And Then A Human Being Showed Up

I’m making an educated guess at the following events. A few weeks ago I recorded and posted a video pointing out something about hate speech on Facebook. The video, posted to YouTube was then flagged as hate speech and taken down.

I appealed and, just before shabbat, I got the following in my email:



Here’s how this works.  I post a video that the other side doesn’t like. They have a few dozen people with probably a few fake accounts each all lined up to click and report my video as hate speech.

YouTube, without human intervention, takes it down and marks ME as a hater.

When I appeal, a human being (because in the end this kind of thing can only be decided by a human) reviews it, understands what happened and clearly reverses the perverse decision.

The bit I’d like to know, and I don’t know anyone at YouTube who can tell me, is whether all those accounts who spuriously reported me are then penalised. Clearly this is a coordinated attack. Does it carry consequences for the other side? Are they able to use the same accounts over and over to report more spurious “hate” speech that is just truth they don’t like?

This is my question for YouTube: does spurious reporting carry consequences for the other side?

SOURCE 

MLK quote not "inclusive" enough

Since 1986, the University of Oregon has housed a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. in the lobby of the Erb Memorial Union. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream…”

However, this hasn’t always been the quote that filled the entrance of the EMU and there was talk of the quote changing again. The quote is not going to change, but that decision was not made without some hard thought by the Student Union Board.

Laurie Woodward, the Director of the Student Union said that when she approached the union with the question of if they wanted to keep the current MLK quote or supplement a new one, one of the students asked, “Does the MLK quote represent us today?”

“Diversity is so much more than race. Obviously race still plays a big role. But there are people who identify differently in gender and all sorts of things like that,” sophomore architecture major, Mia Ashley said.

SOURCE 

British PM under fire after calling Calais refugees 'a bunch of migrants'

I really have no idea what this is about.  Why is it wrong to refer to migrants as migrants?  Maybe someone can enlighten me.  Was what he said not sorrowful enough or something?  -- JR

David Cameron was branded 'shameful' and 'callous' today after he described people in the Calais refugee camp as 'a bunch of migrants' during Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr Cameron is facing calls to apologise for using 'inflammatory language' as he ridiculed Jeremy Corbyn's visit to the makeshift French camp known as the Jungle last weekend.

The Prime Minister lost his temper with the Labour leader and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell after they criticised Google's controversial £130million tax deal.

He said: 'They met with a bunch of migrants in Calais and said they could come to Britain - the only people they never stand up for are hardworking British families.'

Junior ministers immediately defended Mr Cameron insisting he was making clear his opposition to handing migrants in Calais a 'free pass' to enter the UK and Speaker John Bercow later ruled his language had not been 'unparliamentary'.

Mr Cameron's words have been branded 'disgusting' by opposition MPs while refugee rights campaigners said he was being 'flippant to score political points'.

SOURCE 

"Survive" is a dangerous word

Australian advertising for a sports drink attracts ire



Frucor brand Maximus Australia is facing a growing public outrage over their new outdoor campaign. The posters, rolled out on Australia day to three outdoor locations, feature the words “I Survived Australia Day” with a picture of their energy drink. Critics are claiming that the banner that was put up to advertise Maximus sports drink on Wednesday trivialises “the suffering of Australia’s First Peoples” for appropriating the term Survival Day.

For context, one of the alternate names for January 26 is ‘Survival Day’; Indigenous media outlet NITV used the term throughout their coverage. The term emphasises that “despite colonisation, discrimination and comprehensive inequalities, we continue to practise our traditions, look after the land and make our voices heard in the public sphere. We survive.”

SOURCE 

Julie Delpy apologizes for saying African Americans have it easier than women in Hollywood because 'people don't bash them'

What she said sounds realistic to me  -- but realism is no excuse, apparently

Julie Delpy is the latest actor to issue a statement apologizing for her response to a question about the lack of diversity at this year's Academy Awards.

'I’m very sorry for how I expressed myself,' Delpy told Entertainment Weekly about comments she made last week.

'It was never meant to diminish the injustice done to African American artists or to any other people that struggle for equal opportunities and rights, on the contrary.

