In todays news...

[JamJar]

It is but there is worse than that out there. I stepped away from it, but couldn't help thinking, with that much hate about, people must be pretty easy to radicalise. But then, the problem of radical Islam is something we've become too woke to discuss...

Jo Cox's killer was a racist right-winger. The US Capitol was stormed by racist right-wingers. The Oklahoma bomber was a racist right-winger and former soldier.

Yes and we can talk about that, the left love to talk about it, but we can't have serious discussions on the rise of radical Islam?

Who says we can't talk about radical Islam?

[Horse]

As for your second point, how did the English Civil War happen without the internet?

It happened, there was no Internet. Even you can't argue with those facts, can you?

The causes and how information was disseminated are moot here.

[slowsider]

But then, the problem of radical Islam is something we've become too woke to discuss...

Jo Cox's killer was a racist right-winger. The US Capitol was stormed by racist right-wingers. The Oklahoma bomber was a racist right-winger and former soldier.

I don't believe that you're trying to tell us (or that you believe) Islam is a socialist or left wing idea . . .

Tell us what else don't you believe...

[slowsider]

It is but there is worse than that out there. I stepped away from it, but couldn't help thinking, with that much hate about, people must be pretty easy to radicalise. But then, the problem of radical Islam is something we've become too woke to discuss...

Jo Cox's killer was a racist right-winger. The US Capitol was stormed by racist right-wingers. The Oklahoma bomber was a racist right-winger and former soldier.

Yes and we can talk about that, the left love to talk about it, but we can't have serious discussions on the rise of radical Islam?

Sure we can. But it usually involves asking whether the West engaging in military action in sandy regions of the world may have contributed to its rise.

[Yambo]

Tell us what else don't you believe...

I don't believe that is good English.

[Rockburner]

I read that the average daily newspaper today contains more topical information than a 15th century peasant would hear in a lifetime - if it's all slanted in a certain direction then it's literally brainwashing by sheer weight of negativity.

'Divisive' or similar was mentioned earlier. Possibly England's most divisive event was the civil war. How and where did they get their information?

Current social media typically requires input to get output ie the terms you search for, likes links and follows, etc. Are the foundations already in those people, social media fuels the spark?

No it doesn't - you have to actively attempt to reduce the amount of negative/controversial 'stories' thrown at you by the social media 'services'. I've no idea how their algorythms pick which stories are thrown at you, but it's recorded fact (see last months news) that they actively try to push stuff you won't like at you in order to create interaction from you with their service. (which is twisted logic I'll admit, but that what seems to be the case)

[slowsider]

Do you have any facts to support your thesis that whingeing dads produce whingeing kids?

You could answer that with a 30 second search on Google scholar.

What you are unlikely to find is any peer reviewed study that shows parents do not have any influence on their child's mental health and behaviour.

How to prove a negative...

Freud would have it that the influence was contrary to the father.

[slowsider]

How to prove a negative...

Freud would have it that the influence was contrary to the father.

It's not proving a negative.

There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of peer reviewed studies that describe in detail all the ways in which parents, or people in charge, can affect the mental health and behaviour of children in their care. Some vary in their conclusions about the exact way or the level of influence, but there is not a single one to support your theory that children (or indeed any mammals) are not influenced by their environment.

Indeed, if your comment about Freud is right then the father influenced the child to the contrary.

A study that proved they were not influenced would be proving a negative...

If Freud is right, then whingeing dads don't produce whingeing kids; you can't have it both ways.

[DefTrap]

Parents do influence their child's mental health and behaviour.

As ever was.

The internet does influence people in the 21t century.

Er, yes.

Algorithms on social media do push stories to people even if they haven't asked for them.

It's much more likely that algorithms push stories to you which are similar to the behaviour of other users with your browsing history. And that's to keep you coming back and therefore bolster ad revenue. So you only have yourself to blame.

I can browse twitter, facebook et al without chancing upon hate crime. I wonder why that is?

[slowsider]

It hasn't made me stab anyone. Perhaps it's the individual not the medium.

