Tuks students warned about liking or retweeting hate speech

[OrbitalDawn]

Seriously?

That's like saying you'll be fired if someone sends you porn via e-mail

Might be time to start tagging the rector in some unsavoury posts.

 

[STS]

This is silly. Liking (on FB) and retweeting does not necessarily signify endorsement. I might retweet something vile in order to merely alert my followers to the fact that somebody else said something vile. This is like saying that merely reading Mein Kampf (to gain insight/study/etc) means you are definitely a Nazi. Not the kind of assault on free speech you would expect from an institute of higher learning.

that needs to be clarified tho, as me shouting "all whites must die' could either be a sincere request or could be me acting/joking/impersonating. if a person retweets hate speech without any criticism of the content they are retweeting, they are merely becoming a platform for broadcasting that hate speech, and it's often not hard to tell. if Frikkie or Sipho are members of racist groups/marches/blogs, it's quite easy to figure out their motives

 

[Pitbull]

Might be time to start tagging the rector in some unsavoury posts.

lol, you're a sly one aren't you

But yes, exactly that... very strange.

 

[crackersa]

Yep, if you spread or give hat a platform, you are as bad as the person who created the image

The whole white genocide drama exists because people passed on the bull**** in the first place, to the point that americans think we're dodging bullets every day on our way home

I don't think majority of Americans think that. Most don't even know where South Africa is

 

[STS]

Jirrefok, I fully regard marxist snowflakes like you to be the real enemy...with actual racist etc. rhetoric extremely far down the list.

how is he marxist? if malema says that all whites are greedy racist pigs in an interview, then Bob goes and tells his kids and relatives that whites are greedy racist pigs, what is the difference? you are passing the message on.

of course it qualifies as free speech, but we're not naive enough to know that what malema and bob are doing is inciting hate and violence

 

[STS]

I don't think majority of Americans think that. Most don't even know where South Africa is

sorry, i should have clarified that americans ON THOSE GROUPS think that

example: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AmericansAgainstWhiteGenocide/

more than 7000 members, not sure how many are south african tho

 

[RaptorSA]

Yes. If you're liking or retweeting a post then it means you agree with it. You might as well have written it yourself and if its hate speech then deal with the consequences.

how is he marxist?

Now, he's talking about hate speech. We already have hate speech laws in place that deals with inciting violence that can at least in some form or another be quantified in a reasonable way (Like inciting people at a gathering etc.). The subject of this article is talking about "retweeting or getting tagged on social media posts that it deemed “hate speech”." We've seen recently in the social media and news reporting landscape that almost any opinion that doesn't follow the narrative laid down by our chip-on-shoulder opportunistic political leaders, our useless, biased media, many of their followers, "previously disadvantaged" university students wanting to cause ***, and the multitide of self hating neoliberal backbone-less whites and blacks is deemed as "hate speech"... given that...

Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis, originating from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation.

define:
dialectical
adjective
1.
relating to the logical discussion of ideas and opinions.
"dialectical ingenuity"
2.
concerned with or acting through opposing forces.
"a dialectical opposition between social convention and individual libertarianism"

Bottomline, who the flying ***** gets to make the rules here?
The University leader who think Purple faces are racist based on hand-me-down information? The Politicians who wanted to flog Garteth Cliff for a comment which has nothing to do with racism or hate speech yet didn't give two sides of a *****? Our wonderfully educated and non-biased Police force? The local Magistrates court who lets off actual criminals each and every day due to incompetence and laziness?

If not them... who then? And to accomplish what? Yes or No, do You really think silencing what you or anyone else deems as dissent actually accomplishes anything.. or at worst, accomplishes nothing? Do you think that silencing people using physical threats, force or threats of criminal persecution adds more fuel to the fire?
And how on this sanityforsaken little world does it make sense physically harm people by prosecuting them as criminals based on OPINIONS ON SUPERFLUOUS SOCIAL MEDIA platforms mostly interacted with on little touchscreen devices that hugs your ballsack while you browse the refrigerators at your local Spar? Or gets stolen every other month when you're wetting your gullet at the local pub?
Oooh yes, let's teach those damn opinionaters a lesson by cutting the legs off of someone's future possibilities in life by holding them over a fire for an opinion that they may or may not deem fundamental to their paradigm?

If you're not capable of understaning the basic tenents of a modern liberal, democratic society and the reasons why those tenents are so important including how very little room for nuance there is on this subject then I justifiably deem anyone who doesn't understand this, or see where this is going as a moron... at the very least have the balls to crawl out of the woodwork and ex[pose yourself by using one of the multitude of failed totalitarian ideologies out there... so we can all point and laugh, well, those of us with half a brain and a decent education at least.
It really is that simple.

