What's new
By:

The Honesty of Transgender Identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ostertag>Duncan said:
It's not like she was just stereotyping white people like "lol look at those crazy white people and their culture" she was straight up saying some nasty ****. I agree it's not the same, and what those people said to the families is absolutely worse but the way someone can condemn something like that than turn a blind eye to what she said is ridiculous. And I'm not trying to pick on Zombie, a lot of people share that view and it just doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I agree. What she said was unacceptable and disgusting.
 
Zombie said:
Yes, they put themselves in this position by sending their kids to school, and having them shot to death.

Also you're just being an ***-hole. I have no interest in tolerating or making room for assholes to spew their toxic ****. Not to mention my calling you out, a person who is an ***-hole, for being an ***-hole, is not in any way shape or form curtailing your ability to continue to be an ***-hole. Regardless of whatever you think about the 'culture of abuse and intolerance. ***-hole.
Click to expand...

CNN and other political push "news" retailers put them in front of their cameras and used them for political purposes. Not civilized enough to let folks have their privacy in a time of grief. If not for that, Jones would have had nothing to talk about but the drugged shooter.
 
Zombie said:
I am capable of detecting irony. Sorry if that's difficult for some others. This article by Ezra Klein does a pretty good job of summing up how I feel about the whole thing.

https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan


Jeong's tweets and these dumbass conspiracy theories (that have actually caused real hurt and hardship for the families targeted) aren't in the same ball park. ****, they're not even the same sport. Until you can point to an example of someone actually being harmed by Jeong's tweets (lol) this equivalency remains false.
Click to expand...

I finally read the article. I thought, why the eff not, let's see how Zombie feels.

The article pretty much like someone defending Trump. It brushed what she said off as a joke and anyone with a brain could tell it was satire. It called the people who are upset by them racist alt-right trolls. Literally argues **** like, well, there are way worse people out there so we should focus of them. It also argues using the pharse white people doesn't actually refer to white people at all - just their power. Then the auther blames twitter.

I can only help but think you don't actively think this, do you? Have you read her twitter feed itself or are you just saying what you think you should say? I mean, I'll even call out Shapiro at stuff I can't get behind, but you seem to be all on board with the choo choo train.
 
Bulletproof said:
There is something different about talking about "white people" in general and slandering specific people.

I'm not excusing what she did. But it is not the same.
Click to expand...
I like how you used the word "talking" and then "slander."

The difference between her and Rosie, IMO, is Sarah is a racist who slanders an entire race and stereotypes both it's males and females as well as the police and has an Harvard Law degree. Rosie made fun of one's appearance and compared her to something that anyone in their right mind knows you can't say because it's going to come across as ****ing racist but didn't think about it because she literally thought she was white and has ambien.


One of those above is worse than the other, by far, imo because I actually believe Rosie thought she was white (I thought the same thing too when I googled her.) If she knew, then she's a racist **** too.
 
Ostertag>Duncan said:
It's not like she was just stereotyping white people like "lol look at those crazy white people and their culture" she was straight up saying some nasty ****. I agree it's not the same, and what those people said to the families is absolutely worse but the way someone can condemn something like that than turn a blind eye to what she said is ridiculous. And I'm not trying to pick on Zombie, a lot of people share that view and it just doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I think it's a good example of cognitive dissonance.

I know Ben Shapiro has said some pretty ****** things, but since I like some of what he says, it makes it easier for me to not think about. But even in that article Zombie posted about him I admitted there were things I couldn't get behind with him.

There's a power in knowing your bias and why you think they way you do. There's also a power in admitting what you stand behind is wrong.
 
Archie Moses said:
I like how you used the word "talking" and then "slander."

The difference between her and Rosie, IMO, is Sarah is a racist who slanders an entire race and stereotypes both it's males and females as well as the police and has an Harvard Law degree. Rosie made fun of one's appearance and compared her to something that anyone in their right mind knows you can't say because it's going to come across as ****ing racist but didn't think about it because she literally thought she was white and has ambien.


One of those above is worse than the other, by far, imo because I actually believe Rosie thought she was white (I thought the same thing too when I googled her.) If she knew, then she's a racist **** too.
Click to expand...
Technically you can't slander an entire race. Slander means something specific in a legal sense.
 
Slander Law and Legal Definition
Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.

The basic elements of a claim of slander include;

  1. a defamatory statement;
  2. published to third parties; and
  3. which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.
Slander is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. If the slander unjustly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the court or jury can assess the damages. For other types of slander you generally must prove some actual damage to be able to recover.

Slander of title is a common law tort involving a disparaging remark regarding ownership of property. It affects the owner's ability to transfer the property, resulting in a monetary loss.
Click to expand...

Slander requires that you actually suffered harm based on something someone said about that knew was false or should have known was false. If the statement is true, then it cannot be slander.

That's why when Alex Jones says the parents of kids killed in the Sandy Hook shooting are crisis actors he could possibly be committing slander. It has to be proven that he should know or does know that's not true. If he has any evidence at all that suggests that it is true he could never be successfully sued for slander. But if he was presented with evidence that demonstrates without question that what he's saying is false and he continues to say it, then it becomes much easier to sue him for slander.
 
You could use it that way, but I'm using it to describe an actual civil offense that Alex Jones has committed. I believe that if layers for those parents presented Alex Jones with proof that they were actually parents of children of kids killed in Sandy Hook, and then the lawyers presented these hosting sites with the evidence and proof that Alex Jones was presented with the same evidence, then that would essentially force their hand to ban him.
 
There is a difference between free speech/freedom of the press and a multinational media company handing a nut job snake oil salesman a ticket to legitimacy. If anything google,Fb, etc should be ashamed by their naivete. They should be ashamed of their arrogance. They should have consulted with old media behemoths long before now to try to understand editorial control so that they could adapt best practices to their model.

IMV they, in their ignorance, thought that it had little to no value in the new media landscape. They have fed a series of plagues by refusing to wash their hands. Now that they can clearly see the consequences of their actions not only should they be washing their hands but getting a vaccination or 2. The days of believing that they are a just a platform or that they have little ethical responsibility for the content they distribute are over.

Put your big boy pants on youtube, you're a global institution now. Act like it
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top