And I have hope that this website will not bow to the ridiculous attempts of biased Wikipedia editors to say that these are white supremacy organizations, which carries a connotation of hate, bigotry, and violence, and to ban sharing interesting material from them.
Wikipedia was even denounced as bias by one of the co-founders, saying that the sites neutrality is completely dead.
The matter to me is quite simple: I am a free thinking man interested in philosophy and in interesting takes on current events. I will not promote anything that is hateful, but I would love to share ideas that are controversial without having to worry about the thought police showing up.
And what a shame it would be if people who believe in numerological conspiracy theories become the judges of what is & what isn't hate speech.
In my opinion the spreading of white supremacist propaganda and Holocaust denial would fall under "hate speech," but the site's administrators are certainly free to continue to allow this forum to be a platform for such ideas even though I think this would be unwise from the perspective of RedHotPawn's reputation.
Meanwhile, have you come up with a reason why the DHS would use "less than 13 out of 88" to refer to a fraction of a large group of people?
@kazetnagorrasaid In my opinion the spreading of white supremacist propaganda and Holocaust denial would fall under "hate speech," but the site's administrators are certainly free to continue to allow this forum to be a platform for such ideas even though I think this would be unwise from the perspective of RedHotPawn's reputation.
Meanwhile, have you come up with a reason why the DHS would use "less than 13 out of 88" to refer to a fraction of a large group of people?
(1) Of course, there may be controversial stuff on any website that could violate the board's rules. But if there is content that does not, why not share it?
I am unfamiliar with Holocaust denial and those websites.
(2) There's no reason to not use 13 out of 88 if that was the most handy number that immediately presented itself.
After all, 13 is a prime number, and it would be hard to break this fraction down further.
Most people aren't thinking about what conspiracy theories people will make up about numbers.
@philokaliasaid (1) Of course, there may be controversial stuff on any website that could violate the board's rules. But if there is content that does not, why not share it?
I am unfamiliar with Holocaust denial and those websites.
(2) There's no reason to not use 13 out of 88 if that was the most handy number that immediately presented itself.
After all, 13 is a prime number, ...[text shortened]... r.
Most people aren't thinking about what conspiracy theories people will make up about numbers.
With respect to Holocaust denial I am referring to your characterization of Nazi death camp victims as "the fringe far left." It's on page 7 of this thread.
"Less than 13 out of 88" for a large group of people is not more "handy" than simply stating a percentage or using the more common "X out of 100."
@kazetnagorrasaid In my opinion the spreading of white supremacist propaganda and Holocaust denial would fall under "hate speech," but the site's administrators are certainly free to continue to allow this forum to be a platform for such ideas even though I think this would be unwise from the perspective of RedHotPawn's reputation.
Meanwhile, have you come up with a reason why the DHS would use "less than 13 out of 88" to refer to a fraction of a large group of people?
Although I agree that white supremist propaganda can be construed as "hate speech",
I also try to relate that sentiment to subject matter as spelled out in the OP.
With that said, I should think that asking Admin at RHP to remove posts in
RHP forums that contain "$88" in them, under the guise of coded hate speech
would cause uproarious laughter by said Admin.
@kazetnagorrasaid With respect to Holocaust denial I am referring to your characterization of Nazi death camp victims as "the fringe far left." It's on page 7 of this thread.
"Less than 13 out of 88" for a large group of people is not more "handy" than simply stating a percentage or using the more common "X out of 100."
Ok, so are you denying that the upside down triangle was used for Communists and other far leftists?
...
People sometimes use fractions to convey a number differently or add diversity to their citations.
Honestly, this will be practiced more in a world where you get accused of being a Nazi by a numerological conspiracy theorist.
I never knew that liberals were particularly prone to embracing conspiracy theories
and numerology but there ya go! Maybe the mood has to hit them, or something.
Or maybe they have to get a little creative to scream out their favorite word!! lol
@philokaliasaid I think it's obvious: the team at the DHS doesn't see 88 and think "yeah man, Nazis! Heil Hitler!", nor do they think about being accused of Nazism.
They might even actually think "it would be funny to trigger the conspiracy theorists."
There's a million reasons to ignore this silly numerological conspiracy theory.
What's "obvious" about using "out of 88" in this context? Have you seen this figure of speech used anywhere else to refer to a fraction of a large group of people? You keep repeating there is an "obvious" alternative explanation, but neither you nor Earl have come up with an explanation that is even remotely more obvious than "a neo-Nazi/white supremacist wrote a DHS statement" (which, again, is not a "conspiracy" of any kind).
I never knew that liberals were particularly prone to embracing conspiracy theories
and numerology but there ya go! Maybe the mood has to hit them, or something.
Or maybe they have to get a little creative to scream out their favorite word!! lol
Do you, don't you want me to love you?
Coming down fast from a mile above you!
Tell me, tell me, tell me the answer
You may be a lover but you ain't no dancer
@kazetnagorrasaid What's "obvious" about using "out of 88" in this context? Have you seen this figure of speech used anywhere else to refer to a fraction of a large group of people? You keep repeating there is an "obvious" alternative explanation, but neither you nor Earl have come up with an explanation that is even remotely more obvious than "a neo-Nazi/white supremacist wrote a DHS statement" (which, again, is not a "conspiracy" of any kind).
There doesn't even need to be an obvious explanation because we aren't even at some point where it is logical to conclude that somebody in DHS is a Nazi ... trying to... uhhh... ????? ... by throwing out the number 88 in some report.
What's to defend? What's to explain away?
You are simply advancing a numerological conspiracy theory.
The $88 baseball
10 Jul '20 07:10
YouTube : Helter Skelter
Back to Top