Multilingual Cross-domain Perspectives on Online Hate Speech

In this report, we present a study of eight corpora of online hate speech, by demonstrating the NLP techniques that we used to collect and analyze the jihadist, extremist, racist, and sexist content. Analysis of the multilingual corpora shows that the different contexts share certain characteristics in their hateful rhetoric. To expose the main features, we have focused on text classification, text profiling, keyword and collocation extraction, along with manual annotation and qualitative study.Comment: 24 page

“Smashing Into Crowds” -- An Analysis of Vehicle Ramming Attacks

Vehicle ramming attacks are not new. But since 2010 Jihadists have urged their use. Is this the wave of the future, or a terrorist fad? To answer this and other questions the authors expanded and updated the database used in their May 2018 MTI Security Perspective entitled An Analysis of Vehicle Ramming as a Terrorist Threat to include 184 attacks since January 1, 1970. They also reviewed literature and examined some cases in detail. This MTI Security perspective indicates that while not new, vehicle rammings are more frequent and lethal since 2014, although the number of attacks seems to be dropping in 2019. Still it is too early to know if this is because of government countermeasures or because it is a fad that has come and gone. They also found that: (a) the majority of attacks occur in developed countries like the US and Europe; (b) though not more lethal than some other tactics they can be easily carried out by those who cannot get bombs or guns in a target-rich environment that is difficult to protect; (c) while Jihadists (responsible for only 19% of the attacks) have exhorted their use since 2010, it isn’t clear these calls have been successful -- instead the pattern of attacks suggest a kind of wider contagion; (d) attackers plowing vehicles into public gatherings and pedestrianized streets are the most lethal, particularly the attacks are planned and the drivers rent or steal large trucks or vans driven at speed; and finally, (e) government authorities cannot prevent these attacks but can and are doing things to prevent them and mitigate fatalities when they occur

Spartan Daily, May 10, 2018

Volume 150, Issue 43https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartan_daily_2018/1042/thumbnail.jp

Masculine Foes, Feminist Woes: A Response to Down Girl

In her book, Down Girl, Manne proposes to uncover the “logic” of misogyny, bringing clarity to a notion that she describes as both “loaded” and simultaneously “politically marginal.” Manne is aware that full insight into the “logic” of misogyny will require not just a “what” but a “why.” Though Manne finds herself largely devoted to the former task, the latter is in the not-too-distant periphery. Manne proposes to understand misogyny, as a general framework, in terms of what it does to women. Misogyny, she writes, is a system that polices and enforces the patriarchal social order (33). That’s the “what.” As for the “why,” Manne suggests that misogyny is what women experience because they fail to live up to the moral standards set out for women by that social order. I find Manne’s analysis insightful, interesting, and well argued. And yet, I find her account incomplete. While I remain fully convinced by her analysis of what misogyny is, I am less persuaded by her analysis of why misogyny is. For a full analysis of the “logic” of misogyny, one needs to understand how the patriarchy manifests in men an interest in participating in its enforcement. Or so I hope to motivate here. I aim to draw a line from the patriarchy to toxic masculinity to misogyny so that we have a clearer picture as to why men are invested in this system. I thus hope to offer here an analysis that is underdeveloped in Manne’s book, but is equally worthy of attention if we want fully to understand the complex machinations underlying misogyny

Toxic Misogyny and the Limits of Counterspeech

Gender equality, across all the ways that we humans are engendered, is an unrealized ideal of many contemporary Americans. It is not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, unless one interprets “men” to include women, which the Framers did not. Although passed by Congress in 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) failed to gain the necessary thirty-eight state ratifications, and it has never become law. Thirty-five states initially ratified it between 1972 and 1977, then two more in 2017 and 2018. It remains one state short. These ratifications indicate significant social progress for women, but the progress is uneven, even within states that have supported the ERA. Offering a glimmer of hope, the Senate of Virginia voted to ratify the ERA in February 2019, but the measure was killed in committee by the Republican-controlled House of Delegates. Women remain constitutionally unequal. For anyone concerned with justice, the question is not whether something should be done about the misogynist onslaught girls and women encounter; the question is: What should be done, and who should do it? Supreme Court doctrine may favor counterspeech to tort remedies or criminalization, but to justify this we need a robust conception of what sorts of speech might have the power to counter oppressive speech, who can achieve it, and under what circumstances. In setting policy, we cannot assume a speech encounter between equally powerful adults, each fully free to speak their minds and each with the backing of deep and broad social norms. Where inequality reigns, the odds are not in favor of someone who tries to combat the bad speech of the powerful with the more speech of the vulnerable. This paper explores the mechanisms of counterspeech and the limits of the remedies counterspeech can provide. By understanding the very concept of misogyny and considering some mechanics of the ways language works, we can gain a better picture of the prospect of creating normative change through counterspeech

Aesthetic Dissonance. On Behavior, Values, and Experience through New Media.

Aesthetics is thought of as not only a theory of art or beauty, but also includes sensibility, experience, judgment, and relationships. This paper is a study of Bernard Stiegler’s notion of Aesthetic War (stasis) and symbolic misery. Symbolic violence is ensued through a loss of individuation and participation in the creation of symbols. As a struggle between market values against spirit values human life and consciousness within neoliberal hyperindustrial society has become calculable, which prevents people from creating affective and meaningful attachments to symbols in relation to our retentional apparatuses, technology and memory. Such tension can be thought of as a dissonance between overlapping domains of social life, private and public. New Media is a reflection of aesthetic dissonance, an experience such as being bored and entertained at the same time, between antagonistic experiences, values, and behavior. Moreover, new media is at once a medium of customizing aesthetic experience individually as well as the threat and practice of prioritizing calculability and modeling of consumer behavior in favor of capitalistic effectiveness, which results in the simultaneous categorization of an individual as a data point, putting those who do not fit an algorithm’s premises at a disadvantage

Me, not you: the trouble with mainstream feminism

Phipps argues that the mainstream movement against sexual violence embodies a political whiteness which both reflects its demographics and limits its revolutionary potential