Discussion: Protecting Non-violent Hate Speech

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by kororoti, May 16, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Telling people to toughen up when they butt-hurt about views expressed by a fringe element of society is perfectly appropriate. Telling Jews in Nazi Germany to toughen up, for example, would not be.

    And we'll never have a moral code that everyone agrees with.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Things will change one way or the other. People will either deal with not winning life's popularity contest or they will start lobbying to ban freedom. The former is the preferable form of change, in my opinion.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Some lobby to ban freedom in order to win the popularity contest.
    With some success, too.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    True. And some lobby to ban freedom because they actually think it's a good idea, regardless of how it affects their popularity.
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Why not?

    Then there will always be strife, and we might as well give up discussing about morality.

  9. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Because there's a huge difference between dealing with hostility from a few random weirdos and dealing with widespread, murderous, government-enforced mistreatment.

    Realistically, you might be right. I enjoy debating politics, but I do it for the entertainment and mental stimulation, not because I think that people with opposing views will start to see things my way.
  10. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Sorry, again you deflate what hate speech is. There is no 'reason' behind real hate speech! You are confusing valid criticism or discussion, with the act of shouting racial abuse. Saying 'Black men are more likely to go to prison than college' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21001543/ns/us_news-life/) is nowhere near the same as saying 'All n*ggers must die' is it?

    No it isn't. Because your speech isn't free, and never has been, that's a misnomer. You cannot shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, and hide behind this myth, nor can you tell lies about people, and not expect to be sued.

    Let's get this straight. It is NEVER right to express feelings of violence against a group for purely racial grounds. This MUST be eradicated from society.
  11. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Thematic variations on non-violent hate speech.

    As evident in the Cesspool confined thread entitled 'Imitation-Compliment, Plagiarisation Something Else' - of this Message sequel, 'rat-pack' players have trespassed on my posts and threads before. Characteristically underestimating the intelligence of readership and obviously placing quantitative values above quality; boasting of designing and maintaining felonious collaboration while referring to such activities, which 'Me-Ki-Gel' boldly flaunts as 'rumors', which do indeed emerge as 'mass hypnosis' among criminally bonded groups who don't - or can't afford to - know the difference between rumor and connived collusion (refer, Webster's definition of 'conspiracy'):

    persuading obscure and paramount authority figures to do their bidding, by way of covert, extrajudicial communications falsely stating that I have threatened or otherwise wronged them, rather than the other way around - as is clearly evidenced to any discerning reader who scrutinizes the self explanatory thread at issue - this time on Sciforums -


    . It is also indeed true that the subjected criminal element has succeeded in - the describe manner - persuading a number of internet forums to ban me from participation.

    Bob's Big Boy (BBB) cast his infant child into the RobertsonFamilyConspiracy (ROFACO) pits way back in '64, at the behest of the late ROFACO founder ('Call me') 'Big Brother Dick' Robertson: with the objective of blaming his responsibilities on me (without reporting his 'complaint' to the police - a felony of itself: the beginning of a chain of subsequently ensuing felonies - 'accesories to & after the fact') - the former personage (BBB) being the (Army diagnosed, section 8 discharged 'paranoid schizophrenic') 'yes man' to the latter (Dick Robertson), who was in fact a rogue CIA operative: deeply entrenched in the world renowned (Google) 'Presidio Army Fort officer's child day care center pedophile cult', in the late '60's and early 70's (When Dick Robertson resided in Concord, CA. and was the manager of a computer repair establishment on Bryant Street in San Francisco):

    Having driven his youngest son to suicide - as described in a preceding portion of this sequel (presently immersed in the 'Cesspool'), Dick Robertson was about to be indicted for multiple pedophilia, and massive conspiratorially coordinated embezzlement, when he shot himself.

    After decades of being deceived and betrayed, his bewildered wife therafter perished of a heart attack.

    I own a cache of typographic transcriptions and audio-tape documentary tape recordings (wire-to-wire copies of which are distributed to key government officials) of Dick Robertson proving in his own words that he is patently culpable of what is spoken of here, including an audiotaped recording of my late uncle, J.P. Savolainen - a retired Commodore Navy SEAL aviator - confirming that Dick Robertson was in fact a rogue CIA operative.

