Propellertalk- Bigotry, The Internet, And You »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 1 year, 5 months ago in Science & TechnologyWhile it is true, the World Wide Web is an extraordinary bastion for the principals of free speech and the free exchange of ideas it can also be a breeding ground for hate and groups who seek to spread it. Shockingly, these types of sites are on the rise in recent times. It's a razor's edge that divides the issue of free speech from lurid racism an
Read Full Story at propellertalk.com »
213 Views Share Story 52 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Radiofreeeuropa
All progress comes from unreasonable people.
Rats live on no evil star!
Wasilla: All I saw...
Sorry, just palindroming around with terrorists.
Are you still ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 276 of 392 Comments (view all)
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
Hello all, it seems we've had quite a bit of conversation on this subject of late and we may in fact be 'talked out', but for better or worse we have another voice in the wilderness weighing in and reaching out. Some folks have claimed this subject is much ado about nothing, I beg to differ. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center there are 844 active hate groups hard at work here in the US. Click your state on the map and learn about some of them. I was very surprised when I first visited this site and looked at who was spreading hatred in my own state.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
Reply-
0%
BoxMonkey1 year, 5 months ago
Well Radio , I was fourtunate [ or not ] to have met some first hand in the area where I'm at now .Hatred is never a good thing . It's always worse when aimed at a person because of their Race [ I thought we were all one race , the Human Race ] , Creed or Color . I've witnessed hatred between two nieghbors who ran a fifty yard long fence six feet high between their houses because one was Catholic and the other Protestant .Unbeleiveable .
Reply -
-
-
0%
eugenegerard1 year, 5 months ago
Liberty and freedom of speech do not mean that you can say anything you want. Feedom of speech bears a responsibility to be factual and truthful. When lies are spread or facts tweaked the very principal of freedom comes under attack.
Freedom is atwo edged sword. On one hand you can choose wrong. On the other you have a responsibility to do what's right. If you don't you could loose your Right to choose.
Reply-
0%
Spadecaller1 year, 5 months ago
eugenegerard
About bigotry, hatred, and prejudice... Out of the mouth of babes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhhZ2PDl-aM
Reply -
0%
Candida1 year, 5 months ago
eugenegerard: "Liberty and freedom of speech do not mean that you can say anything you want. Feedom of speech bears a responsibility to be factual and truthful."
I disagree. Freedom of speech means exactly that; you are free to say anything you please, no matter how stupid, insensitive, insane, or untruthful it is. We as a society may decide to put limits on that freedom, as most civilized societies make libel and hate-speech crimes, but those boundaries need to be very clear and specific. We as individuals may also expect others to be respectful and truthful and shun others who are not, but they do have the right to say their stupid lies unless they violate some specific law.
Reply -
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
True, sites that are presenting false information can be exposed. But here on propeller, what do you think the best approach to dealing with them is?
Reply-
0%
berkeley1 year, 5 months ago
if i answer a question that you have not posed to me, i am intruding into your world. if i'm clever, or funny, you might let it go. but if i sound like i'm your mother, or preaching, your normal response is to ignore me at best, or more likely to fight back in some way.
people on this site, or in the real world, who are obvious racists or religious fundamentalists, don't usually invite examination of their beliefs.
given that, ignoring such posts, and comments, is probably the best approach. the only other option that respects their position is to pose a truly open question that gives them an chance to explain their reasoning. "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" doesn't qualify.
Reply -
0%
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
Let everyone say whatever they want to say. We can ignore them or neg them.
Otherwise "politically correct" will prevail, being dominated by those with the biggest hammer.
Reply
-
-
0%
crespi1 year, 5 months ago
Actually the internet started out flooded with White Supremacy sites, Fundamentalist "Christian" sites and conservative hate pundits of the most extreme nature. (Many of which I have quoted on other threads.)
These have morphed into more "respectable" forms but are still horribly virulent.
When you offer to justify and encourage jealous hate, inferiority-complex rage, and scapegoating you get a lot of followers.
Iran was the most Democratic nation in the middle east in 1953. We toppled Mossadegh and put in the Shah. He was so hated it created the Radical Islam movement by pushing the population towards the Ayatollahs. NOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HATE IRANIANS AND WANT TO PREEMPTIVELY NUKE THEM.
That's how hate works on Americans, like a charm.
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
Funny how now people want to "fix" problems caused by imperialism with more imperialism.
