Facebook Employees Tried To Remove Trump Posts As Hate Speech (usatoday.com) 235
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: Facebook employees pushed to remove some of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's Facebook posts -- such as one proposing the ban of Muslims from entering the U.S. -- from the service as hate speech that violated the giant social network's policies, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday. The decision not to remove the Trump posts was made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the newspaper reported. Employees complained that Facebook was changing the rules for Trump and some who review content on Facebook threatened to quit. "When we review reports of content that may violate our policies, we take context into consideration. That context can include the value of political discourse," Facebook said in an emailed statement. "Many people are voicing opinions about this particular content and it has become an important part of the conversation around who the next U.S. president will be. For those reasons, we are carefully reviewing each report and surrounding context relating to this content on a case by case basis." Senior members of Facebook's policy team posted more details on its policy on Friday: "In the weeks ahead, we're going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest -- even if they might otherwise violate our standards."
The system is fixed hillary for prison! (Score:3, Insightful)
The system is fixed hillary for prison!
Let's ban ideas we don't like (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's ban ideas we don't like because uncomfortable ideas make us uncomfortable. The world should be a safe space, one where we can focus on how great we are instead of possibly thinking about the disturbing thoughts of others.
Yeah, depending on your audience, lets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When exactly is Trump saying such things at your kid's Christmas pageant? Or is Facebook showing up and re-posting such things while the kids are performing?
Perhaps you need to do a better job of controlling the safe space you keep your offspring in, as well as how they respond to such things when they encounter it.
Did you know there is also violent imagery and porn on the internet? Best keep them offline. TV has some of it t
Re: Let's ban ideas we don't like (Score:2)
Ah, such is the mind of a millennial. Their parents tried to protect them from different ideas, thus leaving them unable to think for themselves. Fucking little twerps.
Hmmmmm (Score:4)
Well, bye. Yes Trump is terrible and his viewpoints are awful. He's awful the GOP candidate for President. By squelching his speech content, you're both tacitly endorsing a specific party as a platform -- a big no no from Zuckerberg -- and stripping people of newsworthy information, be it for good or bad. Needless to say it does not surprise me they threatened to quit. If I were Zuckerberg, they'd have been gone anyway. They were moderating content on Facebook, a job not relegated to rocket scientists, and failed at it.
Good work ladies and gentlemen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By squelching his speech content
Content that was in violation of Facebook's then-current terms and conditions
you're both tacitly endorsing a specific party as a platform
Which party is that? Democratic, Libertarian, or Green? American Independent, American Socialist, or yet another of the political parties?
a big no no from Zuckerberg
And changing the rules so that the original candidate no longer is violating Facebook's terms isn't tacitly endorsing that candidate or their party?
and stripping people of newsworthy information
Because Facebook, first of all, positions their service as a primary source of news, and is completely not just a place to keep in contact with peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Your talents might be more useful in the real of horse shoes or hand grenades.
Re: (Score:2)
So it is with hate speech policies. You start out with a claim that 'hate speech is bad and should be banned' and you perfectly logically end up in a place where you censor
What do you expect? (Score:2)
I'd wager that many of the people working at Facebook are not Trump supporters. The ones who moderate are on the bottom rung, in low paid, low skill jobs where the whip is being cracked because they aren't flagging stuff fast enough.
Facebook is a normal company full of mostly normal people. Of course some of them will try to do this, just like their users go around flagging Clinton's stuff and just like every other site. Now if Facebook suddenly officially endorsed Trump, or Breitbart decided to back Clinto
So have they been fired? (Score:3, Insightful)
If said employees feel free to delete others posts, it's not hard to imagine they are reading private messages, monitoring to make sure BadThought is stamped out...
Have these employees been fired? If not, why not?
Fired for doing their job? (Score:2)
I would believe it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm quite left of center and the hate for Hillary among my group is probably as bad as the Trump fan hate for Hillary, and people have been complaining about posts disappearing.
Editing content makes you responsible for the content itself, as you are exerting control over it.
I believe practices like this are ridiculously dumb.