'All I was trying to do is to address the issues of inequality of opportunity in the industry for women as well (as I am a woman).'

Appearing at the Sundance Film Festival for the premiere of her film Weiner-Dog on Friday, Delpy said that African Americans have it easier in Hollywood than women because 'people don't bash them.'

Delpy told The Wrap; 'Two years ago, I said something about the Academy being very white male, which is the reality, and I was slashed to pieces by the media.'

She then added; 'It’s funny - women can’t talk. I sometimes wish I were African American because people don’t bash them afterward.'

Delpy also said on Friday; 'It’s the hardest to be a woman. Feminists is something people hate above all. Nothing worse than being a woman in this business. I really believe that.'

In her apology Delpy also said; 'I never intended to underestimate anyone else’s struggle! We should stay alert and united and support each other to change this unfair reality and don’t let anyone sabotage our common efforts by distorting the truth.'

She then closed out the statement by saying; 'Again I’m so sorry for this unfortunate misunderstanding, people who know me, know very well that I can’t stand inequality and injustice of any kind.'

SOURCE 

Anti-patriotic sign in Australian resort town

The response was a mature one:  Abuse them back. No attempt to shut them down etc.

Bega District News reports a blackboard sign was put up in the Mister Jones Open Studio and Espresso Bar in Bermagui, on NSW's south coast, on January 25 and it read: "Yes, we're open on national dickhead day" – a reference to the venue being open for business on Australia Day.

On the night of January 25 it was posted on the Meanwhile in Australia Facebook page, which is "liked" by about 700,000 people. By mid-afternoon on Australia Day, it had more than 3000 shares, almost 6700 likes and 1770 comments with many deriding the sign.

While most of those who shared the post were individuals, some were pages such as Truthophobes - Exposing the Truth about Islam, Aussies against Islam and Sharia law, Reclaim Australia Rally - Canberra and Australians United Against Sharia Law.

It appears the official Mister Jones Facebook page has been taken down, but a new page called the Mister Jones Coffee Shop has been set up, possibly by a Facebook group called Aussie Infidels early on the morning of January 26.

This new page published a photo of two of the coffee shop's staff under the line "here are two good reasons for birth control", the phone number of the shop's owner and has encouraged people to contact the shop and leave feedback.

SOURCE

Must not portray refugees as poorly dressed

Carnival costumes for children to dress up as wartime refugees have been taken off the German edition of Amazon's website over fears they offend refugees.

Although the outfits have now been removed from other amazon stores including Italy, they are still available in the UK.

Pictured holding a suitcase, the child models are pictured wearing old fashioned clothing, intimidating wartime civilian wear which some people have said mocks the plight of migrants.

The subject of refugees is extremely sensitive in Germany, especially in the wake of New Year sex attacks allegedly carried out by foreigners who entered the country as asylum seekers.

Instances of suspected racism quickly attract attention by those keen to prevent right-wing groups using them to stoke further hatred of foreigners.

As a result, when the Amazon's offering of refugee costumes was posted online it quickly attracted massive amounts of criticism from online commentators who branded the costumes 'inhuman and distasteful'.

SOURCE 

Baby names beginning with K are suspect

Proud father Wayne Rooney has welcomed his new baby boy into the world but has already faced criticism for naming his son Kit with followers pointing out the initials of his three children are KKK.

Showing off his new bundle of joy on Instagram this morning, the footballer posted a picture of Kit at just a few minutes old alongside the caption: 'Meeting Kit for the first time. Home time now.'

The 30-year-old and his wife Coleen announced the arrival of their third son - naming him Kit Joseph Rooney - on Sunday.

However, just hours after revealing the first photograph of their new arrival, Wayne's Twitter followers started trolling him – pointing out that all three of his children's initials are KKK.

Their eldest son Kai, who is now six, was born in November 2009, while second son Klay, arrived in May 2013.

Dozens of people pointed out on social media that the initials for all three children stood at KKK and drew comparison to the 'Ku Klux Klan' – the white supremacist organisation.

