There's a section in India who consider anything anti-Hindu and anti-India as free speech but anything anti-Muslim as hate speech. They want to muzzle any discussion of ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir, Pakistan, and Bangladesh by claiming it's hate speech. But they want to have complete freedom for claims denigrating India or Hinduism. E.g. Twitter was accused of censorship when it removed anti-India tweets.[1]
I regularly see posts in Facebook denouncing Hindu gods and Hindus without anybody batting an eyelid. But if someone wants to discuss regressive Islamic practices like polygamy or halala marriage[2] (both of which remain legal in India) then they cry hate speech. "Free speech for me, not for thee."
How's sharing a news article on rape committed by Muslims count as hate speech? Killings by Hindu vigilante groups are reported and shared without considering hate speech against Hindus. Then why the double standard?
I see a lot of people arguing over what should be the minimum floor space requirement for a person. Instead of deciding this beforehand why not let everyone choose what they want, i.e. let the free market operate? The market can build houses of all sizes and the people can choose depending on their budget and taste. As an illustration many people in Japan live in shoebox apartments which may seem horrendously small to Americans but it beats being homeless.
I see this line trotted out frequently but this criticism never made much sense to me. The vehicles exist to benefit us. They are either directly transporting us or transporting goods to be used by us. They don’t exist for an independent reason. So if the streets are designed for vehicles it’s ultimately to benefit humans.
>This is India, a system that is notoriously reliant on rote memorisation and turning out employees who crumble under pressure and cannot operate without very specific instructions.
This is a pretty biased view, bordering on racist. If Indian employees can't work without detailed instructions then how come large percentage of FAANG (full time) employees are Indians? Let's not forget that both Google and Microsoft CEOs did their undergrads in India.
This xkcd comic didn't age well: https://xkcd.com/1357/. Liberals used to cheerfully link to this whenever a conservative was deplatformed. I don't think they'll trot out this xkcd anymore when their favored people are being censored.
Is there an objective way of distinguishing between an activist and a bigot? The CCP can just say that they consider this activist to be a bigot.
Internet platforms should never have been in the business of censorship. Unfortunately, liberals encouraged them to censor their political opponents for short term gain. The result is sad but predictable. Any speech that offends someone powerful is now subject to possible censorship.
I'm surprised why hating on America is fashionable in HN. If this hatred was directed against countries like France or Germany it would be immediately shut down as "nationalist flamewar."
I'd also like to point out that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries and more Europeans immigrate to the US than the reverse. If US is as bad as you say then why does that happen?
This comment is unnecessarily antagonistic. The government here doesn't intrude as much on private employment contracts as in Europe. Maybe as a result the salaries in the US are much higher and unemployment rate over time also much lower.
Karl Popper was talking about intolerance as in a group who resort to violent actions against another group (e.g. killing people for making cartoons). Merely expressing an opinion is never intolerance. Karl Popper, a lifelong supporter of free speech, must be turning over in his grave to know that his opinions are now being used to stifle speech.
Also who gets to define who is intolerant? Chinese government will surely say that the Hong Kong protesters are intolerant. Does it make it okay to censor them?
Free speech only for political mainstream is political mainstream speech, not free speech. E.g. completely open borders and unrestricted immigration is surely outside the American political mainstream, is it okay to ban any discussion of it?
When conservatives were banned en masse the liberals cheered. Their argument was that censoring by private companies was totally acceptable. Now that their preferred positions are being censored they've suddenly rediscovered the value of free speech. I hope they learn the lesson from this - free speech is too precious a right to be given up just to shut down your opponent. If your opponents are censored today, you'll surely be tomorrow.
How can the parent topic be something to do with the topic but this comment is not? How can one talk about the Kashmir conflict without discussing it's history? There's regularly discussions about various political/controversial topics in HN without them getting shut down. You are really showing your bias here, dang.
The racism is actually shown by Kashmiri Muslims who ethnically cleansed Kashmiri Hindus. Hundreds of thousands of Hindus were forced to leave the Kashmir Valley.[1] Hundreds of Hindu temples were destroyed.[2][3] Even now they're forcing people from other Indian states to leave.[4]
If the behavior of Indian forces is really as bad as it is claimed then why no large scale migration of Kashmiri Muslims happened like it happened for Kashmiri Hindus or Rohingyas[5]?
I regularly see posts in Facebook denouncing Hindu gods and Hindus without anybody batting an eyelid. But if someone wants to discuss regressive Islamic practices like polygamy or halala marriage[2] (both of which remain legal in India) then they cry hate speech. "Free speech for me, not for thee."
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/twitter-accused-censo...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_halala