 

[STS]

If you're not capable of understaning the basic tenents of a modern liberal, democratic society and the reasons why those tenents are so important including how very little room for nuance there is on this subject then I justifiably deem anyone who doesn't understand this, or see where this is going as a moron... at the very least have the balls to crawl out of the woodwork and expose yourself by using one of the multitude of failed totalitarian ideologies out there... so we can all point and laugh, well, those of us with half a brain and a decent education at least.
It really is that simple.

you must remember that just because you are free to say whatever you want, you are not free from the consequences of what you say. as an example, we were all rooting for Gareth Cliff and saw that his comment was clear free speech without any racism or malice - and the court ruled in his favour.

this isn't about silencing, it's about stopping abuse and bullying. as an example, threads on mybb that have nothing constructive being said get locked. those threads stop being about the original topic long ago and end up in personal fist fights with no positive outcome for any party involved.

"retweeting or getting tagged on social media posts that it deemed “hate speech”."

you will note that SammyD never mentioned getting tagged, he was mentioning reposting and agreeing with content, which i agree with too. you cannot stop somebody from adding you to a post, nor stop them from emailing you, so that part is stupid unless it is meant in a different context.

 

[Jings]

Whoever at University of Pretoria compiled the statement doesn't seem to be offay with Facebook terminology.

The University of Pretoria has warned students that they could be suspended, expelled or criminally charged for liking, retweeting or getting tagged on social media posts that it deemed “hate speech”.

“How can we control who tags us on Facebook? What if our accounts get hacked? This is unacceptable, they can’t do that,” said another student.

 

[RaptorSA]

you must remember that just because you are free to say whatever you want, you are not free from the consequences of what you say.

http://images.memes.com/meme/tile/128783

 

[noxibox]

this isn't about silencing, it's about stopping abuse and bullying.

It is absolutely about silencing those who hold offensive opinions. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

Whoever at University of Pretoria compiled the statement doesn't seem to be offay with Facebook terminology.

au fait?

Now, he's talking about hate speech. We already have hate speech laws in place that deals with inciting violence that can at least in some form or another be quantified in a reasonable way (Like inciting people at a gathering etc.). The subject of this article is talking about "retweeting or getting tagged on social media posts that it deemed “hate speech”." We've seen recently in the social media and news reporting landscape that almost any opinion that doesn't follow the narrative laid down by our chip-on-shoulder opportunistic political leaders, our useless, biased media, many of their followers, "previously disadvantaged" university students wanting to cause ***, and the multitide of self hating neoliberal backbone-less whites and blacks is deemed as "hate speech"... given that...

Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis, originating from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation.

define:
dialectical
adjective
1.
relating to the logical discussion of ideas and opinions.
"dialectical ingenuity"
2.
concerned with or acting through opposing forces.
"a dialectical opposition between social convention and individual libertarianism"

Bottomline, who the flying ***** gets to make the rules here?
The University leader who think Purple faces are racist based on hand-me-down information? The Politicians who wanted to flog Garteth Cliff for a comment which has nothing to do with racism or hate speech yet didn't give two sides of a *****? Our wonderfully educated and non-biased Police force? The local Magistrates court who lets off actual criminals each and every day due to incompetence and laziness?

If not them... who then? And to accomplish what? Yes or No, do You really think silencing what you or anyone else deems as dissent actually accomplishes anything.. or at worst, accomplishes nothing? Do you think that silencing people using physical threats, force or threats of criminal persecution adds more fuel to the fire?
And how on this sanityforsaken little world does it make sense physically harm people by prosecuting them as criminals based on OPINIONS ON SUPERFLUOUS SOCIAL MEDIA platforms mostly interacted with on little touchscreen devices that hugs your ballsack while you browse the refrigerators at your local Spar? Or gets stolen every other month when you're wetting your gullet at the local pub?
Oooh yes, let's teach those damn opinionaters a lesson by cutting the legs off of someone's future possibilities in life by holding them over a fire for an opinion that they may or may not deem fundamental to their paradigm?

If you're not capable of understaning the basic tenents of a modern liberal, democratic society and the reasons why those tenents are so important including how very little room for nuance there is on this subject then I justifiably deem anyone who doesn't understand this, or see where this is going as a moron... at the very least have the balls to crawl out of the woodwork and ex[pose yourself by using one of the multitude of failed totalitarian ideologies out there... so we can all point and laugh, well, those of us with half a brain and a decent education at least.
It really is that simple.

Quite right.

 

[Paperweight]

Inciting violence by typing your own post I will agree. Retweeting, liking, or being tagged in posts would be dismissed in any court of law.

 

[STS]

It is absolutely about silencing those who hold offensive opinions. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

there is a difference between offense and threatening. if you believe in god or that we shouldn't be taxed or that Zuma is a saint, and somebody disagrees with you, you can be offended to all your heart's content, but there is no harm in disagreeing.

threatening is when somebody says they are going to attack all the <insert race> people in a town or they encourage hitting your girlfriend to put her in her place if she doesn't listen. doesn't matter if they do it or not, it stops being offensive and starts becoming dangerous. you can find facebook full of these comments.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Holmes

 

[Excalibur]

"MyBB forum members warned about reposting private messages".