You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Danny Mills Still Thinks You Are A Racist...
December 1 2021 6.00pm

Danny Mills Still Thinks You Are A Racist...

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 18 of 18 << First< 14 15 16 17 18

 

View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 01 Nov 21 8.02pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by crvenaeagle

So I noticed something recently. Of course all of the Premier League players take the knee before starting a game, but then when they go to play with their respective international teams during the break they're part of a team that make a point of not taking the knee before starting a game. Even against us. I find it quite confusing.

Expectations, sponsorship, yada yada. As I've said all along Wilf has a point in that it's lost its purpose. For a few games it makes sense. As an ongoing action in isolation with nothing backing it up it has become pretty pointless. No doubt countries and leagues have their own approach or don't buy into it, and so on those occasions it doesn't happen.

As far as I can see online action is the main route that can be addressed. I don't see why it's that hard for algorithms to stop the more insane racial abuse that's getting sent to people, or why it's an impossibility to hinder people signing up again and again just to hurl abuse at people. Facebook already has various such measures in place, but Instagram (ironically owned by Facebook) and Twitter are badly lagging.

In the later case I suspect that Twitter knows that a huge percentage of its accounts are robots, trolls, accounts set up by gov agencies to sow discord in other countries, and so is wary of slimming down.

Edited by BlueJay (01 Nov 2021 8.13pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 01 Nov 21 8.12pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Itís a little like musicians who played Sun City; some did it for the money, some under sufferance due to financial need and some probably didnít give it a second thought. And of course a lot more didnít go.

A good analogy. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the 'a lot more didn't go' came to pass with the World Cup, but expect the fans are just as eager to look beyond the hypocrisy and contradictions as the players, and so doubt that will happen.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 01 Nov 21 8.35pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

It certainly wasn't my view until recently, no. Let's just say that my concern for what echo chambers (often stirred up by foreign actors) do to people over time, makes me more inclined to put a few more checkpoints in place.


Edited by BlueJay (01 Nov 2021 8.20pm)

Ha!

Fickle commitment.

Well, no doubt that'll work for you until you no longer agree with those implementing the checkpoints.

But then you won't have a leg to stand on.

Ultimately it won't matter as eventually there will be parallel infrastructures....and when that happens as long as you stick with your 'safe' approved one that's cool


Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2021 8.42pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 01 Nov 21 10.45pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Ha!

Fickle commitment.

Well, no doubt that'll work for you until you no longer agree with those implementing the checkpoints.

But then you won't have a leg to stand on.

Ultimately it won't matter as eventually there will be parallel infrastructures....and when that happens as long as you stick with your 'safe' approved one that's cool


Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2021 8.42pm)

It's sensible for any social network to adhere to law and have algorithms and rules in place that seek to encourage people to stay within it too and adhere to basic community standards. That's nothing that doesn't already exist here for instance. HOL censors swears words, and the n word and the like for instance should some crave the desire to use them.

The only other safety net would be to stop people disrupting platforms (trolls, foreign actors) once already banned. Facebook already takes such measures. They help to make sure platforms aren't abused, and are useful and proportionate steps regardless of a persons politics.

I don't really think increased government involvement should factor into the above (or any involvement really unless something extreme is going on) - though they may decide that it does and yes that could be to the detriment of this group or that all depending on the government of the day, so it's a fair argument to be wary of it.

Where they should of course keep a keen eye, as we see with MPs getting killed, is groups that either encourage such violence, or those that effectively act as line treading pit stops for ex-members of them under cover of respectability. They should most certainly infiltrate and monitor groups that may form a patchwork of radicalisation and be a mix of easily led, dysfunctional, strident and extreme, whether Islamic, far right, far left, whatever. It would be negligent to society and those on the wrong path to fail to do so.

All I ultimately want to keep 'safe' is people from pathways that lead to extremism. That should be the extent of the governments role in the Internet space. Social media platforms as you say will likely take their own approaches within reason. It's a no-brainer to use technology to snuff out contributions from those just signing up to vomit vulgar abuse and threats to people well known or not. Wilf is right to call out the platforms rather than give much time to the individuals. That's where change can happen.


Edited by BlueJay (01 Nov 2021 11.18pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View HKOwen's Profile HKOwen Flag Hong Kong 02 Nov 21 2.20am Send a Private Message to HKOwen Add HKOwen as a friend

You suggest a boycott, by whom and of what?

As far as the N word, and the C word, used a lot by BLM types on black people they think are not black enough.

The woman who was shot at the Peckham party was a racist potty mouth.