Especially since I consider "hate speech" a great idiot filter. It allows me to keep my friends list trimmed. Just like a Confederate flag is, or Trump signs in the yard. But that's my own choosing. I don't want Facebook choosing for me.
Yeah, I know, if it's free you are the product. The problem is that the telnet chat that everyone used has been abandoned (even though it's still up after all these years).
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Hate speech, profanity, spam, threats, etc.. they all run rampant throughout content sites that don't actively fight against them. Sure, Facebook doesn't have to censor nudity, but they chose to draw the line on where they did. That was their choice to make, just as its your choice to use a more free service.
My only burn is that Zuk specifically went out of the way to break his own policies to assuage further political backlash. Trump clicked 'I understand these onerous speech restricted privileges' when he
Story doesn't fact-check against itself. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Employees" and "pushed for". According to Google, Facebook had over 12,500 employees in 2015. So some employees felt strongly enough about Trump's posts to raise a discussion, and the company said "No". Zero conspiracy. Nobody stole the secret codes to the hidden filter chamber.
Basically, this articles takes Facebook taking things seriously, doing what I think most of us would hope it would do, and tries to paint it as beastial. I would *hope* that Facebook /doesn't/ hire based on political perspective, so I would hope it has employees of all ends of the political perspective and seeks to maintain a neutral stance. That doesn't mean that it's employees shouldn't be able to raise their concerns internally either way.
Re: Story doesn't fact-check against itself. (Score:2)
I'm missing that because its your imagination. And regardless of rank of the people who felt this strongly about the material, the simple facts remain: no stories were suppressed, whomever leaked this would have been all over that, there was just a discussion. "Facebook" didn't try anything, contrary to, what the article implies. Facebook asked itself whether it should act based on how some of what Trump says measures up to what non-followers gauge as hate speak. And they recognized they shouldn't.
Anyone else find it amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's less the election and more that Facebook employs (and empowers) totalitarian-minded censors. A less censor-happy organization (like Slashdot) wouldn't feel the need to change anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Right-wing political speech becomes less extreme every year. What Trump has said, while baseless and unsupported, is far less offensive than what we've previously seen from them.
"The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power⦠That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today." -Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Facebook employees try to destroy Facebook (Score:3)
If my employees tried to kill my company, they would no longer be my employees.
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:4, Insightful)
Enforcing immigration law is not inherently xenophobic. Deporting all illegals and building a wall to hinder their return sound perfectly reasonable to me.
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:5, Interesting)
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian. And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization [logicallyfallacious.com]. It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...
Free speech doesn't mean 'uncriticized' speech (Score:2)
There were approximately 0 liberals arguing that Trump should be locked up as the result of his clearly racist statements--it's completely dishonest to claim otherwise. As for Facebook? private companies can decide for themselves what speech they endorse--there's not first amendment right to post on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian.
It was because the judge was of Hispanic ethnicity and still embraced some portion of Mexican culture. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, did you hear Trump bring it up once? No? Ok. I hope we can forget about that absurd position and agree that Trump was talking about race and culture, not the nationality of the parents.
Note that Rubio and Cruz probably escaped similar remarks because they've publicly embraced white European culture.
And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization [logicallyfallacious.com].
No one sane claims all of his supporters are racist, just a lot of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Enforcing immigration law is not inherently xenophobic. Deporting all illegals and building a wall to hinder their return sound perfectly reasonable to me.
My wife is from the Philippines, and most Filipinos that I know are actually kind of pissed about the "illegals". When you come here legally, it costs a bunch of money, if you have a work permit it has to be renewed in person annually, and going through the process of getting a green card or citizenship is also expensive. And you get harassed if you don't do everything correctly. You (the American citizens) would be embarrassed if you knew how some folks are treated when they simply want to come here leg
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and that does suck for those people. They do it by the book and a bunch of people who don't are not punished. Its the same thing when there is intentional inflation and monetary devaluation. Plenty of people save their money and do it right, and then here comes inflation to wipe out their savings.
When too many people break the law, sometimes the best thing to do for the country as a whole is to declare amnesty. It isn't fair, but that's best for the country. We either give them amnesty, have them
Re: (Score:2)
Mexicans came or stayed here illegally at an even greater rate after that.