Reply -
-
0%
markoller1 year, 5 months ago
Even if it was a mistake to topple Mossadegh and install the Shah, we should have left bad enough alone. The Shah was hated mainly by recationary religious fanatics, because he was too progressive. President Carter's human rights campaign gave them their chance to seize power. Still not satisfied, the Carter gave orders to "destablize the Shah."
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
As I have stated on many occasions I find censorship abhorrent. I truly believe in the free exchange of ideas. In a nation such as the United States, we have an obligation to the Constitution to allow language that we find offensive, simply to encourage that free expression of ideas. If the ideas are abhorrent, they may very well find an audience, but if people debate the idea and express their disdain for it, eventually that audience will become marginalized.
For instance the Aryan Nation "World Congress" drew less than a hundred people. Not due to censorship or persecution of their beliefs, but due to massive crackdowns on their criminal activity and the marginalization of the White Supremacist movement in general.
That kind of marginalization reduces their influence without infringing on free speech.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
-
0%
Spadecaller1 year, 5 months ago
Great article!
Some of us are purists who condemn any form of free speech and there are others who would go to the opposite end of the spectrum and advocate censorship against anything that remotely appears to threaten the American way of life, whatever that is. I think both positions have their flaws.
Permit me the liberty of reaffirming my view; I will defend the first amendment rights of anyone -- including members of the neo-Nazi party, Aryan Nation, the KKK, or any of the 3000 hate groups, to assemble and march down our streets, but I will not belong to a blog site or an organization that gives them a platform, which "victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age, or disability." However, I do support anyone's right to comment on the threads, even when (I think) it is grossly inappropriate and mean-spirited.
(continued)
Reply-
0%
Spadecaller1 year, 5 months ago
This article is excellent because it is an invitation, a petition, and an appeal to the consciences of caring members of Propeller, to deny the toxic and threatening influence from those who use Propeller to spread hate and bigotry.
Some of us have the courage to stand up for what we believe despite the opinion of others.
Some of us have no problem in ignoring a story or sinking it. Regrettably, there are also some who prefer not to make waves; that when they are asked to vote, they do -- even when it is something they oppose.
I commend the author of this article for clearly stating the issue that we face as a community here, as a country, and in the world; "In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved."-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Reply
-
-
0%
canadianrancher571 year, 5 months ago
Free speech is a wonderful freedom and I question at times whether it is right to censor anything. On this site we have a terms of use agreement statement but if it was followed to the letter we would not have many articals to view or comment on. Many who comment on the site or post stories have links to support the story or their views so it means they are usually not alone in what they believe, whether it is the true is determined by what I consider is our greatest right and that is the right to thought, this is one right that cannot be takesn away by any one. The right to thought allows us to come to a conclusion on a topic but it means we must have access to all the facts whether they are considered truthful or not. Before you jump on me about this statement just think back to before the start of the Iraqi war, society was presented information which was not true and yet the majority accepted it. (Continued)
Reply -
0%
canadianrancher571 year, 5 months ago
Many comments that are made on this site are prejudice but in a way that is acceptable, a simple example of this is the story last summer of the religious tractor pull event, which still today gets references toward those who attend such events, They have been painted with a brush which most of them would oppose. The reason for my participation on this site is as a social interaction with people as well as a search for questions I have. I will continue to look for the truth in many areas and if it means viewing stories that may be offensive to some I hope this will not be held against me. One belief I have is, there is little danger in questioning a person or his beliefs but if you want a fight insult that person and his beliefs. I chose to question, hopefully it is safer.
Reply -
0%
tchef1 year, 5 months ago
It's an unfortunate truth that there are always going to be haters out there. Even if we all became the same color and practiced the same religion some one would still find a reason to blame all their problems on some one else. It's easier to do than to find the real root of the problem.
Great article. I know I for one don't just blindly vote on stories just because they where sent to me. I rarely sink anything unless I find it really offensive.
Reply-
0%
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
The 10% rule - in any group there are (supposedly) 10% who hate it, 10% who love, and the rest are on the bell curve.
Reply
-
-
0%
Shadowolf1 year, 5 months ago
Blind hate is stupidity,no matter WHOSE T-shirt they're wearing...(My own antipathy of NeoConArtists is not blind;it's reasoned!!!)
Seriously; I learned the hard way not to go toe-to-toe with hatemongers and agents provocature...someone starts baiting you and getting in your face back off and report them...
Reply -
0%
2sidestoeverything1 year, 5 months ago
A very good article thank you Radio for submitting this. I also enjoyed reading the post above.
Reply -
0%
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
Great article Radio and well said all.
