|
|
Post by Trog on Apr 18, 2017 7:54:47 GMT
HuffPo SA failed the fake news stress testI'm proud to state that the moment I read the original, I thought that it was an April Fool's joke that missed the deadline. (I stumbled across it almost the moment it was published, for some strange reason - I generally avoid the Huffington Post). And I immediately discovered that no person such as 'Shelly Garland' exists on the internet. So I decided that it must be some elaborate troll, and I started to vaguely wonder: What's up with Huffington Post? Well, I guess "egg on face" more or less describes it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Apr 18, 2017 10:45:45 GMT
The author may be fake but the article fits the HuffPo like a glove.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Apr 24, 2017 6:59:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Apr 24, 2017 14:31:32 GMT
I am rather surprised that it was found to be hate speech. Hate speech/discriminatory/malicious by whom? The paper? The bloke who wrote it? Both? Much worse things are said daily about whites and white males. I have become rather immune to this stuff. Surely if this is hate speech then suggestions that whites have no right to either protest or participate critically in debate are hate speech/discriminatory/malicious as well. I imagine that this turns on the press council's own constitution or whatever tables they brought down from the mountain. Perhaps it is hate speech because its sources are fake. Surely the moment the scam surfaced, it was not hate speech anymore? I am confused. |
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Apr 25, 2017 7:33:15 GMT
I totally agree. The issue is really about unequal treatment. "Hate Speech" is really a totally meaningless term, which has basically become a meme for assigning despicableness. It is a vehicle by which most people are allowed to say things related to race and gender which some other people are not - those 'other people' being white in general and male in particular. It is a way to shut down those parts of the conversation about race and gender which most people find uncomfortable and inconvenient. The upshot of this incident is really to expose the bigotry. (They must've been so surprised - they've had a lifetime of cultivated belief that they may say whatever they want to about whites and men, whilst being sheltered to the reverse). For myself, I'm vehemently against the censure of pieces such as this (speaking of when this kind of stuff is seriously meant and not as a scam - because that happens all the time) being published wherever. Huffington Post is welcome to it. Because then the ridiculousness and the wrongness of such views can be discussed and exposed. But, the Huffington Post does not allow reader comments, though. And it (and almost all of MSM) won't publish an opposing viewpoint either. So this is about opening spaces, I think. I'm totally comfortable with MSM publishing stuff like this. Because I demand the right to have my views published as well - I'm perfectly happy with them being analysed, critisized and reasonably pronounced upon. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Apr 25, 2017 14:19:04 GMT
I totally agree. The issue is really about unequal treatment. "Hate Speech" is really a totally meaningless term, which has basically become a meme for assigning despicableness. It is a vehicle by which most people are allowed to say things related to race and gender which some other people are not - those 'other people' being white in general and male in particular. It is a way to shut down those parts of the conversation about race and gender which most people find uncomfortable and inconvenient. The upshot of this incident is really to expose the bigotry. (They must've been so surprised - they've had a lifetime of cultivated belief that they may say whatever they want to about whites and men, whilst being sheltered to the reverse). For myself, I'm vehemently against the censure of pieces such as this (speaking of when this kind of stuff is seriously meant and not as a scam - because that happens all the time) being published wherever. Huffington Post is welcome to it. Because then the ridiculousness and the wrongness of such views can be discussed and exposed. But, the Huffington Post does not allow reader comments, though. And it (and almost all of MSM) won't publish an opposing viewpoint either. So this is about opening spaces, I think. I'm totally comfortable with MSM publishing stuff like this. Because I demand the right to have my views published as well - I'm perfectly happy with them being analysed, critisized and reasonably pronounced upon. It is also about freedom of speech, I think. What is overlooked with regard to freedom of speech is that it seems to be generally accepted that it can be curbed by contract and disciplinary codes even when it is enshrined in the constitution. Why this should be so, is not clear to me at all. I feel very strongly about one's right to speak one's mind without being subjected to dismissal, boycotts and other punitive sanctions. It becomes problematic (I would agree) when a business is subjected to consumer action on account of the lawfull utterances of an employee. Even so, I would suggest that such action amounts to the wrongful interference with the constitutional right to free speech and intolerance which should not be tolerated. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Aug 23, 2017 7:08:28 GMT
|
|