The only way amnesty works is if you do something to stop it from happening in the future, like maybe building something along the borders to prevent it a lot of it.
Re: (Score:2)
However although is it quite reasonable to limit immigration and have some pretty stringent testing requirements (physical health, psychological health, employability, ability to communicate), religion is most definitely not one of them, that is really stupid, for one they do not come with a label and two the dangerous ones will lie anyhow. So testing for religion, just plain dumb, mind bogglingly dumb (keep in mind religious fundamentalist will fail the psychological tests and the communications test also
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe it was that, given the the religious violence currently going on in the Muslim community, we should have a temporary hiatus on foreign Muslims entering the country until we can re-evaluate our immigration policies to better evaluate the likelihood of foreigners committing violence while here.
Again, sounds prudent to me. Foreigners have no automatic right to enter the US. It's a privilege, which may be restricted or withdrawn.
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:4, Insightful)
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world, and which is fundamentally incompatible and in conflict with many of the most basic principles of your society makes perfect sense. In fact, not doing so seems completely insane.
What a lot of people don't get is that many of the people in their beloved minority groups wouldn't hesitate in a second to completely destroy many of the freedoms that we've fought so hard to accomplish. And quite frankly seeing women wearing that full-face-cover head veil thing (there's at least one who lives near me) makes me sick.
Islam teaches that women are literally the property of their husbands, no different than cattle. That should make anyone sick.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world
Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.
Re: (Score:2)
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world
Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.
Islam is whatever the hell the particular believer happens to believe.
If you're a member of ISIS, Islam is the one true faith and should be spread by the sword.
If you're a farmer, Islam might be a religion preaching peace and compassion.
If you're a student, Islam might be an annoying set of dietary restrictions.
To claim that Muslim is a political philosophy of conquest is no more valid than an atheist like myself claiming that Christianity is a political philosophy that demands theocracy, the repression and
Re: (Score:2)
> It's interesting that the descriptions of "Islam" sound a whole lot like my understanding of Christianity as expressed by many Trump supporters.
Yeah, but fortunately a little thing called the Reformation broke the back of the theocracy in Europe. That hasn't happened with Islam yet. They're still stuck back where we were about 400 years ago. Syria, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, and Iraq are all painfully obvious examples of this.
Blatant terrorism is far less troubling than the importation of more theocrats. W
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:4, Informative)
Christianity and Judaism are also in conflict with Democracy, because any religion that states that religion is above democracy (which both do, its just that most modern versions of them have pulled back from that 'somewhat')...
Is that right? Hmmmm....
15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. 16 So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” 21 They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away.
Source: Book of Matthew, Chapter 22.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Buddhist, so it's not like I really have any skin in this game, but if I recall correctly, anything in the New Testament that contradicts something found in the Old is held to supersede it, no?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Citizens have rights in this country. We don't have to extend those same rights to foreign nationals.
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:5, Informative)
*not the same AC, but he is right
Citation:
Demore V. Kim [cornell.edu]
Georgetown University Law Center analysis [georgetown.edu]
Short version: The Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that constitutional rights, the right to bear arms and freedom of travel in this discussion, do not extend to non-citizens. Thus, not only the other AC is right in that "We don't have to extend those same rights to foreign nationals." but that we don't extend those rights to non-citizens as a matter of law laid out by the highest court in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if its so important to you find the references yourself. lazy ass fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't agree that these are "conservative" vi (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's ArtemaOne, don't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go actually READ the Constitution. Parts of it apply to all people. Parts don't. They could use a bit of clarity in places, but it's usually pretty clearer. It's a LOT clearer than my state constitution. And it's not horrendously long. Only about five pages (depending, of course, and page size and font, but I'm thinking of 8 1/2X11 inch paper and 10 point Times-Roman...but this *is* an estimate, since it's been awhile since I printed it out).
But, e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicates
Re: (Score:2)
> (A) The US Constitution
What part of it specifically disallows entry restrictions?
> (B) International law
Irrelevant.
> You're a moron.
No, you're the moron. You just make a very small word salad and you think it actually means something. There's a little bit more to a legal argument then screaming "but the constitution".
