Dear reader, we're closing comments (IOL)

MickeyD said:
Why can we not exchange opinions, ideas, proposals, criticism, etc. without attacking the person?
Click to expand...
Great question. Don't you think that, in light of this news however, that an even more pertinent question could be posed as follows: Why can we not CONTINUE to exchange opinions, ideas, proposals, criticism, etc, IN LIGHT of some people who will inevitably attack other persons? Please understand that this change impacts all of us, even if we aren't racist/bigoted, by precluding ANY AND ALL conversation from taking place in the context of said news, purely because some people can't control themselves. Is that acceptable? I say no! Just because someone else is racist does not mean that my opportunity to engage should now be denied? Furthermore, Even if they ARE racist, what's stopping the rest of us from casually ignoring them and moving right along? I guess this step is mysteriously impossible for some people? Whose problem is that, and why should everyone face the consequences of this? Silencing everyone is not going to change the views of the fools - if anything it will bottle up their feelings until worse crimes happen away from the internet, and it will deny them the chance to ever engage those feelings with other people who might have been able to argue/inspire them out of their stupidity! Do you deny this?

Only a backwards state will silence its people, and only backwards people will agree to be silenced without first putting up a fight
 
fragtion said:
Great question. Don't you think that, in light of this news however, that an even more pertinent question could be posed as follows: Why can we not CONTINUE to exchange opinions, ideas, proposals, criticism, etc, IN LIGHT of some people who will inevitably attack other persons? Please understand that this change impacts all of us, even if we aren't racist/bigoted, by precluding ANY AND ALL conversation from taking place in the context of said news, purely because some people can't control themselves. Is that acceptable? I say no! Just because someone else is racist does not mean that my opportunity to engage should now be denied? Furthermore, Even if they ARE racist, what's stopping the rest of us from casually ignoring them and moving right along? I guess this step is mysteriously impossible for some people? Whose problem is that, and why should everyone face the consequences of this? Silencing everyone is not going to change the views of the fools - if anything it will bottle up their feelings until worse crimes happen away from the internet, and it will deny them the chance to ever engage those feelings with other people who might have been able to argue/inspire them out of their stupidity! Do you deny this?

Only a backwards state will silence its people, and only backwards people will agree to be silenced without first putting up a fight
Click to expand...

Have you submitted any amendments to the various draft legislation proposals currently in circulation?
 
garp said:
Been happening for quite a while now. That is why the comments were valuable for calling them out on it.
Click to expand...
And probably the real underlying reason for why they are now being...

...wait for it..

CENSORED.
 
Those saying the racists trolls are the minority....care to post your proof?
 
ambroseg1 said:
Those saying the racists trolls are the minority....care to post your proof?
Click to expand...

But who defines what is racist?

Somebody will typically state their opinion that something or other went wrong because of BEE. Somebody else will call them racist. Maybe the original author had a point, maybe not. Does that make him/her a "racist troll"? Or is it more valuable to have a debate about it? Or should we all shut up?

The problem is that so many articles are about government failure, and the logical responses are to complain about the ANC. Occasionally, somebody really does post something blatantly racist, but it is not as often as you would think and they tend to get removed or flamed pretty fast. And these days it is equally likely to be an EFF troll being just as outrageous as it is some right wing conservative.

It seems just whining about government incompetence, or registering your disagreement with some or other government policy seems to get you branded as a "racist". So while I would agree that there is a preponderance of overly miserable people who complain about everything without offering much constructive input, I wouldn't brand them as racist trolls.
 
MickeyD said:
*my add


And this is the million dollar question... it takes lawyers, attorneys, magistrates and judges to make these judgement so why expect the moderators to do it?
Click to expand...

True. But why do we have to let what is meant to be intelligent, thoughtful discussion come to that point?
 
MickeyD said:
And this is the million dollar question... it takes lawyers, attorneys, magistrates and judges to make these judgement so why expect the moderators to do it?
Click to expand...

Well, by extension of this logic, there is, therefore, no acceptable forum for public debate. All public comment must be stifled due to the possibility that it may be racist or hateful.
 
garp said:
Well, by extension of this logic, there is, therefore, no acceptable forum for public debate. All public comment must be stifled due to the possibility that it may be racist or hateful.
Click to expand...

You can easily have good and informative comments without entering into the real of hate speech, racism, trolling etc.
ArsTechnica managed to do it. You just have to make sure the line at which you start banning people is far from the line where it becomes a problem
 
MickeyD said:
*my add


And this is the million dollar question... it takes lawyers, attorneys, magistrates and judges to make these judgement so why expect the moderators to do it?
Click to expand...

Particularly as our Constitution is so vague on the definition.

[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―

be hurtful;
be harmful or to incite harm;
promote or propagate hatred.
Click to expand...

Hurtful ? Is this another euphemism for 'offensive' ?

If so then it shouldn't be there because no one can cause offence. Anyone can take offence but that's their choice, it's not obligatory.


Be harmful or incite harm ?

Like Kill the boers ? Yes, that could incite harm.

Then perhaps Mbalula should be locked up for his "Moer hulle dood" comment. Oh, that was in jest so it doesn't count ?


Promote or propogate hatred - even more vague as there is no definition of 'hatred' included, or how one would judge whether something could promote hatred or not.



In effect whether you are guilty of 'hate speech' depends on which group of people you state your dislike/disagreement of.

If you are anti-zionist you are anti-semitic and therefore a jew hater.

If you are anti-muslim you are anti-terrorism and therefore not a hater.

If you are white and criticise a largely black government you are a racist.

If you are black and resent the fact that whites still own the clothes on their back you are a revolutionary anti-colonialist.



The problem with the IOL comments is not that they are hateful, just that they are largely immature, poorly conceived and never offer a point of view, just insults.

And some people take offence at an insult from someone they don't know and who doesn't know them.

"oooh I'm so offended"



I'm not sure about IOL but the News24 posts that were the most 'offensive' were the religious ones and I believe if there was a pressure group for shutting down comments it was from them, less from those involved in the daily race-driven back and forth.


We live in a country where the government insults our intelligence on a daily, almost hourly basis - isn't that more of a crusade to fight instead ?

Trolls can be ignored, govenment can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X