    An extensive documentary of their remarkably pernicious history was posted on - and then hacked off - the net, years ago, but not before it was downloaded all over the world by countless numbers of net denizens, many of whom are familiar with my (cost-free, internet) published works on a variety of subjects.

    It (the ROFACO) is also on record in numerous municipal, county, state and federal jurisdictions - including that of (then 17th Federal District Congressman) Leon E. Panetta, as well as Police Chief Belcher and Lieutenant Sepulveda, of the Santa Cruz, CA. P.D.

    As is evidenced in their varously signatured redundant and evasive styles, quantitative (ratpack numbered) values precede qualitative contributions to self explanatory threads. It seems to be their objective to hi-jack and besmirch whatever net activities I may appear in. As documented in preceding entries of this forum Message list, a senior moderator - one 'Tiassa' - of Sciforums (Science and Society http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69650&page=5 ) disregards the numerous threats imposed on Truly Yours, while elaborately chastizing, denigrating and dismissing me on the false premise that I am threatening 'members of the (Sciforums) community (by merely alluding to the potential for accountability, via the recently installed, Constitution sacking 'Home Security' and 'Patriot' acts - which allow for tapping anyone's telephone, and/or placing anyone on satellite-facilitated reconnaisance TV 24/7/365, without a judge's order or 'due cause'): while the opposite is manifestly confirmed by the cited antagonists; that is, threats are directed at me repeatedly in the issued thread.

    Neverwill refuses to be satisfied with my explanation that motivation for the Original Post of the issued - presently Cesspool located - thread is simply to establish public accountability regarding persons responsible for (actively participating in) an eight month extended hatesite ('Why KBR sucks') between late '03 and mid '04, which included allegations that I am a physical threat to women and children, which is the stature of the cited provocateurs.

    In the event(s) of moderator allowance of further information accumulating on this issue, this addendum will be correspondlngly continued.

    I am, respectfully,

    Kent Benjamin Robertson (aka, etceteras)

  12. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Dude, I never saw you before this forum.

    And I really don't care about you now.

    I don't give a rat's ass about you or your problems at this point.
    I do not want to hear about you or your problems anymore, I do not want to see hide nor hair of you, I don't want to share geography with you.

    If you're going to threaten to publish my IP, name, and home address you're threatening me
    I told you what I thought of you pretty bluntly, but I never threatened you.

    Go fuck yourself with a sledgehammer, and be sure not to use lube..
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Oh, that's just Kaiduorkhon. One of the "science" cranks.
    He's largely incoherent and eminently ignorable.
  14. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Incoherent I agree with.

    I perceive him as somewhat of a threat now...not sure how much, very much not wanting to find out how much of a threat.

    I don't like threats.
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Hate speech is based on subjective irrationality. People need to be conditioned, to behave a certain way, when the word pellet falls down the chute. The sound for the word is just a noise, without any cause and effect to behavior, until we are conditioned to behave, like a trained seal.

    For example, if I was to use a racial slur, when this word pellet falls down the chute, conditioning will induce a reaction. If I was to say the same thing to another person who does not know my language, since he has not been conditioned to react a certain way to that particular sound/noise, as it falls down the chute, he won't react like expected. You need to tell him how is suppose to react if he wishes to play the game.

    Personally I don't like that game and have reconditioned myself not to be trained seal when word pellets falls. But I do like to pull the lever and watch train seals perform. This is funny but sad.

    Sticks and stones will break my bones but names can never hurt me. Relative to sticks and stones, these are physical objects with mass and momentum, which if struck against flesh will active sensory nerves. There is a cause and effect between the stone hitting me and real pain.

    Words are noises, which do not have any cause and effect, like the stick or stone, unless we allow ourselves to be conditioned. Science should step in, and teach objectivity.

    What is a good exercise, is to translate hate speech from other languages and cultures, and then see how other people react to it, who are unconditioned. For example, a cuss might be, may your goats not give milk. The natural reaction to this translation might be humor. This is natural since it lacks constant conditioning. But to those trained seals, who are taught to react in an unnatural way, this food pellet might create hate among seals.
    Last edited: May 9, 2011
  16. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    The following 'dialogue' consists of responses to the original starting post on the issued thread:

    Firstly, chimpkin, you were not threatened at all (you do specify: If you're going to threaten to publish my IP, name, and home address you're threatening me), whereas, posters on the subjected thread were reminded of the recently activated (U.S. Constitution sacking) 'Home Security' and 'Patriot' acts, which empower 'government' to tap anyone's phone and/or place anyone on satellite TV facilitated reconnaisance,24/7/365, without a judge's order or 'due cause'.