The question really becomes where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and freedom from speech that we find offensive?
My position on the issue is difficult to articulate without a long discussion so suffice it to say that I do not support, condone or approve of prejudice in any of its myriad forms. On the other hand, I am a firm believer in the moral right to do anything that does not actively harm another. So, while there are things out there that may harm you in an emotional way, you are not required to hear, see or be around them. Therefore, I think those of us for whom this issue is an issue of personal harm should confront it if they so choose. On the other hand, those of us that do not find this an issue of personal harm should also do as they see fit.
I fully respect both opinions in this matter.
Reply -
0%
Commodore11 year, 5 months ago
Yes, now the idiots in the hate groups can reach all the other idiots who want to join. Why can't they try something challenging and try being nice, accepting and respectful. Hating is just too easy and it has no rewards.
Reply -
0%
tehranchik1 year, 5 months ago
Information=knowledge. If you take even the smallest bit of information away, you've taken taken some knowledge with it. I want that information. I want to be able to make my own choices---not someone elses. I don't want to risk being taken down a path I might not have chosen, because someone else deems it hateful. I want be able to deal with it, face it, understand it.
When I see information disappear it makes me think about book burnings.
My vote on propeller means many things: I've been there, I've read the article, I think it needs discussion, I agree with the article or I disagree with the article but want others to see it to have a conversation about it. So--please hold your 'hater' remarks inside your own heads.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
I strongly agree with that opinion. If we take away someones right to say something in public, no matter how inflammatory, we have no idea what they might be thinking.
They could be convincing people by other,less open methods that, unchallenged, may seem reasonable. For instance, if you listen to just one side of the Iraqi War debate (pick one, it doesn't really matter) you could believe whatever that side wanted you to believe. It may seem perfectly reasonable to you, without contradiction. To use a non-government example, if you only heard one side of the debate over evolution, you wouldn't even know there WAS another side.
If we take a hate group example, since that is the subject of the thread, if we only heard one side of a sexual orientation debate, we wouldn't know there WAS another side to it.
A free society demands free inquiry and free debate.
Reply -
0%
markoller1 year, 5 months ago
Great point, and if there is one thing worse than public book burning, it is well camoflaged book burning.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 5 months ago
As a matter of fact, whole nations have elevated themselves above the rest, just by believing the others are 'less than'.
Once a people are 'less than', they become easy prey. Take their wealth, their culture, their deemed more desirable people as your own, and denigrate and destroy the rest.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 5 months ago
That's true. Religions have done it, cultures have done it, races (although that term has less and less meaning), individuals have done it, groups of individuals have done it and sexes have done it.
Sometimes, even, both sides of a war have done it. It's a common theme throughout history.
However, if we censor what they say publicly, we don't know they're doing it. So, I feel that we need to know what they're up to so that people can stand up to them, debate them where they stand and defeat the idea of "us" and "them". I rather like the idea of "we".
Reply
-
-
0%
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
One of the reasons I signed on to Propeller was to hear the "other side".
I want to know that there are people out there who are anti- someone or some thing. When I've read the hateful posts (hang him, or I'll supply the bullets) I feel that I need to know that there a people out there who have extreme feelings and are very vocal about it. I may neg them, but never block them.
Hearing all of your opinions helps me to know what I should be doing to help keep our country free and perhaps a better place.
Reply-
-
0%
walden31 year, 5 months ago
Different people have different meanings for words too Klarissa. You don't hate tomatoes. You dislike them. Other people dislike tomatoes and say they hate them. Thankfully I think it's more of a way to vent then make an actual threat.
Imagine some of the stuff that must have printed about the king of England in the colonies during the American Revolution.
Reply -
0%
Candida1 year, 5 months ago
Klarissa: 'One of the reasons I signed on to Propeller was to hear the "other side".'
Same here. I wanted to understand why some people are clamoring for a war with Iran when there are already two wars going on that have no end in sight and are destabilizing the world. I would have never met any of the "nuke them all" crowd anywhere else.
Reply
-
-
0%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 5 months ago
Exactly Klarissa!
Hearing the other side is one of the best things about posting text! One may be outnumbered, but can't be muzzled or shouted down.
The most difficult thing for me, is to not get angry at times. When I feel that, then I may have a vulnerability. It's not always the case, but it may expose some bigoted feelings of my own.
I have an aversion to zealots, and the closed minded, and zelously and single mindedly pick fights sometimes. LOL! This generally exposes my intolerance of differing opinions. I have friends at work that hold diametrically opposing viewpoints on some issues. I think mine are 'better than'. I have to remember that 'I' am not 'better than'.