Darren Taylor wrote: 'Has Rooney really called his kids the KKK?'  While Anthony Tierney wrote: 'Wayne & Colleen Rooney do know there are 25 other letters in the alphabet right? Calling your kids KKK not the cleverest idea ever #Rooney'

SOURCE 

Hate speech and intolerance deserve regulation by colleges (?)

I have reproduced below a student editorial from Penn State.  I have given it in full because it does have a superficial reasonableness about it and in some circumstances I might even agree with it.  As the saying goes, however, the Devil is in the detail and what college speech codes end up doing is banning criticism.  Not all criticism is banned.  You can criticize Christians and conservatives all you like.  But that is about it.  Criticize anybody or anything else and you are guilty of "hate speech".

So college speech codes are fundamentally anti-intellectual. Criticism should be the lifeblood of higher education.  All orthodoxies should come under fierce scrutiny there.  And if not there, where? Disrespect of everybody and everything should be permissible there.  As it is, speech in many colleges is as restricted as it was in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China:  Not exactly an inspiring model, is it?  Has the land of the free become a land of stifling orthodoxy?  In America's seats of higher learning it has.  And the orthodoxy concerned is in fact rather similar to Mao Tse Tung thought.  An outbreak of Little Red Books would be no surprise

The pretext of speech codes is that they aim to protect the feelings of minorities.  But that is creating a fool's paradise.  The world outside the academy is a cold, hard place and everybody, minorities included, needs to be prepared for that -- not sheltered in some sort of adult kindergarten.

And people tend to like others who are like themselves so minorities will always be discriminated against in one way or another -- mostly covertly these days.  So minorities need to learn to deal with that, not break down in a crying heap every time someone criticizes them.

And, as it happens, some minorities are in any case not at all inclined to break down in a crying heap every time someone criticizes them.  As all the research shows, blacks tend to have very high self-confidence and self-esteem.  Their feelings are not easily dented.  And Muslims of course think they have the right religion and feel quite superior about it.  So they too are not easily ground down.  Most minorities could actually do with more humility in my observation.  It would get them further in life

UPDATE:  As a good academic, I avoid empty assertions and would not like to be accused of them.  So below are some thoughts from Chapter 4 of Mao's Little Red Book that do, I think, remind us of college speech codes:

(1) Words and actions should help to unite, and not divide, the people of our various nationalities.

(2) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to socialist transformation and socialist construction.

(3) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, the people's democratic dictatorship.

(4) They should help to consolidate, and not undermine or weaken, democratic centralism.

(5) They should help to strengthen, and not discard or weaken, the leadership of the Communist Party.

(6) They should be beneficial, and not harmful, to international socialist unity and the unity of the peace-loving people of the world.
 


At a medium sized college in the southwest of Minnesota, freedom of speech has come under fire on a national scale.

Southwest Minnesota State University recently garnered national attention for a provision, and then revision, within their student code of conduct. Previously, the university specifically prohibited any jokes, comments, or public talks that exhibited what they deemed “cultural intolerance.”

Any insults, slurs, or phrases that discriminated against or belittled a larger group of people could be punishable by the school. The university faced harsh criticism from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which monitors schools levels of freedom of speech on campus. Before the revision, SMSU received a “red light” rating.

While this may have been done in the name of free speech, such a revision essentially allows and facilitates hate speech on campus. Universities and academic places should be inherently inclusive of all cultures, and the rule in its original form had intentions in the proper place.

Punishing students who outwardly slander races, religions, or other cultural groups should be within the rights of a university.

A college’s main priority ought to be the support and facilitation of a civil, respectful education for all its students. and students who create hostile environments for others at the university do nothing to benefit the academic culture.

Harassment is just that; it has no place in a scholastic setting. Providing a safe, conducive learning environment for all students is the duty of universities, and that should not be sacrificed in the name of respecting intolerance.

SOURCE 

Students in San Francisco region call for ‘hate speech’ limits to silence preachers

The dear little petals don't want to hear anything that might make them angry.  They should get angry about the pap that passes for education these days

De Anza College students have gathered more than 550 signatures on an online petition urging administrators to regulate “hate speech/discrimination,” following recent campus visits by loud Christian preachers.

