Ad Ignorantiam fallacy states otherwise.
“Fake” is itself an assertion requiring evidence, independent from stating neutrality, e.g., “We don’t know whether it is true or not.”
Also, circular-reasoning fallacy: Who says they’re extraordinary claims within the context of what we already know?
Unverified? Yes. Corroborating some of what we already know? Also yes.
Proven fake? Definitely not. That is unless you are to believe the word of Republicans and Trump.
lmao this kid saw, “Russia if you’re listening,” the Mueller reporter (did not exonerate), numerous Trump cabinet members imprisoned for speaking to Russian spies, Krasnov and Steele dossier, Trump flying to Moscow in 80s only to within weeks upon return out a full page ad abolishing NATO in 3 major newspapers, saw the hand-delivered letter flown to Moscow by Rand Paul on behalf of Trump; saw numerous GOP Congressmen fly over to Moscow to have private meetings on 4th of July no less.
… And apparently cannot connect the dots lmao.
Putin couldn’t be happier by this chaos and distraction from Ukraine. Investment paying off.
Such is the point. There’s a reason Donnie started his first term so aggressively picking fights with Canada and Norway. Fulfilling Putin’s wish.
Also diverts attention from Ukraine.
Not the first time fuckwit has done this, as article notes. Just saber-rattling bullshit. Usually means Russia is desperate.
Your point is completely valid but what’s scary to me is that very much in name of, “Info Wars” and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, perception becomes reality.
In short, they know they fully in control of the biggest megaphones of media and so can mold reality however they like
Is that the same as Intouchables? If so, I loved that film!
Oh man, tough…
All come to mind first.
Sven co-op was so fun! I thought it as so freaking cool at the time to be able to do that.
They know they just seeded the next several generations of terrorists with the regional destabilization they caused. Time to try finding a new solution for the problem they made…
Side note but I was literally just thinking the other day that the accelerated rise of corruption and right-wing pivot of the globe also coincides with encrypted / anonymous communications. Mobsters and state actors must be having an absolute field day this past decade.
No. All are dyed in the wool trumpers these days and didn’t do jack shit for me in younger years in the midst of very hard times of family problems (eg, parental divorce).
I have my true family and loved ones, and would rather not complicate things. I’ve already spent hundreds of thousands of words mending one close relationship successfully; but that was one worth saving as taxing as it was.
As far as older people go you mention, the funny thing is I’ve always been more comfortable around people much older than me. Always felt distant from my peers, generally.
When I feel that I can’t improve the world, I improve myself and focus on my family.
You can have a fair and equitable court system, or you can have a fast one; rarely if ever both. True justice tends to be slow and steady and helps to account for public witch-hunts and reduce risk of someone innocent being wrongfully convicted. People always say, “Yeah well this one is obvious!” but that’s not how justice works. It must be absolute. It must be there for the lowest of hanging fruit if it is to be there for the more nuanced cases just the same.
On the other hand, sadly, a slow and unfair one are not mutually-exclusive.
No good comes from this. This is the equivalent threatening or intending for violence.
And yet, I’m told by another user, a free speech absolutist, that this is absolutely normal and should be protected.
In your view then, should schooling, vaccinations, trans surgeries, social media access also be entirely up to the parent?
Second to that, the law doesn’t prohibit anyone from accessing these things outright; but rather ensuring that children don’t get access to these things absent of their parent’s approval — just as you indicate is your view here. Put another way, an adult parent could indeed log into pornhub on their behalf, no?
Free speech answers that, too. Expressing an opinion we disapprove of isn’t an exception to free speech: for that we can express our condemnation.
Yeah that’s all fine and dandy to free-speech hard-righty absolutists, conveniently enough, but no, that’s not my view; nor is it a representative of some V For vendetta authoritarianism to recognize objectively-wrong speech.
Tell me, do you or do you not subscribe to the “punch a nazi” notion of not being tolerant to intolerance?