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's use full context here. Banning Muslims from extremest hot spots until we can improve how we vet them. Not much different from banning German men of military age from immigrating while at war with Germany.
Rather than playing the Democrat's hate card to always try to suppress the Republican vote, let's have an honest discussion on what the proposed policy was actually about. Let's use the full context and implied reasoning. Not the political soundbites.
Full context and sound bites (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
part of what you wrote is just totally non sequitur. what isn't is straw dog.
just because of A, B, or C in the past doesn't mean a human being shouldn't use its brain to think about D in the present.
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess that would have been a 'no' on Albert Einstein then. Good job.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:5, Informative)
Albert Einstein was 59 years old by WWII , not exactly "fighting age", US Military cuts off at 35. By 1915 he was 35, and by 1933 he renounced his german citizenship.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything you are saying is backwards.
Conservatism, as it's defined today by empirical evidence and voting records, is an extremist institution that supports terrorizing and torturing the public, a state-controlled media, totalitarianism, fascism, and income confiscation through tax and public debt. The democratic party also believes in these same things. These are black and white beliefs when you get down to it.
The current RNC candidate is, by comparison, very moderate.
Newborn males in the US have a 50\
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rise of a right-wing group on Slashdot which downvotes pretty close to any information they don't like as trolling or flamebait is deeply worrisome.
Sarcasm right? Mod games are a colossal waste of time. We couldn't wish for a better scenario than to have our enemies waste their time and effort with such things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really: mod games as you put it are not a waste of time in that sense. Man readers only read the highly upvoted comments or scan for remarks about that. How things are moderated does influence what people see.
How many are "many readers" again? You're speaking of hypothetical people who read the comments, but are unaware somehow of mod bombing and the other mod games. Needless to say, I think we want our foes to waste their time on this particular readership.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote som
President Obama said something similar (Score:2)
Banning Muslims is wrong because we shouldn't punish innocent people because just because someone else is guilty.
The occasion was after one of the Muslim mass shootings last year.
Let's not forget that, at the same time Trump wanted to act against innocent Muslims, President Obama wanted to take action against innocent gun owners. If it's wrong to target innocents for enforcement, when can we expect President Obama to be criticized for exactly the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of things can be punishments without impacting rights. It's not the same kind of punishment as imprisoning them, for example, but they probably think of it as a punishment.
Treating innocent people badly because someone else is guilty of something is wrong, regardless of it technically being called "punishment" or whatever.
You can argue that it's justified based on some particular need if you want. But you can't argue that Trump's comments are evil hate speech and Obama's aren't -- they're essentially
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with that? Better than banning communists.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to undo erroneous mod...we're in agreement :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really arguing that if a solution is not 100% perfect then the best option is to do NOTHING about a problem?
You do realize that if the solution is far enough away from perfect, then yes, doing nothing can be better. Building a wall sounds like one of those things that is that imperfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The comment was about the flow of drugs.
Re: (Score:3)
All the terms we use "conservative" "liberal" "progressive" really stand more for complicated political alliances than anything that clear cut. For example, pot legalization is stronger on the left among "progressives" but legalization is essentially reactionary, going back to an earlier era. Similarly, many right-wing, conservative positions, are new or novel ideas. By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas are more often found as part of the "conservative" tribe (although there's a definite undercurr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Left/Libertarian is hard to fathom since it would generally mean taking resources away from them to take care of or protect others through government. It would be a strange breed of left/lib (or more moderate biased) person who could consider both as a non-conflicting goal.
I'd prefer to view the spectrum of something like:
Fiscally Left (social assistance, progressive taxation, universal healthcare)
Fiscal Right (limited services, fewer laws and restrictions, libertarian ideals)
Socially Left (Egalitarian, Pro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a libertarian leaning Republican could be pro-choice
Most of the libertarians I know consider most abortions to be the murder of a human being.
The support of abortion is rooted in dehumanizing the fetus. It cant be said to have any rights at all if it doesnt even have the right to live. Even if and when we agree as a society that killing these particular human beings is ok, that still doesnt mean that we agree that the State should promote or fund the activity.