The petition calls for the college and district administrations to disallow speech that leaves students feeling verbally abused on the basis of their ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality.

Elias Kamal, a political science major who started the petition, wrote “free speech is a vital part of society,” but added that harmful speech that angers students should not be permitted.

FHDA Chancellor Judy Miner took questions from DASB senators and spoke about the issue for 10 minutes at the Wednesday meeting.
“We will never be able to prevent people from saying things that are hurtful, that are offensive,” Miner said. “Unless someone is blocking an entrance or doing something that is unsafe, they have a right to hand out their leaflets or to approach people and ask them to think about what they’re doing.”

SOURCE 

Canada: After a legal battle that dragged on for three years, Gregory Alan Elliott has been found not guilty of harassing lesbians


Feminist Guthrie: The judge noted a lack of “reasonableness” in Guthrie’s assertion she could expect to use Twitter to make negative comments about Elliott and not be exposed to his response or self defence

In 2012, Elliott was charged with criminal harassment after arguing with feminist activists on Twitter. He’s suffered through a tortuous court case that has cost him nearly one hundred thousand dollars.

Anyone following this case knows that Greg is only guilty of the crime of wrongthink. He was arrested for critically engaging with people who disagreed with him. It wasn’t any different from what people do on social media platforms every day.

Greg’s tweets were far milder than some of the vile garbage I’ve seen come through my notifications. He never threatened anyone, and he never gave anyone reason to fear for their safety.

All he did was argue with people that hated him so much they demanded he be shut down.

I don’t believe Stephanie Guthrie or her cronies felt victimized for a second. We’re talking about people who have posted images of themselves drinking from mugs with “male tears” written on them, after all.  They wanted Elliott to pay for having challenged them, nothing more.

The charges in Elliott’s protracted legal case have prohibited him from using the Internet, forced him to quit his job, and left him bankrupt.

The last three years of Greg’s life have been hell, and he won’t ever get them back.

Despite all this, I am joyful, Greg is joyful, and his sons are joyful. Free speech has won the day, and Greg won’t have to deal with the prospect of months of jail time or heavy fines.

People opposed to speech rights won’t get the satisfaction of seeing Greg behind bars.

Most importantly, legal precedent has been established to defend free expression.

Canada is infamous for its ineffectual provisions for freedom of speech. Establishing the legal default to favour allowing offensive speech is a boon for speech rights in Canada.

SOURCE 

How Twitter quietly banned "hate speech" last year

Seven years ago, Twitter began its rise to prominence by billing itself as a space where people could speak freely because nobody was censored. The company's rules enshrined this ideal, promising "we do not actively monitor and will not censor user content, except in limited circumstances." But in 2015 all of that changed.

There were changes in Twitter's rules here and there before 2015, usually to make it easier for the company to ban people engaging in spam and fraud. But as more high-profile Twitter users began to experience abuse and harassment firsthand, the company began to reverse its earlier policies.

At last, in December, the company quit embroidering its rules page with links and simply re-wrote its rules from top to bottom. Now, as Jeong points out, the company no longer promises an uncensored service.

Here's how the company puts it:

    "We believe in freedom of expression and in speaking truth to power, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we do not tolerate behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice".

Call it what you want, but this is a ban on hate speech

SOURCE 

Not a lot of logic there.  When they criticize "behavior", do they mean speech?  An important distinction seems to be lost there.  Are they just afraid to mention "speech"?

Further, they do not want voices to be silenced but they are going to silence some voices.  But banning abuse seems reasonable.  That will strike a lot of Leftists dumb if Twitter really does do that. And threats have never been protected free speech.

Facebook's new plan to CENSOR "right wing hate speech" -- but not ISIS recruiters



Ironically, Facebook's new "Online Civil Courage Initiative" was announced by liberal Jews, in Germany. How historically illiterate can they be?

Facebook says this new initiative is about "combating extremism and hate speech on the Internet.”

Oh, do they mean ISIS using social media to recruit terrorists?

