Racist memes spread after false claims that immigrants kill and eat pets.

[Father Heathen]

Here's what it has lead to: Haitian families in Ohio under attack as racist claims spread

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Okay, so you seem angry but I don't really know about what or what your point is. But my point is, if you can't even express yourself honestly, you have no freedom at all. You're just living under a tyranny that thinks it can decide what you are allowed to express. How can you support that?

It's the reality that countries with hate speech laws score higher on freedom index than America.
And in this case there are simply no grounds to call it a right to speech that is known for getting people hurt and killed. We already can't shout fire in a crowded theater because it needlessly got people hurt and killed when someone did it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Except regarding controversial speech.
You'd trust Trump with the power to
prosecute what he considers "hate speech".
I don't.
I like the right to criticize Muslims, Christians,
Jews, Hindus, blacks, Scientologists, etc.

There's a difference between criticizing Scientologists and their established history of abuse and hate speech that gets people hurt and killed.

 

[Pogo]

Except regarding controversial speech.
You'd trust Trump with the power to
prosecute what he considers "hate speech".
I don't.
I like the right to criticize Muslims, Christians,
Jews, Hindus, blacks, Scientologists, etc.

But we are witnessing in the actions of Trump, Vance and Loomer et. al. something that is going beyond "criticism" and should not be confused with free speech any more than yelling fire in a theatre.

 

[Argentbear]

"Hate speech" is nothing but a thought/speech control concept. It's Orwellian garbage. In America, we have a little something called the First Amendment so legally there's no such thing as "hate speech".

You are mistaking freedom of speech with freedom from consequences.
You are free to spew any and all sorts of hate speech.
You can exercise your right to free speech and go to your Jewish work college's space and spray paint a swastika on the wall
You can stand outside the home of a lesbian couple with a megaphone shouting how God wants them to be stoned to death
You can write detailed letters to your immigrant neighbor detailing your plans to abuse their 10 year old daughter if they don't move away.

But you will also face legal and social consequences for engaging in hate speech.

Like all rights freedom of speech has its limits and restrictions. Your right to freely speak ends when it infringes on the rights of others.

 

[Argentbear]

Ah, I see: opening up with "Get a life" was your way of showing everybody how poised and mature you are when it comes to all this, rather than an emotional reaction to having your covers blown.

And aren't we lucky to have you modeling mature behavior.

My bad.


I was investigating a rumor (you know, that thing we were talking about?). That's what grown ups do when they're trying to form an opinion.

Anyway, you were the one to bring race into it, remember?

(Of course not, that would be inconvenient)

I'm the one who talked about how it's African American's repeating Trump's fake claim?
Can you quote me on that?

Go back and read all that again because apparently it all went over your head.

And if you still don't get it let me try and clear that up for you: you were objecting to the fact that I actually went to the trouble of substantiating my claims, and it caused you to have, as I pointed out, an emotional reaction to it (which of course you'll deny).

Again your telepathic abilities are amazing Thank you for telling me what i am thinking and feeling.

What I was saying was that apparently you aren't ready to be involved in debates where the participants actually go to the trouble of substantiating their claims and insist that their opponents do the same.

That's what I meant by saying that the conversation had graduated to a level that you weren't comfortable with.

Or capable of most likely.

And again thank you for being so adult. Many people in a disagreement woudl engage in personal insults and generally become an insufferable A******

I already did, but what the heck: here it is again:

And there I am not saying what you have repeatedly claimed I said.

Thank you for that response.

Edit: anyway, I'm still waiting for you to provide some links demonstrating that the links I showed you are invalid.

But I thought I wasn't smart enough to actaully participate in any form of debate.

 

[Argentbear]

What have I said that's transphobic?

Oh come on.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Also, memes? Lmao.

They're not setting global policy. They're internet jokes.

People can and will make racist jokes.

I think some folks are taking the internet a bit too seriously if memes are a bother.

Whatever, thought police. Are you going to lock people up for jokes???

I don't think anyone should be locked up or otherwise legally penalized for any jokes (unless it's proven that, say, a joke expresses or masks genuine intent to commit physical violence against a certain person or group, as that goes into criminal territory), but there are studies showing that memes and humor can indeed be used as tools to disseminate violent and extremist ideology behind a relatively socially acceptable veneer. This doesn't mean all or even most instances of off-color humor lead to that (whether intentionally or not), but it seems to me that there are evidence-based grounds to criticize and push back on certain forms of "jokes" in some contexts (e.g., when a public figure makes them against a politically charged backdrop where racial stereotypes are already causing damage).

I made a post about this before, so I will quote part of it here:

An excellent article on the Guardian from almost six years ago about how some of the most fringe and extremist individuals on the so-called "alt-right" masquerade their rhetoric and propaganda in the form of "humor," allowing them to disseminate their ideology without displaying overt commitment to socially unacceptable views:

Last week, the Data & Society Institute released a report on the online disinformation and manipulation that is increasingly shaping US politics. The report focused on the way in which far-right actors “spread white supremacist thought, Islamophobia, and misogyny through irony and knowledge of internet culture”.

One the report’s authors, Dr Alice Marwick, says that fascist tropes first merged with irony in the murkier corners of the internet before being adopted by the “alt-right” as a tool. For the new far-right movement, “irony has a strategic function. It allows people to disclaim a real commitment to far-right ideas while still espousing them.”

Marwick says that from the early 2000s, on message boards like 4chan, calculatedly offensive language and imagery have been used to “provoke strong reactions in outsiders”. Calling all users “****”, or creating memes using gross racial stereotypes, “serves a gate-keeping function, in that it keeps people out of these spaces, many of which are very easy to access”.

