speech" there then on any other online forum.

Pointing to the moderators that someone is breaking the forum rules (ie no hate speech or cyber bullying) isn't a form of censorship - it's just "dobbing" if you will - ensuring everyone's following the rules. Everyone accepts that there's plenty of hate speech on the net, and no one cares too much. But when it's on facebook - a site which explicitly prohibits such behaviour - it should not be tolerated. I would have reported the hate group if it were against rangas, gays, muslims, or Joe Blogs from summerville high.

 

[B_Nick8]

Of course not...but this was never my point in the first place. I've never been looking at the narrow constraints of this one incident.

Then perhaps you need to understand one of my points: while I admit this thread was a call to arms of sorts, it was to me a source of information; otherwise I would never have known about the existence of this FB group as I rarely, if ever, use the site. So, for me it was informative and gave me a opportunity to register an opinion with the owners, which I did. In detail.

Apparently, we cannot. You're citing statute when others are discussing the rationale behind their ever coming into being. Perhaps too much time has gone by without us seeing that philosophy tested in open court...or perhaps too many today can't be arsed to shed their ignorance and understand the why. This is what makes groupthink such a revolting phenomenon.

Ever the teacher, eh, HG? Casting pearls 'n all. Good luck with that. :wink:

In college, it was always my experience that learning could never be force-fed and that the most effective professors generally had the most willing, eager students.

Bollocks. This is on par with blaming the manufacturer of a firearm for the death of the person you shot. You knew goddamn well what the end result of your action would be when you pulled the trigger. The purpose of this thread was to have an unpopular message silenced, plain and simple. The mechanism and semantics are immaterial to me...it's the intent that I find so appalling.

No, but I knew what I hoped it'd be, and I don't for a moment profess myself to be unhappy with the result. Nor is your divined purpose for this thread mine or even, across the board, necessarily correct, no matter how it may seem on the surface or sound above the din of the "crowd". The name of the group might have been changed. The pictures of FB members (who could easily have been made targets of ridicule or worse) could have been taken down. Slanderous, inflammatory language could have been removed. Apparently, none of these steps were considered.

And while we're sitting here debating all this, I have to wonder how [relieved] the targets of this group might be feeling tonight. I wonder just how they would weigh in on these issues?

 

[HazelGod]

Then perhaps you need to understand one of my points: while I admit this thread was a call to arms of sorts, it was to me a source of information; otherwise I would never have known about the existence of this FB group as I rarely if ever use the site.

I find it particularly disturbing that you would go out of your way to silence an expression of opinion which, by your free admission, would be unlikely to even catch your notice, much less materially affect you.

Ever the teacher, eh, HG? Casting pearls 'n all. Good luck with that. :wink:

You should know me better than to think I'm casting pearls by now...do notice that I've responded very selectively in this thread. :wink:

 

[B_Nick8]

I find it particularly disturbing that you would go out of your way to silence an expression of opinion which, by your free admission, would be unlikely to even catch your notice, much less materially affect you.

No you don't. Not really. And that's a weak point. But I was foolish to open myself up there.


You should know me better than to think I'm casting pearls by now...do notice that I've responded very selectively in this thread. :wink:

Thank you.

But, fun as this is, we'll have to continue tomorrow. I've got to go to bed.

Got those cards to finish tomorrow; they won't write themselves. I mean, if they're mailed by New Year's, they still count, right? Right?!

 

[798686]

Tbh, I'm with Nick, Mitchy and Gillette on this one - although I can't be arsed with all the tortuous arguments (and can't keep pace with them all anyway).

I know some people find LPSG offensive - but it's not in the same category as the fb group. It's offensive because some people disagree with the morality of it - but it's not a deliberately attacking 'hate' group, called 'We Hate People Who Look Like They've Got Small Knobs" or something. It's fairly inclusive.

Obviously there's got to be freedom of speech, and freedom to question and challenge other people's opinions - but I'm not sure groups aggressivley attacking another group are acceptable anywhere. Are you suggesting that groups advocating Jihad and the destruction of Israel should be allowed on fb too, because it's just an opinion, and we shouldn't judge whether it's right or wrong??

I'm with PM actually, on saying ppl need to lighten up a bit about things, but I do also think there should be somewhere to draw the line - I guess where is the issue, and who gets to decide...

 

[mitchymo]

How do you prove you're right to someone who won't even let you speak? How do they confront your ideas and beliefs and how do you defend them when you censor? You can't.

The censorship in question is not applied as a means to block free speech, it is designed as a moral law let's say. The morality of whether something is right or wrong once decided by the moral majority is indicative of the society as a whole. If the society says that it is wrong to kill then its wrong to kill, if it says it is wrong to prejudice against someone then that is wrong too. What the censorship does'nt do nor has any threat of doing is stopping anyone saying to my face that i am an immoral dirty faggot, nor discussing it with anyone else. Promoting hate via clubs, groups, advertising or directive calls to action speeches etc however is the step too far to tolerate. It undermines the struggle of those to defend their existence or lifestyles to have the 'wrong rhetoric' being fed to the niave and impressionable and more importantly kids by not doing something to make the voice of the moral majority crystal clear.

Censorship used correctly is a responsible thing. That is my view and i'm sticking to it because it is not in itself a threat to free speech.

You're very certain that rationality, humanism, scientific process, and individual rights are what are inherently superior to anything else. Your education, society, media, and culture all work to reinforce those values just as surely as the other guy's does for him and yet you're both very certain that your way is better.

This is how shit starts.

The only way to dispel that shit is to allow the free exchange of ideas in a dialog based upon mutual respect.

Exactly, but the problem is the impossible ability to gain the respect of a bigot, if they give no respect then it will never be mutual, it will never even be off-kilter if you don't get any respect. A one-sided show of respect can lead to reciprocation, but the sheer likelihood of an equal respect between black and racist, gay and homophobe, Jew and anti-semite...

...good luck with selling that.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

I hate to fall back on virtue theory, but it's always been there for me. If it feels wrong, then it probably is. Aside from this is the legal issue: hate speech and hate groups are illegal in my country. This may have influenced my judgment, but I have no regrets about reporting this hate group.

The only change that was made was to remove a surname from the attachment which included identifiable information about a minor.

Thanks, flamey. I really don't think that he is a minor, though. I would guess from his High School graduation date that he is about 20 years old. Certainly old enough to know better.

This is what makes groupthink such a revolting phenomenon.

Reporting doesn't entail removal of a group. As you know, it's simply a way to let the administration know what's going on so that they can decide about it's removal based on their own policy. I don't see any harm in feedback to prevent the Ivory Tower phenomenon. My report may have been completely ignored. I would hope that a report forces the administration to investigate harmful material... at the least.

 

[HazelGod]

Reporting doesn't entail removal of a group. As you know, it's simply a way to let the administration know what's going on so that they can decide about it's removal based on their own policy.

That wasn't the intent of this thread, and to suggest otherwise is insultingly disingenuous.