Originally posted by BlueJay

The abuse Wilf highlighted today relates to mindless racist comments. Why are you solely conflating receiving this abuse with him refusing to take the knee? Personally I agree with his stance on that, but you appear to be using comments aimed at him such as 'go die black monkey' and liberal use of the n word and blaming those actually taking a stance against racism, rather than starkly engaging in it.

I certainly wouldn't argue that he's a role model, but that doesn't hinge on whether he agrees with taking the knee or not, as there are plenty of successful black players and indeed people who fall on either side of that. You are hijacking and using this grotesque racist abuse for your own ends.

I'm with Wilf 100% on social media needing to take these issues far more seriously. That will bring a much needed reality check to those who target him and others by using vile language to denigrate in a bid to distract themselves from their own nomark status.


Edited by BlueJay (31 Oct 2021 7.29pm)

 


A lie will travel half way around the world before the truth has got it's shoes on.

When conceited septuagenarians opine , best to ignore.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 02 Nov 21 7.14am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

It's sensible for any social network to adhere to law and have algorithms and rules in place that seek to encourage people to stay within it too and adhere to basic community standards. That's nothing that doesn't already exist here for instance. HOL censors swears words, and the n word and the like for instance should some crave the desire to use them.

The only other safety net would be to stop people disrupting platforms (trolls, foreign actors) once already banned. Facebook already takes such measures. They help to make sure platforms aren't abused, and are useful and proportionate steps regardless of a persons politics.

I don't really think increased government involvement should factor into the above (or any involvement really unless something extreme is going on) - though they may decide that it does and yes that could be to the detriment of this group or that all depending on the government of the day, so it's a fair argument to be wary of it.

Where they should of course keep a keen eye, as we see with MPs getting killed, is groups that either encourage such violence, or those that effectively act as line treading pit stops for ex-members of them under cover of respectability. They should most certainly infiltrate and monitor groups that may form a patchwork of radicalisation and be a mix of easily led, dysfunctional, strident and extreme, whether Islamic, far right, far left, whatever. It would be negligent to society and those on the wrong path to fail to do so.

All I ultimately want to keep 'safe' is people from pathways that lead to extremism. That should be the extent of the governments role in the Internet space. Social media platforms as you say will likely take their own approaches within reason. It's a no-brainer to use technology to snuff out contributions from those just signing up to vomit vulgar abuse and threats to people well known or not. Wilf is right to call out the platforms rather than give much time to the individuals. That's where change can happen.


Edited by BlueJay (01 Nov 2021 11.18pm)


I think to an extent I would agree with much of that.....However, as we differ in our attitudes and opinions in areas I doubt we would agree as to what 'extremism' actually looks like. Most of what you agree with was considered extreme at one time....indeed, some of it when I was younger.

Not accepting violence or the threat of violence has been on the books for a very long time (though unevenly dealt with)....however once you go beyond the line of easily identified threats, overt abuse and the ability to block you enter a minefield of subjectivity. You might trust corporations and government to police this objectively but all I have to do is look at history and recent history at that to differ in view.

I don't see platforms like FB or Twitter as being supportive of frankly nasty abuse so I doubt that there is much more that they can do without damaging their business models.

Algorithms are not currently able to recognise intent, indeed many humans can't either and frankly I think if the door is opened to significant censorship using easy examples of abuse like Zaha's then I can only see wider detriment.

In the short term I think it's probable that possible laws coming from bills like 'online harms' could mean that freedom of speech suffers a low point.

I don't want an Internet where dark humour jokes are banned because someone finds it offensive or where I can't discuss topics that others don't like. The left want to move that way and justifications always start by pointing at extreme and nasty examples like Zaha's.

Anyway it's indicative of the divide between left and right on free speech and while it'll take time I believe there could be different infrastructures that operate slightly different takes on rules...for example the difference between Hol and bbs. At that point people would have choice on what they have a presence on. At that point perhaps the law could give the infrastructures far more autonomy...perhaps what I saying is wishful thinking as what people want and what happens are often separate realities.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Nov 2021 7.23am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 02 Nov 21 11.41pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


I think to an extent I would agree with much of that.....However, as we differ in our attitudes and opinions in areas I doubt we would agree as to what 'extremism' actually looks like. Most of what you agree with was considered extreme at one time....indeed, some of it when I was younger.

Not accepting violence or the threat of violence has been on the books for a very long time (though unevenly dealt with)....however once you go beyond the line of easily identified threats, overt abuse and the ability to block you enter a minefield of subjectivity. You might trust corporations and government to police this objectively but all I have to do is look at history and recent history at that to differ in view.

I don't see platforms like FB or Twitter as being supportive of frankly nasty abuse so I doubt that there is much more that they can do without damaging their business models.