    No. You didn't threaten me, neither did I say that you had (invaded my privacy, or, threatened to do so). Whereas, your elaborately inflammatory and provocative language and epithets are disregarded, as reflections on your character.

    “ He's largely incoherent and eminently ignorable. ” - Dyw

    chimpkin's response to Dyw:

    "Incoherent I agree with.

    I perceive him as somewhat of a threat now...not sure how much, very much not wanting to find out how much of a threat.

    I don't like threats."

    Your above statement, chmpkin, clarifies a perception that you have, or had, going on to say furthermore that you are not sure how much, and that you don't want to find out how much...


    The following quote is excerpted from Me-Ki-Gal's post #59 of the issued thread:

    "I am going to change human perception based on this very idea . The V formation is being built as we speak in more ways than one for Golly gee mister wizard I learned the law of rumors and how through underground networking not based in media blitzing information can be transmitted by hypnotic suggesting."
    Me-Ki-Gal closes this post with:
    "What you gonna do , What you gonna do when they come for you?"

    Is that not a threat?

    "Especially in the wake of Randwolf's closure of post #46 in the same thread: "O'course, paranoid does not preclude real enemies pursuing you..."

    Is that not a threat?

    In post # 60 of the issued thread, is my qualified statement:

    "Any further epithets, cryptically veiled threats or other (continued) denigrating gesticulations directed this way - by whomever - will only add more diabolically motivated dishonor (and a lot more intel than your mere isp coordinates, addresses and phone numbers) to the unfolding history..."

    The 'intel' alluded to very specifically does not state that thread participants will fall under the (Orwellian) auspices or contingencies of the so-called 'Homeland Security' or 'Patriot' acts. Ostensibly, I certainly don't have the wherewithal or influence to carry out what is - however tentatively - alluded to as 'threat'. What I did say and intend is that everyone on this - or any other - portion of the internet, is subject to the anti-Constitutionally installed Homeland Security and Patriot acts. Particularly when it involves the emergence of elements of the self-declared (fugitive) ROFACO. That is my (documented/manifest) story, and I am sticking to it.

    chimpkin's response to the above quoted excerpt is post #61 from the issued thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69650&page=5

    "So you are internet stalking sciforums members now?

    While I understand that this info can be had if you really want it?
    I find it very creepy and threatening that you actually would do so.

    As well as an extremely dishonorable act.

    You could insult me all day and I would not invade your privacy, or even threaten to do so."
    Post #62: followed chimpkin's above post:

    Bob's Big Boy
    The Best Burger in Town (0 posts)
    04-29-11, 08:44 AM #62

    "This is some thread here, boy. Some of these posts make me totally ROFACO."
    As expressed in post #48 of this thread, what Me-Ki-Gal describes as 'rumor'... "through underground networking not based in media blitzing information can be transmitted by hypnotic suggesting..."

    Corresponds with 'Bob's Big Boy' declaration that:
    "Some of these posts make me totally ROFACO."

    Firstly, that statement is tantamount to a public confession, since no one can 'make' the author of that post anything he hasn't or doesn't make himself.

    Whereas, the emergence & motive of 'Bob's Big Boy' (BBB, post #62) in the issued thread is also revealed (above) in post #48 of this thread.

    What BBB establishes in his 'Best Burger in Town' post is A) the acronymic ROFACO (Robertson Family Conspiracy) is still active; and, which B) places the author of that ('Bob's Big Boy' <Robert's son> ) post in the legal jurisdiction of Title 18 of the Federal code ('conspiracy') - the qualification that no matter how extended a felony vehicularized by so called 'rumor' is, all statutes of limitation are nullified: as long as the originator and/or accessories to that felony are still active.

    Moreover, the author of the post subjected in this paragraph, along with no less than scores of accessories, did specifically state on the internet, many times in many ways (between December 03 & September 04), that I am a physical threat to women and children. That hatesite was ordered down in a court of law, while its (feloniously 'rumored') connotations ('Terrorism': "the use of force or threats to intimidate, etc., especially as a political policy. Intense fear; that which causes intense fear". Webster's. All and much more of these definitions were repeatedly and diversely projected on myself and my wife by the self-maintaining 'ROFACO') continue - internationally and indefinitely - as 'inspiration' to untold numbers of criminal individuals and groups, thereby generating and maintaining a physical threat against myself and my qualified family and friends.