Reply-
0%
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
SD, To be specific, one type of comment that really gets under my skin is the generalizations of Democrats or Republicans.
Most of the time it is obvious which viewpoint we hold, but just because it comes across as liberal doesn't mean far-out liberal, there are moderate liberals with whom I find a lot in common.
And to paint all conservatives as right wing christians who are fascists or Nazis really doesn't enlighten anyone.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
ANC - there is such a thing as an "off" button. No listeners, no advertisers, no program.
Reply
-
-
0%
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This is a great post. The problem is that "those in power" (here that is Propeller people) tend to consider themselves "right. They see no problem suppressing the other side (not always but we all know it happens to an extent)because they are "right". For instance. It used to be ok to say bad things aboutgays. Now you can't speak negatively (according to the rules). Soon, you will only be able to say positive things. Or choose your own personal "special group".
This is the problem with censorship. You DEMAND that people in power force their thoughts onto you. If you agree with them, that seems like a good deal because they shut down your opposition. But remember, those in power change. Next time they will come and take away your rights. So, before you agree to censorship against anything, just realize you have given the green light to have yourself censored in the future when people disagree with you.
Reply-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
Absolutely true. I think, and this is merely conjecture that Propeller management does a decent job of overseeing things here. That they very gingerly apply the TOU, and primarily in response to members contacting them with complaints. (I don't know if this is so, just my guess.) Actually if James Marcus or one of the other anchors ever cared to share their outlooks or experiences about the subject, I think we members would be very interested in their perspective. My experience is that we (the Propeller site) have been very lucky to have such a light handed approach to overseeing it all. In our case I believe the management does not wish to impose any specific views on the site unless prodded into doing so by members. Pretty fair I think, but if as you suggested KISA452a, someone else were at the helm an entirely different scenario could ensue.
Reply -
0%
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
I did not really mean to say that Propeller is doing this. I have seen no indications of interference, but I used that as the example. It was purely a hypothetical, but common experience, example.
Reply
-
-
0%
Truzseeker1 year, 5 months ago
its frustrating when you can't post a story such as this... http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/news/internatio...
Reply-
0%
Neophile1 year, 5 months ago
But... you can. Or are you experiencing technical difficulties?
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Spadecaller1 year, 5 months ago
What I find disheartening is that when we discuss the subject of bigotry on Propeller, it only remains civil as long as no one discusses his or her specific experiences with it.
After posting my story about bigotry on Propeller, I observed how people get hurt.
One individual for example, reacted "passionately" to a blatant attack on homosexuality. The word "homo" is an epithet and a slur. Most of us know that. It was sad to see how many people dismissed this behavior. That is not to say that there were not some who acknowledged the insult and showed their support.
There was obvious hurt that occurred. The target of this oppression lashed back with several paragraphs of discourse. However, most members remained silent, denied its importance, or pretended that "words don't hurt."
(continued)
Reply-
0%
Candida1 year, 5 months ago
That attack on homosexuals was on the sixth or seventh page. Most people probably don't even read that far. I was one of the people who defended the rights of the homosexuals, but I didn't expect every single member to jump into the debate. Perhaps others felt that the few of us who wrote on the issue covered it sufficiently.
I was also one of those who claimed that banning hurtful words doesn't solve the problem of hurting each other. Different words hurt different people and we are not all aware of who is sensitive to what. I try to avoid words like Dumbocrats, Repugs, Christofascists, Islamofascists, etc., but not everybody does. Should all these words be banned? New ones will be created that will take on the same meaning. We have to deal with the message, not the words that convey them.
When I find something offensive, I speak out, independently of what anybody else does. I assume others can do the same on issues that offend them.
Reply
-
-
0%
Spadecaller1 year, 5 months ago
If words can't hurt then there is no need for the Terms of Use at all.
Nonetheless, I have noticed that some of us either identify with the guilt of the oppressor or the pain of the victim. Either way, a problem exists and it is most often neglected.
When anyone dares to admit they feel hurt, they are accused of being "overly sensitive." Sometimes they are accused of having a persecution complex.
Resistance to facing the harms that people do to each other perpetuates more of the same. When will begin to get honest?
Reply-
0%
Klarissa1 year, 5 months ago
SC- I think that you are describing what censorship is.
We can't say it because we might hurt someone's feelings.
Sometimes you just have to say it and take the comments.
Reply
-
-
Shankari25Comment removed: User banned.10 Replies
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.