Algorithms are not currently able to recognise intent, indeed many humans can't either and frankly I think if the door is opened to significant censorship using easy examples of abuse like Zaha's then I can only see wider detriment.

In the short term I think it's probable that possible laws coming from bills like 'online harms' could mean that freedom of speech suffers a low point.

I don't want an Internet where dark humour jokes are banned because someone finds it offensive or where I can't discuss topics that others don't like. The left want to move that way and justifications always start by pointing at extreme and nasty examples like Zaha's.

Anyway it's indicative of the divide between left and right on free speech and while it'll take time I believe there could be different infrastructures that operate slightly different takes on rules...for example the difference between Hol and bbs. At that point people would have choice on what they have a presence on. At that point perhaps the law could give the infrastructures far more autonomy...perhaps what I saying is wishful thinking as what people want and what happens are often separate realities.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Nov 2021 7.23am)

I miss the Internet when it resembled the diversity of thought that (still to an extent) exists in real face to face conversation. Over recent years especially it's all about algorithms that keep eyeballs on screens and that usually happens through encouraging division and hostility rather than anything useful or positive. The echo chamber and both state and social media manipulation of users has become more like presenting people with a directed 'fix' than with information, compromise and nuance (unavoidable aspects of life), and that's across the board politically. The 'through the looking glance' nature of how it impacts peoples mentality definitely significantly magnifies differences in real life too. Most pushed online political perspective of all shades nowadays are so laughably 'off the shelf' and identikit that its staggering (and inevitably those with the loudspeakers are banking bank and thus have no interest in straying from their grift). The Internet has become a kind of corrupted environment, until or unless a more human side emerges (there's potential that more virtual environment developments in future might bring this. It can't exactly make things worse).

I think it's the nature of online platforms to cater to an audience, or provide room for all (whatever opportunity makes them $$$), and that within the law they should be allowed to do so. Both the left (hate speech) and the right (wanting governments to step in due to popular platforms marginalising certain voices) both open open the door for the government having more and more control over what is deemed as a valid expression at any given moment. Ultimately I see that as a negative really, and the letting in of something that will eventually be used against all. Government should in my view have a remit that is centred on commonly understood paths to violence, which I would say should largely be traced back from those engaging in such acts, rather than any opinion or angle that I or anyone else might have.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 15 Nov 21 1.05pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

I miss the Internet when it resembled the diversity of thought that (still to an extent) exists in real face to face conversation. Over recent years especially it's all about algorithms that keep eyeballs on screens and that usually happens through encouraging division and hostility rather than anything useful or positive. The echo chamber and both state and social media manipulation of users has become more like presenting people with a directed 'fix' than with information, compromise and nuance (unavoidable aspects of life), and that's across the board politically. The 'through the looking glance' nature of how it impacts peoples mentality definitely significantly magnifies differences in real life too. Most pushed online political perspective of all shades nowadays are so laughably 'off the shelf' and identikit that its staggering (and inevitably those with the loudspeakers are banking bank and thus have no interest in straying from their grift). The Internet has become a kind of corrupted environment, until or unless a more human side emerges (there's potential that more virtual environment developments in future might bring this. It can't exactly make things worse).

I think it's the nature of online platforms to cater to an audience, or provide room for all (whatever opportunity makes them $$$), and that within the law they should be allowed to do so. Both the left (hate speech) and the right (wanting governments to step in due to popular platforms marginalising certain voices) both open open the door for the government having more and more control over what is deemed as a valid expression at any given moment. Ultimately I see that as a negative really, and the letting in of something that will eventually be used against all. Government should in my view have a remit that is centred on commonly understood paths to violence, which I would say should largely be traced back from those engaging in such acts, rather than any opinion or angle that I or anyone else might have.

Commonly understood paths to violence have been understood since before Buddha.

What I can assure you of is that social/neo liberalism doesn't have any answers in that particular area....indeed, stats show quite the opposite as it's created/worsened many of the conflicts itself....social media just provides a window to reflect them.

A social media that tries to create positive environments (which is subjective) isn't a balanced reality and I don't think it would catch on outside of those that want to think in those terms. Forcing its use universally just seems to me like a version of the Chinese system......Whatever it's not as though any of us will get a say regardless.

I don't like thinking about what actually might be the best way forward for the current powers as I don't really support their ideologies and blame them for much of the issues. I many ways I support the versions that came before them.

However, I do support the normal person getting on who might not really know or in fact give a damn about anything political....just living their life taking everything at face value. They don't deserve any negatives from paths that elites have deliberately created.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Nov 2021 1.11pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 15 Nov 21 2.11pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

A social media that tries to create positive environments (which is subjective) isn't a balanced reality and I don't think it would catch on outside of those that want to think in those terms. Forcing its use universally just seems to me like a version of the Chinese system......Whatever it's not as though any of us will get a say regardless.