Restricting private access to information while raising risk of identity fraud & abusing the rights of protesters with loose definitions of terrorism isn’t heading to your cartoonish idea of a dystopia?
As I had originally stated in my response, this would be a step towards that, yes, as I felt it was the most substantive point of your response to me; but not on the “doorstep”—as I had stated—itself. We will circle back to this following the Three High Court ruling in the coming weeks.
Far-right extremists want nothing more than free speech absolutism because it is convenient to their shallow tropes to dupe the masses; hence why far-right extremism is on the rise throughout the globe in the first place. So goes the adage, a lie travels half-way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
To reiterate, the source that you cited is not in reference to those cases, but specifically about hate speech and cyber-bullying — both clear problems that have aided in the rise of far-right extremism across the globe already. Put another way, we’ve had free speech absolutist social media and internet for decades, and we’ve only gone further rightward as a result. I’ll quote directly the source you cited in which I’m referring:
The application of Germany’s decades-old speech laws were strengthened after its darkest chapter, and then was accelerated online after an assassination of a politician, fueled by the internet, sent shockwaves through the country. In 2015, a video of a local politician named Walter Lübcke went viral after he defended then-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s progressive immigration policy.
“People with a very right political world view, they started hating him on the internet. They started insulting him. They started to incite people to kill him. And that went on for about four years,” Meininghaus said.
This Stochastic terrorism threat is real, and in fact was utilized in Israel just the same when then-candidate Bibi engaged in the same stochastic rhetoric and inspired a radical to assassinate Yitzhak Rabin.
Defamation, Slander, Libel cases are common. Misattribution even under plagiarism is another aspect of commonly regulated speech. I don’t have much a problem with false quotes on high-profile figures not classified directly as comedy having some capacity for removal. This is how lies travel faster than truths around the world. Again, hardly a sign that UK is turning fascist.
So, what exactly IS your solution to inhibit the far-right except for moderate or left-wing governments to directly deal with said hate speech? (And no, I don’t consider Pro-Palestinian protesters hate speech of course; which is why this Court ruling is so pivotal).
Finally, hateful words are still words. Has this generation forgotten how to handle words?
It is extremely ironic one says this, considering the strict Hate Speech laws of Germany originated from their direct experience with propagating fascism at home in the 1930s, 1940s and learning through pain and suffering inflicted on others as well as themselves. Volksverhetzung was suspended conveniently enough during the Nazi era, and only post-war was it codified into law. So the question may be reversed: Have YOU forgotten the potency of these words, gone unchecked?
You raise valid points and I’m certainly opposed to the notion of non-violent Pro-Palestinian protesters being labeled a terrorist organization (no differently than Antifa in the US, or the absurdity of stopping campus protesters against Israel). I am curious what people’s thoughts here on laws that seek to prohibit minors from using social media, and how that differs from ensuring loopholes are cut to prevent minors from seeing porn.
When I reacted to the other user’s comment, most of the rhetoric I was hearing was from disgruntled far-right extremists upset that islamophobes and various racist, sexist bigots were being held accountable on social media for hate speech, and even then the few instances they pointed to also basically dried up with either nothing or a proverbial slap on the wrist.
On the flip-side, if we step back and look at this, none of what has been mentioned is really some indication that UK is on the doorstep of V for Vendetta-like dystopia. Put another way, preventing children’s access to porn – whether agreed with or not – has kind of been a presumed given, and only recently did it seem like a bunch of politicians became aware that it wasn’t actually restricted in the first place or something…
On another note, when you cite, “penalizing vitriol, insults,” that article actually is in reference to combating Hate Speech and cyber-bullying in Germany, which is a bit different is it not? That is in reference to Intolerance to Intolerance, yeah? To that I mostly say good!
And I’m simply answering that they’re really not, or at least not in the falsely-equivalent picture you painted with the US. USA is closer to Russia in terms of its fast-track to authoritarianism. UK? They’re engaging in what many here claim to support: no tolerance for intolerance.
Ah, and therein lies the problem ladies & gentlemen.