Of course not! One Civil Courage spokesperson said:  "This is necessary because right-wing extremism, racism and antisemitism are present in all walks of life in Germany.”

Really?  Did a thousand white pride skinheads in Cologne, Germany go on a mass sexual assault spree?

Are you worried about more Muslim rape sprees taking place?  From now on, when you try to type about it, Facebook will block you.

They won't censor the Islamic State, though. Just "right wing extremists." Which they define as people who disagree with them...

SOURCE 

Must not warn against men named Mohammed



The headline on a poster showing four convicted Hamilton rapists could incite hate speech against Muslim people.
supplied

The headline on a poster showing four convicted Hamilton rapists could incite hate speech against Muslim people.

A poster with photos and details of four rapists with the heading "Beware Mohammed" has been plastered on a transformer at a busy Hamilton intersection.

The poster is not illegal, because the details are factually correct.

However, Canterbury University dean of law Ursula Cheer said there may be grounds to lay a complaint to the Human Rights Commission on the possibility of inciting hate speech.

The poster, which is glued to a transformer near the corner of Alexandra and Collingwood streets in the CBD shows the pictures of convicted men Abdirahim Sheik Mohamed Guled (Mohamed Guled), Keyse Aiwi Abdi, Mohamed Essa and Mohammed Sahib.

All but Essa were working for taxi companies at the time of the offending. Essa posed as a taxi driver.

SOURCE 

Must not criticize anti-Israel bias

The story so far: Shurat Ha’din makes a simple video showing how Facebook tolerates hate speech toward Jews and Israel more than toward Palestinians.

I make a simple video showing that features of Facebook allow hate speech about Jews to be hidden (by page administrators often) from the largest population of Jews, in Israel. My video gets shared by Shurat Ha’din and even Channel 10 news starts talking to me. I uploaded my video to YouTube because YouTube videos are easier to share on Israellycool.

And then this happened:



Yup, that’s right, my video highlighting hate has been classified as hate and removed and I get a "Community Guidelines" strike against my name for hate speech!

Clearly this is the usual scheme of a team of Jew haters ganging up to report my video as hate speech. Perhaps a human reviewed the title, even that’s doubtful and bang it’s gone and I stand convicted of disseminating "hate speech".

I have appealed the decision: I’m given a single line of text box to mount my "appeal":

"I produced a video highlighting the hate speech of OTHERS on Facebook; I didn’t even mention specifics of the hate speech. This video is still live on Facebook (of which I’m highly critical)"

Had I been given a little more space I would have written:

"I produced a video highlighting the hate speech of OTHERS on Facebook; I didn’t even mention specifics of the hate speech. This video is still live on Facebook (of which I’m highly critical) yet YouTube has allowed itself to be "gamed" by people who would silence those who draw attention to real hate speech. Israeli Channel 10 TV News have recorded an interview with me about this video and your take down of it"

SOURCE 

First amendment is racist?

If this is what America's top universities have to offer, we may be in for a steep decline. Take this gem from Duke University

    "According to a columnist for the Duke University student newspaper, America’s “obsession with the First Amendment” is really just “an expression of white supremacy.”

    “I am thinking about how an urgent and overdue conversation about racism—on our campus and across our country — has been derailed by a diversionary and duplicitous obsession with the First Amendment,” graduate student Bennett Carpenter wrote in university newspaper The Chronicle. “I am thinking about how quickly the conversation has shifted from white supremacy to white fragility — and how this shift is itself an expression of white supremacy.”

Apparently unaware of the irony of using a newspaper column to call for restrictions on free speech, Carpenter argued that Americans give too much deference to the First Amendment and should focus more on censoring violent speech.

The good news is, if you happened to go to college before this millennial nightmare set in, you have nothing to fear from those that came after you. Today, America's best and brightest go to our top universities and are trained to be outraged into a catatonic state by anything that might moderately reinforce a stereotype.

SOURCE 

Now it is 'offensive' to say  how 'grateful' you are for MLK!

Or you've got to say it in the right way, or something

Zac Efron's somewhat short-sighted way of celebrating Martin Luther King Jr Day has landed him in a lot of hot water on social media.