I see the current problem being that successful algorithms are those that purposefully encourage disagreement and anger (aka twitter) or present ever more ramped up and extreme versions of whatever outlooks people support. Whatever keeps people on a platform has become the go-to approach. I don't find that to be any more real to life as an approach that is overly positive. It has taken centre stage because its without the nuance and face to face that is still somewhat more common in real life. The sweet spot would likely be more of a balance but as you say, it probably wouldn't be popular. Then again giving preference and weight to what is addictive, damaging and profitable rather than balanced almost becomes a kind of 'legalise all drugs' base instincts argument, on account of what it likely amounts to for society and the individual.

Online life may well be a window to offline divisions, but I'd wager that the Internet has drastically ramped up divisions on account of its echo chamber type filters. It has eliminated borders between people, but not necessarily in a healthy way, rather one where they seek identikit outlooks more than ever (because they so easily can). It's the vanity of the mirror, the 'do i look pretty in this' to the rest of the echo chamber. It eliminates the needs for emotional intelligence, debate and compromise for the most part, which even in times past was a more necessary and respected component of society. It disturbingly narrows peoples outlooks to a handful of high fives and buzzwords that are embraced by their brand of bubble.

Quote
However, I do support the normal person getting on who might not really know or in fact give a damn about anything political....just living their life taking everything at face value. They don't deserve any negatives from paths that elites have deliberately created.


Yes I very much agree with this. I don't really feel that some kind of enforced 'with us or against us' from political groups, or corporations or governments telling people how to think or feel is necessarily all that natural a part of life. Going back through the ages life was more local and day to day, and while i'm not saying that in a 'connected world' people benefit from being ignorant to the outside, I do think equally that being consumed by it isn't of much use either because the tone of it is and always will be biased to a myriad of storms on the horizon.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 15 Nov 21 2.32pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

I see the current problem being that successful algorithms are those that purposefully encourage disagreement and anger (aka twitter) or present ever more ramped up and extreme versions of whatever outlooks people support. Whatever keeps people on a platform has become the go-to approach. I don't find that to be any more real to life as an approach that is overly positive. It has taken centre stage because its without the nuance and face to face that is still somewhat more common in real life. The sweet spot would likely be more of a balance but as you say, it probably wouldn't be popular. Then again giving preference and weight to what is addictive, damaging and profitable rather than balanced almost becomes a kind of 'legalise all drugs' base instincts argument, on account of what it likely amounts to for society and the individual.

Online life may well be a window to offline divisions, but I'd wager that the Internet has drastically ramped up divisions on account of its echo chamber type filters. It has eliminated borders between people, but not necessarily in a healthy way, rather one where they seek identikit outlooks more than ever (because they so easily can). It's the vanity of the mirror, the 'do i look pretty in this' to the rest of the echo chamber. It eliminates the needs for emotional intelligence, debate and compromise for the most part, which even in times past was a more necessary and respected component of society. It disturbingly narrows peoples outlooks to a handful of high fives and buzzwords that are embraced by their brand of bubble.

I wouldn't disagree with your summary....I have to say that I do recognise the well meaning intention behind your positions, I just think you are in a position of plugging the leaks in the Titanic.

Still, if people with your mindset were running these platforms I'd have more faith in them....though I recognise that they have to make a living....like Tim Pool implies, perhaps there is no happy answer to the social media question.

Originally posted by BlueJay

Yes I very much agree with this. I don't really feel that some kind of enforced 'with us or against us' from political groups, or corporations or governments telling people how to think or feel is necessarily all that natural a part of life. Going back through the ages life was more local and day to day, and while i'm not saying that in a 'connected world' people benefit from being ignorant to the outside, I do think equally that being consumed by it isn't of much use either because the tone of it is and always will be biased to a myriad of storms on the horizon.

Yep, I think that's common sense but it's kind of been thrown to the wind in a forcibly globalised world. Every situation has degrees of winners and losers and I certainly don't think the working lad and lass has been foremost in these deliberate changes.

We each try to navigate a path through I suppose...despite that path being badly maintained.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 15 Nov 21 4.01pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


We each try to navigate a path through I suppose...despite that path being badly maintained.

Yes, there are no doubt failings and pipe dream attributes to any and all outlooks. And inevitably whatever the approach, it almost always ends with the rich and powerful exploiting the efforts of the man on the street and not offering much back in return.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 18 of 18 << First< 14 15 16 17 18

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Danny Mills Still Thinks You Are A Racist...