- Mar 2024
-
Local file Local file
-
who was related to theMing imperial family
bc he was in the qing
-
three great religions
islam, buddhism, hinduism
-
- Feb 2024
-
human.libretexts.org human.libretexts.org
-
leap from one to the other depends on assumptions
from reason to claim
-
-
www.mic.com www.mic.com
-
Again, this isn't an argument for government intervention. The goal is for companies to adopt a European-model hate speech policy, one not aimed at expunging offense, but
policy
-
Some people argue that the purpose of laws that ban hate speech is merely to avoid offending prudes.
counter
-
France, Germany, The Netherlands, South Africa, Australia, and India all ban hate speech. Yet, none of these countries have slipped into totalitarianism. In many ways, such countries are more free
claim of policy: censoring hate speech is not reducing fredom, but allows freedom
-
Those who try to remove this hate speech have been criticized from left and right
counter: censoring hate speech is futile, dangerous, "pet issues" over reacting??
-
The truth is that such speech does not democratize speech, it monopolizes speech.
counter: non censorship is free speech
rebuttal: should be some restrictions of free speech; free speech actually oppressiv not freeing
-
Other countries merely go one step further by banning speech intended to intimidate vulnerable groups
claim of policy: should imitate own/other counties policies that allow for restrictions of harmful content/speech
-
ree-speech jurisprudence relies upon the assumption that speech is merely the extension of a thought, and not an action.
counter: speech is just speech, no actual effect
rebuttal: speech is harmful and impactful
-
American
limit
-
We would not argue that we should sit back and wait for this kind of speech be “outspoken” by positive speech, but that it should be entirely banne
counter+rebuttal
-
My argument is not that these should be taken down because they are offensive, but rather because they amount to the degradation of a class that has been historically oppressed.
claim of value/policy: need to be censored (policy) bc they effect already oppressed communities
-
he negative impacts of hate speech cannot be mitigated by the responses of third-party observers, as hate speech aims at two goals
claim of policy/value: hate speech carries negative impacts, need to be strictly dealt with
evidence: 1. give other bigots recognition, reinforcement 2. intimidate those targeted
-
The map's existence draws into question the notion that the “twittersphere” can organically combat hate speech. Hate speech is not going to disappear from twitter on its own.
counter: hate speech is dealt with through social media communities that fight against it, no need for platform restrictions rebuttal: hate speech is not gonna disappear without restriction evidence: 150,000 insults detected -> claim of fact
-
expunging
removing
-
Stricter regulation of Internet speech will not be popular with the libertarian-minded citizens of the United States, but it’s necessary
limit: US counter: liberals rebuttal: necessary
-
social networking websites should not tolerate hate speech and, in the absence of a government mandate, adopt a European model of expunging offensive material.
claim of policy
-
Facebook took a small step two weeks ago, creating a feature that will remove ads from pages deemed “controversial.” But such a move is half-hearted.
counter + rebuttal claim of value; "half hearted"
-
Censoring Hate Speech
claim of policy: hate speech on social media should be censored
-