    The described condition was in fact applied to and vehicularized upon the internet, and, consequently, is being counter-stated and identified by way of the same communications medium, in this notable case, enabled by the grace of Sciforum adminstrators.

    That is what is qualified in my post that:

    "Any further epithets, cryptically veiled threats or other (continued) denigrating gesticulations directed this way - by whomever - will only add more diabolically motivated dishonor (and a lot more intel than your mere isp coordinates, addresses and phone numbers) to the unfolding history..."

    It allows for the possibility that the entire thread, or any part of it, may in fact be overseen, evaluated and/or traced; it does not say that is occurring.
    I have no power whatsoever to control what 'the powers that be' may or not be doing with this or that post, thread or forum, on this - or any other part - of the net; while most people are in fact aware that such powers exist and comparatively diminish the powers of the public internet to a relatively archaic status (the Reader is invited to refer to the example of technological resources at point in:
    http://forums.delphiforums.com/mollyspup/messages/?msg=2.1 )

    On the other hand, in light of the Homeland Security and Patriot acts, such reconnaissance is in fact a real and incumbent technology, and, since the poster of the 'Bob's Big Boy' missive, that individual has in fact boldly 'made himself' a high priority candidate for being targeted - as a fugitive, active element of his acronymic usage: 'ROFACO', while further identifying his (supposedly unaccountable and 'anonymous') self.
    (Segue to 'You Light Up My Life'?)

    Post Script:
    Certainly I have taken note of the remarkable fact that the moderators and admistration personnel of Sciforums have reinstated my privilege of posting new threads, etceteras...

    This unexpected allowance truly humbles me, and surely speaks volumes of cerebral and moral liberation not often seen in any number of other internet forums (all and any of which reserve the unrestricted right to disregard the 1st Amendment, when and if applicable).

    The theme of this thread:
    "Protecting Non-violent Hate Speech' evokes a very thought provoking series of responses, not unrelated to the incumbent issue at hand. Localized, national and international social dynamics are in accented transition, often regarding dysfunctional government and individuals (refer the book titles, 'Future Shock', and 'The Third Wave', by Alvin Tofler) - an authoritative source alerted me to becoming aware that there are two ways to go bonkers: #1. Acknowledge factually confirmed reality, or, #2. Deny it. Either way challenges the test individual in the laboratory of reality at large. I choose the former - #1. - school of thought.

    Sincere gratitude to kororoti for initiating this important thread, and to the administrators of Sciforums, certainly including senior moderator, Tiassa.

    I am respectfully,
    K. B. Robertson (etceteras)
    Last edited: May 10, 2011
  17. Regular0ldguy This is so much fun! Registered Senior Member

    And as much as I HATE to say it, I agree with Spidy. Plus info in this day and age gets around fast, as do adverse judgments. They are complaining now that a Broadway show can't make it because there are so many negative tweets during the first performance, no one wants to go see it for themselves. When someone clearly pulls some bonehead statement/accusation out of their rectum, there is a lot of opposition, and fast. It's really hard to get that Nazi style momentum going these days.

    So let the dumbass say it, and let everyone judge immediately. He's fizzle.
  18. Regular0ldguy This is so much fun! Registered Senior Member

    You've all heard about the difference between "You suck, you moron and I hate you for being so ugly" and "Let's all get a rope and grab that guy and string him up."

    This has been a distinction in the law for a really long time, and one which we have to apply on a case by case basis, with a jury. Free speech vs. inciting violence.

    Hate crimes seems to me to try to start that slippery slope of splitting the difference, and it certainly doesn't lead to clarity. I think we are fine the way we are. Hate speech of a particular type, on a particular day, in particular circumstances with a particular intent fits into one category or the other, and must be judged individually.

    Setting up a chart of accepted and forbidden types of speech is the type of central planning/one size fits all situations that can never work.

    Look at my example above. One clearly expresses hate, but is an opinion about the character/characteristics of another and is just some crass blowhard's opinion. The latter, is a crime. It intends to do more than insult or describe or offer an opinion. It is calculated and intended to lead to physical harm.
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    I knew you'd come around amigo.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page