DaddySatyr
Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011 From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers .....and here I thought you were above all of that shit. I think, maybe, you just haven't been paying attention. As far as the OP goes: quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Truthy “could mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate” by creating a database of political memes shared on social media, the National Science Foundation grant states. First off; I reject most connotations of "hate speech". If someone is truly spewing hate (Fred Phelps), that's one thing. The sad fact is that accusing someone of "hate speech" or "homophobia" or "racism" is far too common a tactic, these days when the person employing the tactic has just run out of logical arguments to support their end of the debate. I remember as far back as "Hill-Billy" calling any dissenting opinion, "Hate Speech". Remember Hillary's "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"? She might be the Godmother of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade. One of the things that helps to keep any government in check is the ability of people to openly criticize it. So, because criticism of government has already been "set up" under the umbrella of "hate speech". That's reason enough to reject this whole idea (for me). The other issue is government being "in charge" preserving open debate. Government regulates. That is their charge. Almost by definition, government fosters open nothing; unless we are discussing government opting to do nothing about a topic. Essentially, what we're being told is that free speech will be vastly improved, once government can control it. How's that for a true oxy-moron? Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?
_____________________________
A Stone in My Shoe Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me? "For that which I love, I will do horrible things"
|