[Count Steer]

An understandable dilemma. You can't advocate for the right to free speech - as long as it's only the sort of free speech that you don't mind.
I'm in favour of the right to free speech but struggle with it when some people say what they do.
Hard circle to square.

[slowsider]

Perhaps the suspension of hate could be spread wider than MPs?
http://revtothelimit.co.uk/viewtopic.ph ... 79#p112679

[Yorick]

The last few pages have seen the same old faces arguing.

I just haven't got a clue what about though.

[slowsider]

It hasn't made me stab anyone. Perhaps it's the individual not the medium.

Perhaps the suspension of hate could be spread wider than MPs?
http://revtothelimit.co.uk/viewtopic.ph ... 79#p112679

Climate change doesn't affect me,

Did your dad have the same view?

[Count Steer]

The last few pages have seen the same old faces arguing.

I just haven't got a clue what about though.

An MP was murdered as a hate crime, a few of us are appalled by it and want the hate speech to stop, but a few don't seem to be and want to argue the case for hate speech to be allowed on forums and social media.

And one of them thinks that the world is a bit more complicated than either of them and worries about who exactly gets to decide what can and can't be said about what.

[slowsider]

Did your dad have the same view?

I don't recall any conversation where he complained about the direct effects of climate change in his life.

Did your dad agree with you that hate speech was an ok thing to do?

Where have I said that?

[slowsider]

Where have I said that?

Oh, my confusion then, but you can clear it up really easily, join with me to condemn people that post hate speech on the internet because it affects people in real life.

Join with you??
Groucho Marx, on clubs...

[Horse]

Current social media typically requires input to get output ie the terms you search for, likes links and follows, etc. Are the foundations already in those people, social media fuels the spark?

No it doesn't - you have to actively attempt to reduce the amount of negative/controversial 'stories' thrown at you by the social media 'services'. I've no idea how their algorythms pick which stories are thrown at you, but it's recorded fact (see last months news) that they actively try to push stuff you won't like at you in order to create interaction from you with their service.

Ok, I'd not seen that - both in the news or as an effect on social media (albeit I don't use Facebook). 'Seen' in the conspicuity sense, that I'd not noticed it.

However, that also goes against the 'echo chamber' effect, which could be reinforcing your beliefs etc., so also against an argument that social media is always going to encourage.

That said, people are weird. There has been a lot in the news (re antivaxxers) that putting evidence to the contrary in front of people can harden their stance!

[DefTrap]

I don't get why some of you are going out of your way to defend hate or deny that it has any influence on people.

It is interesting.

Let's get one thing straight for a start, nobody that I can see is 'defending the hate' (not on here anyway). If you think that, I reckon you've taken it wrong. The only denial of 'influence on people' I think is how much does it influence, and if it does, how much is too much. And then, if so, how much is it just lazy cnuts dribbling into their twitter feed because they can't be arsed to go out and pop a dog turd through a letter box or shout at someone across the road.

If the solution is to ban 'the hate' then nope, it'll just go elsewhere. And I don't feel there's any stronger correlation between social media and hatred than there ever was between 'some previous media' and hatred. I strongly favour keeping these people in plain sight - let them out themselves - plus, as we all know, electronic data doesn't really go away.

Education is already happening. Even 40 years ago schools were very different places to what they are now, 80 years ago would be like night and day when it comes to respecting ones fellow human's feelings and rights. My sons are certainly far more rounded than I ever was growing up.
It's a slow change, but it is happening. However some people always, always will be arseholes because they don't know any better.

[Count Steer]

Join with you??
Groucho Marx, on clubs...

That's what I thought, you won't.
Care to say why you won't? Are you ok with a Tory MP being stabbed? Are you ok with hate speech?

It's dead simple for me, if Dianne Abbott was stabbed in the street I would unreservedly condemn the people that did it and condemn any hate speech that contributed to it.
Simple, no games.

To clarify. Your definition of hate speech would include someone calling Corbyn 'an evil anti-semite' or Johnson a 'bloviated windbag' because it could be construed as likely contribute to an act of violence?

Thanks.