If you think the right to live is a human right rather than person-hood right, then the fetus h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:4, Interesting)
By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas
You assume your conclusion there. Not wanting more immigrants when you can't find a job is not xenophobia. Check around /. when there's an H1-B discussion. Do you really thing that's xenophobia? Or are you really saying "people I don't like are racists"? Because that's what I hear you saying.
In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches.
Politics is about putting the taxpayers' money in your pocket. Why would that be connected to any philosophical approach in the first place? The only thing politicians actually disagree on is: who's pocket.
believing they have a right to discriminate
Every time you make a choice based on data, you discriminate. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls, banning all Muslims and similar measures, is. That there are sympathetic arguments for specific low immigration policies doesn't change that large amounts of the anti-immigrant attitude are coming from xenophobia.
As for discrimination, you playing language games rather than ignoring the fundamental point: if you prefer, simply add the words "based on race or religion" after the word discrimi
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that something as basic as not wanting to bend over, drop your underwear and let an immigrant rape you senseless is now deemed xenophobia.
Exaggerated rhetoric? Barely.
http://www.hna.de/kassel/herde... [www.hna.de] didn't include rape.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com] did.
People being told they're xenophobic for trivial shit is one of the reasons Trump is so popular. He doesn't let the labels being attached to him stop him sharing his views.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls
Wanting to enforce existing immigration law is not inherently Xenophobic. Wanting to focus on immigration of Muslim refugees at a time when ISIS terrorists are moving around as Muslim refugees is certainly "discrimination based on religion" - making a decision based on data - but it's not necessarily xenophobic.
No wanting to import a culture that executes gays and rape victims on a regular basis Is certainly discrimination. It may be xenophobic, if you twist the definition away from "fear of the strange",
I suppose it depends (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's let free speech have its moment (Score:2)
They are xenophobic views. Just because someone who identifies as a conservative has them, does not make them conservative themselves. They're pretty extremist, which defies the term conservative as it is.
These are not xenophobic views, they are completely practical views, and we need to debate and consider them as adults.
Carter imposed a temporary ban on Iranians entering the US, which is essentially what Trump wants. Below are Carter's exact words.
Also, banning immigration for any reason is not unconstitutional and has been held to not be unconstitutional by the supreme court in cases which were on point. I won't bother posting a link because explanations are easy to find on the net.
If, and I mean this lit
Re: (Score:2)
So, you react to an invitation to discuss an issue as an adult with "nu-uh, you are!". Says it all, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no. Your comment made no sense. His reply wasn't great, but even your attempt to explain your comment made no sense.
Clearly your reading comprehension level uses different rules of language than ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what kind of views they are. Censorship is the enemy of democracy. You may not like some views, you may disagree with some outlooks, and sometimes people are going to say things you find repugnant and disgraceful. As citizens of this democracy, its our duty to discuss the hard questions in an open and thoughtful manner. Its my personal belief that suppressing speech of any kind is wrong, even if hateful or painful to hear. We suffer white supremacy and BLM to blast their opposing versions
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually, that's not how it works. Trump is not a conservative. The Republican party, which, although it does include some conservative politicians, is not run by conservatives.
You might be surprised to find people on the other side of the aisle find your views just as ugly, selfish, and repugnant, though they aren't far enough down the authoritarian rabbit hole to try to censor your speech. They will come around eventually, though, if you and your ilk persist.
Re: (Score:2)
There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I keep getting friend request spam on facebook from obviously fake accounts, and when I report them, facebook responds with a message to the effect of "we reviewed the account and it is a real person", including ones with obvious spam posts like this one:
https://www.facebook.com/profi... [facebook.com]
Either facebook's reviewers are fucking retarded or they get paid to keep accounts like this active.
Re: (Score:2)
Laughs about death of Gadaffi.
I can't escape the nagging feeling that the same people who keep "complaining" about this are the same people who joked about something happening to Gaddafi before it ever happened (or would have, had they thought of it, which most of them likely didn't), and would laugh the loudest if something untoward happened to Clinton. These folks also seem to be the same ones who conveniently ignore the fact that Libyans were literally (not figuratively) dancing in the streets and whooping for joy when they heard he