The Dirty Grandpa star has become the target of an onslaught of online anger after posting a photo of himself cruising down a California street in a convertible accompanied by a message saying he is 'grateful' for the civil rights activist and also for his own huge online following.

'I'm grateful for a couple things today: Martin Luther King Jr & 10 million followers on IG #MLKDay [sic],' he wrote on Monday.

Social media users didn't appreciate Zac celebrating MLK Day and his own on popularity in the same posting

To top off the strange contrasting subjects in the post, Zac also ended it with a pair of dark brown hand emojis, with one in a raised fist and another pointing a finger upwards.

His followers on Twitter and Instagram immediately responded with disgust, with one summing up the situation with a post reading: 'How did Zac Efron attempt to make MLK day about himself I am so baffled'.

'This is one of the most offensive/diminishing/disrespectful things anyone has said in relation to MLK today.

SOURCE 

Robert E. Lee

The freedom-fighters of the Confederacy are so often subjected to hate speech from the Left that I am putting up the note below as a small corrective

Today we take a moment to remember the birth anniversary of Robert E. Lee (1807-1870), one of the greatest military commanders in American history. He was also a great man of faith who gave his all for the cause of Liberty and states' rights.

There were many honorable men of the Confederate States of America, whose objective was, first and foremost, the protection of states rights, and decidedly not the continuation of abhorrent institution of slavery. For a better understanding on the issues of the day, read this perspective on Abraham Lincoln, which was not included in your grade-school civics class. The honor we give these men has its roots in the founding of this great nation.

Mark Alexander notes in his essay, “Lincoln’s Legacy at 200,” that “the causal case for states' rights is most aptly demonstrated by the words and actions of Gen. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined President Abraham Lincoln’s request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: ‘I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state … I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.’ He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: ‘Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender.’”

SOURCE 

Leftist racism


Why does the race of a fashion model matter?  All that should matter is whether she effectively sells clothes

Fans of model Kendall Jenner were delighted when it was announced last week that she was lending her good looks to Mango's new Tribal Spirit collection - one of her first campaigns of 2016.

But critics have taken to social media to question why a white model was chosen to represent a collection said to be inspired by the African Savannah, which will include a tribal print dress.

The reality TV star-turned-supermodel is modelling the first of four trends to be showcased in advertising campaigns for Spring/Summer 2016, and the Spanish retailer said each would be represented by 'the face that best defines it'.

But on social media many couldn't have disagreed more, and Ldndxv was one of many who took to Twitter to share her comments with the retailer.  'Seriously Mango,' she wrote. 'You should know better. Leave cultural appropriation in 2015.'

Pablo Godoy Estel agreed, saying the company's 'cultural appropriation' was a shame. Sharpay Evans added sarcastically: 'Mango's new campaign Tribal Spirit is inspired by the African Savannah and Kendall Jenner, a white girl, is the model?' 

SOURCE 

Publisher pulls kids' book over slave cake controversy

Simplifying things for young children is not allowed

Scholastic is pulling a controversial new picture book about George Washington and his slaves, the publisher said on Sunday.

A Birthday Cake for George Washington was released on 5 January and had been strongly criticized for its upbeat images and story of Washington’s cook, the slave Hercules, and his daughter, Delia.

"While we have great respect for the integrity and scholarship of the author, illustrator and editor, we believe that, without more historical background on the evils of slavery than this book for younger children can provide, the book may give a false impression of the reality of the lives of slaves and therefore should be withdrawn," the publisher said in a statement.

The book, which depicts Hercules and Delia preparing a cake for Washington, has received more than 100 one-star reviews on Amazon.com. As of Sunday evening, only 12 reviews were positive. The book also set off discussions on Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social media.

While notes in A Birthday Cake for George Washington from author Ramin Ganeshram and illustrator Vanessa Brantley-Newton pointed out the historical context of the 18th-century story and that Hercules eventually escaped, some critics faulted Ganeshram and Brantley-Newton for leaving out those details from the main narrative.

SOURCE