Philosophy Now Forum

The tide appears to be turning, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7j512ln7o. Is this the only way to civilize social media? The music industry seems to have got a handle on piracy; follow the money. Every phone and website account to be easily if not immediately identified with individuals and other transparent liable entities down to individuals. As mine is. It makes me accountable. It would certainly benefit this site incalculably. I'm impressed that PN 'knows' when I'm obfuscating my IP, that's a start.

freedom of speech if only you speak as we deem acceptable...

what's that? oh you must be silenced as every word you speak is unmitigated hate...

-Imp

Re: link

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y7j512ln7o

Comment:
- Technology helps to capitalize the Cloward and Piven tactic displayed in the link.
- The tactic: Isolate, demonize, destroy the target, any target.
- The tactic has been commodified thanks to Haters Anonymous.
- Ending Anonymous means good times for tort.

*

The odds are better than even that some judge will decree that ICE (deportation) Agents in the USA must be unmasked in order to give full facial recognition for the circle of smart phones operated by AI’s human minions, minions that suddenly appear wherever ICE congregates, armed with sound and sight detectors for AI, as if Agent Smith is directing the weather.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 10:52 am freedom of speech if only you speak as we deem acceptable...

what's that? oh you must be silenced as every word you speak is unmitigated hate...

-Imp

Say what you like. Accountably. What's the problem? Put your money where your mouth is.

You want hate to be outlawed? What about love? Should I be put in prison for calling you a self-righteous, free-speech-hating, woke twat?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 11:10 am Re: link

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y7j512ln7o

Comment:
- Technology helps to capitalize the Cloward and Piven tactic displayed in the link.
- The tactic: Isolate, demonize, destroy the target, any target.
- The tactic has been commodified thanks to Haters Anonymous.
- Ending Anonymous means good times for tort.

*

The odds are better than even that some judge will decree that ICE (deportation) Agents in the USA must be unmasked in order to give full facial recognition for the circle of smart phones operated by AI’s human minions, minions that suddenly appear wherever ICE congregates, armed with sound and sight detectors for AI, as if Agent Smith is directing the weather.

Would you say that kind of crap with your full name? You know, put your name to it. Be proud of it.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:57 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 11:10 am Re: link

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y7j512ln7o

Comment:
- Technology helps to capitalize the Cloward and Piven tactic displayed in the link.
- The tactic: Isolate, demonize, destroy the target, any target.
- The tactic has been commodified thanks to Haters Anonymous.
- Ending Anonymous means good times for tort.

*

The odds are better than even that some judge will decree that ICE (deportation) Agents in the USA must be unmasked in order to give full facial recognition for the circle of smart phones operated by AI’s human minions, minions that suddenly appear wherever ICE congregates, armed with sound and sight detectors for AI, as if Agent Smith is directing the weather.

Would you say that kind of crap with your full name? You know, put your name to it. Be proud of it.

Give me a break. Because of woke twats like you people risk prison time for a tweet. Why should they? Paedophiles are walking free and being kept out of prison altogether to make room for 'naughty tweeters'. Women regularly get police 'visits' at their homes for saying online that a man isn't a woman.
No one has to know who anyone is unless they are breaking actual laws and not subjective, ideological political ones.
What on earth does 'offensive' even mean these days? Can your tiny little brain comprehend how dangerous it is to make it illegal to post something that 'might' be 'offending' someone (but only if they fall into whatever is the 'current thing' pet group). Are you suggesting that if you said 'I hate you' to me then I should be able to go crying to the authorities because you 'hurt my feelings' and have you arrested? Is that what you want? (actually that wouldn't happen since you are allowed to be as hateful and offensive as you like to women because, unlike thunking great men in lipstick, we are apparently not a 'protected, vulnerable, maginalised minority'...)
'Online hate'. What does that even mean? It means nothing and that's the whole point. You only have to disagree with someone online these days and it's 'hateful abuse'. This bastardisation of language is the reason why free speech is more important now than it has ever been. When one person's disagreement becomes an idiot's 'hate' then the internet become a banquet for fascist, moralising, hypocritical, self-serving wokism.
'Hate speech' laws are the love-child of autocrats and their moronic woke acolytes.

If one side in a particular debate expends most of its energy trying to shut the other side up, for example, by throwing them into prison, then I think history tells us that they've basically already lost.

Stalin was a big fan of 'hate speech' laws. Hmm. No wonder wokies love them so much.

''The origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

The introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union. The motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.''

Is calling someone a 'woke twat' 'hate speech'?

What's the difference between written (or spoken) anonymous hate and hateful thoughts that the subject of the hate never hears? Not dissimilar to the tree falling in the forest. If one is consciously unaware that someone hates tham, what impact does that have on the subject of the "hate"? I'd argue: none.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 10:44 pm Stalin was a big fan of 'hate speech' laws. Hmm. No wonder wokies love them so much.

''The origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

The introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union. The motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.''

And just like what happened with the Soviet Union, they will bring about their own downfall. It's already happening, everywhere, and lacking any sort of imagination, all they can do is double down.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:57 pm

Governor Cuomo Demands ICE Agents Unmask
https://www.andrewcuomo.com/press/gover ... nts-unmask

Cuomo ... Cuomo ... wasn't he involved in some kind of nursing home blunder with severe consequences?

*

Obama links Cloward and Piven to Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:57 pm

In this realm my name is the totality of 15947 postings, and that total often changes like thoughts, one at a time.

The totality of postings happens to be your name too, no matter who you think you are.

That way you don't get to ride on your own coat-tails, like a dog patching out across the grass.

Isn't pride literally a deadly sin?

If I stop posting for a good while, and you post a lot, we could have the same name for a time.

It would only hurt those who have done nothing wrong anyway. A few years ago an Australian celebrity committed suicide because of relentless online bullying. She actually managed to track down her tormenters because no one would do anything and made a documentary about it. They didn't even care. It was water off a ducks back even when she was trying to reason with them with a camera on. Nothing happened to them either. Exposing who they were didn't make them 'accountable'.
They all seemed to be camp gay men. Ooooh, is it 'hate speech' to point out that observation? Never mind that they drove a woman to hang herself. Nasty bitchy woman-hating arseholes. The vicious misogyny was off the charts, yet they were part of a 'protected group' while as a mere woman she wasn't. Poor vulnerable men.
Besides, 'hate speech' doesn't even cover something like this. It's a political term that's used specifically to destroy free speech and ENCOURAGE bullying and harassment.