51–60 of 276 posts
Why has free speech fallen out of favour with SV? Ironically, it happened rather silently. It's not just an Eternal September-like phenomenon. The very same people who used to support it not only don't any more but pretend they never did in the first place. Speaking of the founding fathers, I ask him what he thinks they would have thought of Reddit. "A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would li…
There's no shade of gray here? Either you host nazi propaganda, or you're "anti-free speech?"
Free speech is often a double edged sword. For everyone. While it's a nice concept it often carries big burdens that can't be easily tackled.
Reddit used to profess free speech. But the reality is that it's not sustainable as the website grew and started to cater to very different audiences. And as they grew they also needed to start to please advertisers. Which are often times vehemently against a lot of things that would fall under the "free speech"
Amazing ( well, more like sad ) that the first comments I see are "well, we can agree that nazis are bad, but this is a slippery slope, what about BLM, and antifa" Nazism - The belief ( on pseudoscience i may add )that other races ( a term that has no scientific basis ) are only worthy of extermination ( death, MDK ) BLM - The belief ( on experiences of some in society ), that Black people are not treated the same in…
Hmm. This is going to be interesting. I mean, nearly everyone should be fine with banning Nazis. After all, they're vile and in my opinion don't deserve any place on the world except the inside of a jail cell... The problem is: where will the line be drawn? What about Black Lives Matter? The more, uh, militant parts of the Antifa movement? Militant animal rights groups (which actually are treated as domestic terroris…
Intolerance, you draw the line at Intolerance. If BLM, PETA, Antifa want people of other race/class/sexual orientation harmed in any kind of way, sure go ahead and ban them. If on the other hand they want fair treatment, equality or reprieve from targeted brutality, listen to them and see how we as a society can address their concern. If they resort to violence, arrest them and treat them like you would treat a criminal.
It is not really that hard. Right to free speech does not really mean right to say anything anywhere without any consequence.
The irony in this whole thing is, the more tolerant you are to an inherently intolerant ideology like white-spremacy, the less tolerant we become as a society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe take it as a mark of grim respect. Far left and anarchist groups are generally considered to be unsuccessful in the arc of modern history, with even China partially adopting western aspects of governance to remain competitive. Their successes are almost entirely in appealing to moderates and with heavy appeasement of capitalism. One of the most famous attempt at true communism ended spectacularly, with a bulk v…
> Far left groups are generally considered to be unsuccessful in the arc of history Um, what? China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, just to name a few of the more famous ones. Tens of millions killed in the name of a communist utopia.
But North Korea and pre-Stalin Communist Russia are not regarded as "successful" and Post-Stalin Russia is reasonably rejected as a tenable example of leftism. Cuba, I think, is looked upon more favorably now than when it was more centrally managed?
Amazing ( well, more like sad ) that the first comments I see are "well, we can agree that nazis are bad, but this is a slippery slope, what about BLM, and antifa" Nazism - The belief ( on pseudoscience i may add )that other races ( a term that has no scientific basis ) are only worthy of extermination ( death, MDK ) BLM - The belief ( on experiences of some in society ), that Black people are not treated the same in…
There's bad in both sets, which is why banning 1 group could have an effect on the other 2, eventually.
How is this situation different?
Amazing ( well, more like sad ) that the first comments I see are "well, we can agree that nazis are bad, but this is a slippery slope, what about BLM, and antifa" Nazism - The belief ( on pseudoscience i may add )that other races ( a term that has no scientific basis ) are only worthy of extermination ( death, MDK ) BLM - The belief ( on experiences of some in society ), that Black people are not treated the same in…
Of course your definitions are loose and biased, you know that. You're just venting and telling people you don't care if you're wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they're still there, and no, everyone who disagrees with you isn't a Nazi. > we will take action against any content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people This also means that people who encourage you to "punch a Nazi" or that there's nothing wrong with punching a Nazi/racist should also be banned.
That place promotes violence and hate on a daily basis.
Didn't find any. In fact I found some healthy self-policing in among the muck.
Hmm. This is going to be interesting. I mean, nearly everyone should be fine with banning Nazis. After all, they're vile and in my opinion don't deserve any place on the world except the inside of a jail cell... The problem is: where will the line be drawn? What about Black Lives Matter? The more, uh, militant parts of the Antifa movement? Militant animal rights groups (which actually are treated as domestic terroris…
Can you go into some more detail on how BLM "advocates, tolerates, or embraces" violence?
While I do not see this as being "symptomatic" or representative for BLM, by far not everyone does so, and therein lies the danger in my opinion. People from the right wing, but also so-called "centrists", both already are using this as an excuse to denounce BLM in general...