Hiding in plain sight: how the 'alt-right' is weaponizing irony to spread fascism

A paper published on the European Commission's website puts forth a similar argument:

Humour has become a central weapon of extremist movements to subvert open societies and to lower the threshold towards violence. Especially within the context of a recent wave of far-right terrorist attacks, we witness “playful” ways in communicating racist ideologies. As far-right extremists strategically merge with online cultures, their approach changes fundamentally. This trend has been especially facilitated by the so-called alt-right and has spread globally.

This predominantly online movement set new standards to rebrand extremist positions in an ironic guise, blurring the lines between mischief and potentially radicalising messaging. The result is a nihilistic form of humour that is directed against ethnic and sexual minorities and deemed to inspire violent fantasies — and eventually action. This paper scrutinises how humour functions as a potential factor in terms of influencing far-right extremist violence. In doing so, we trace the strategic dissemination of far-right narratives and discuss how extremists conceal their misanthropic messages in order to deny ill intention or purposeful harm.

Far-right extremists’ use of humour, 2021

 

[Debater Slayer]

"Hate speech" is nothing but a thought/speech control concept. It's Orwellian garbage. In America, we have a little something called the First Amendment so legally there's no such thing as "hate speech".

Most of the developed world has either hate speech laws or at least stricter speech laws than the US. The US is an anomaly in this regard. I do believe that many countries abuse hate speech laws and take them or their application too far, but there are many countries that have them and consistently rank above the US in many freedom indices by multiple metrics. For example, this is the ranking for internet freedom from Freedom House:

Countries

Freedom House assesses the level of internet freedom in 70 countries around the world through its annual Freedom on the Net report. Click on a country name below to access the full country narrative report.

freedomhouse.org

All of the countries that rank above the US both for internet freedom and overall freedom per the above index have stricter speech laws than the US, and most of them have hate speech laws (especially for extreme cases like Nazi speech).

I can see solid arguments against hate speech laws, especially given how they can sometimes be abused to suppress speech that is inconvenient to political powers. I'm still of the belief that they're a net positive if implemented and delineated properly, though.

 

[Kathryn]

What is it? I'd rather not give that site traffic.

Well, it was a few days ago but I believe it is a Springfield, Ohio town hall meeting about the immigrants, from before all the national attention.

 

[Kathryn]

No mention of eating stolen pets.

Very true. But you watched it all.

 

[metis]

A black man brought up the issue of Haitian immigrants eating peoples pets. So there was a basis for Trump mentioning it.

Ya, well guess again as he repeated the claim, this time including geese, yesterday. When are you going to accept the reality of who Trump really is?

And btw, for the 4th time I believe, where did you get your list of supposed Kamalas lies from? why would you tell us, Colt? I told you where I got mine, Colt.

Never mind, I think the reason for your non-answer is quite obvious.

 

[Stevicus]

But we are witnessing in the actions of Trump, Vance and Loomer et. al. something that is going beyond "criticism" and should not be confused with free speech any more than yelling fire in a theatre.

I think America has generally followed the standard of whether there is a "clear and present danger." That's a stricter standard than what seems to be the case in other countries.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Haiti is a failed state.

Therefore it's not ecomically viable.

Its citizens are poor.

Poors are more likely to steal.

Next.

Even if we assume that "poors are more likely to steal," there's a giant leap from that to "poors are more likely to steal your dogs and cats and eat them."
One doesn't follow from the other.

 

[icehorse]

Always the excuse for lacking
a basis for your beliefs.

And you always have the same lame excuses for not being up to speed on important topics, but weighing in anyway, sigh.

 

[icehorse]

Robin played a good Genie and Ibram created cool abstract sculptures from metal.

Right, so this is why I've become jaded about providing examples and citations. You were given two examples, you ignored them.

It's like you play the "whoever makes a claim first, loses" game. boring af.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Haitians are poor per the data. They literally live in a failed state. That is a real economic designation.

Poor people steal. Per common sense.

Saying they make sacrifices is not xenophobic any more than saying Christians celebrate the Eucharist. Its a cultural religious practice they have. How is acknowledging this racism? Unless you think I have a problem with animal sacrifice, which I haven't.

Point out the factual errors here.

Poor people stole to engage in a religious ritual. That's my argument.

The Hattians who live in Springfield, Ohio are there under legal temporary protective status. They work and contribute to the community, as per local officials. They're not poor people roaming the streets searching for dogs and cats to eat.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/politics/springfield-ohio-migrants-jd-vance/index.html

https://www.ctinsider.com/news/politics/article/an-ohio-city-reshaped-by-haitian-immigrants-lands-19757895.php

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/haitian-immigrants-fueled-springfields-growth-now-us-presidential-debate-2024-09-11/

John Oliver did a great piece on this topic last Sunday as well.



So it seems you're way off base with this and running off stereotypes and internet rumours.

 

[icehorse]

Oh come on.

Name one thing.

I think that you must think that any criticism of trans activists is "trans phobic", is that about right?

 

[icehorse]

All of the countries that rank above the US both for internet freedom and overall freedom per the above index have stricter speech laws than the US, and most of them have hate speech laws (especially for extreme cases like Nazi speech).

Seems like a correlation / causation error.

 

[Stevicus]

Even if we assume that "poors are more likely to steal," there's a giant leap from that to "poors are more likely to steal your dogs and cats and eat them."
One doesn't follow from the other.

I recall there was quite a bit of talk like this back in the 1970s when Vietnamese refugees started coming in to Orange County, California. There were stories that circulated about them eating people's dogs, and the issue was even joked about on TV occasionally.