51–60 of 178 posts
News to me. Can anyone comment on this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the goal. Those seeking it would be advised to consider whether it's a power they really want Trump to have, or his successor, but there's a lot of people who seem to operate on the presumption that in the long term, their side is going to have complete control of the government indefinitely and the fact that some people they disagree with has some control at the moment is a momentary aberration. I would suggest…
You can like Trump or not, but he's probably one of the people in power who'd least care for this sort of censorship. He clearly revels in public debate, perhaps even to an unhealthy degree. It may not be Lincoln-Douglas stuff, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.
In addition to government interference in free speech, all actions/words that offend have potentially life devastating consequences in this age of the digital permanent record. Suppose you slap someone in a moment of uncontrolled anger. If someone records that, posts it on the internet, and it goes viral, you then become the mad slapper in the eyes of the world. If someone googles your name, they will see you slappin…
Maybe you shouldn't assault people if you don't want to be known for assault? Slap or not, hitting someone in a fit of anger is assault, full stop. Even people which have been 'cancelled' for things that aren't assault still end up going on to have their career mostly unaffected unless they did something really henious.
In addition to government interference in free speech, all actions/words that offend have potentially life devastating consequences in this age of the digital permanent record. Suppose you slap someone in a moment of uncontrolled anger. If someone records that, posts it on the internet, and it goes viral, you then become the mad slapper in the eyes of the world. If someone googles your name, they will see you slappin…
We need to declare all speech religious speech. Politics is religion. One religion currently has the upper hand, and it's dividing people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you shouldn't assault people if you don't want to be known for assault? Slap or not, hitting someone in a fit of anger is assault, full stop. Even people which have been 'cancelled' for things that aren't assault still end up going on to have their career mostly unaffected unless they did something really henious.
People aren't perfect. I don't think anyone commits a crime after performing a full calculation of the consequences. I think you demonstrate an important trend with your comment. The desire to label things and ignore circumstances. It appears to me that people don't want to think about the nuances of things; they just want to simplify all thought to some label level where conclusions are easily made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the goal. Those seeking it would be advised to consider whether it's a power they really want Trump to have, or his successor, but there's a lot of people who seem to operate on the presumption that in the long term, their side is going to have complete control of the government indefinitely and the fact that some people they disagree with has some control at the moment is a momentary aberration. I would suggest…
You can like Trump or not, but he's probably one of the people in power who'd least care for this sort of censorship. He clearly revels in public debate, perhaps even to an unhealthy degree. It may not be Lincoln-Douglas stuff, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.
It's really easy to end up in a "speech for me, not for thee" kind of scenario, especially when that reveling is generally more polemical than forensic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's such an important distinction though. When people do it, it's just dissenting voices. When a platform removes someone, they can just find another platform. Twitter doesn't owe anyone a voice on it. But when the government says you can't talk about a thing, they can make you take it down everywhere. Only this is protected, and this line needs to not be crossed. I little sympathy for people getting upset at being…
When you have your career destroyed by voicing a non-pc opinion, it’s a lot more complicated than finding another Twitter to post 140 character posts.
You only have the right to inconvenience yourself in support of your rights. Just like me or any other person. I don't have the right to put all of my coworkers at risk so that I can call some black guy the N word for instance. That's kind of the way rights work. You have rights, but everyone else does as well.
Hate speech must be protected speech. Keep in mind that all groups suffer from hate speech attacks. Majority groups in Western countries ("white people") are some of the most publicly demonized people of the last few years, so saying that toleration of hate speech - which affects us all - is an opinion that can only be held from the secure position of being in the majority is nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can like Trump or not, but he's probably one of the people in power who'd least care for this sort of censorship. He clearly revels in public debate, perhaps even to an unhealthy degree. It may not be Lincoln-Douglas stuff, but that's how democracy is supposed to work.
That is not factually correct. He revokes press credentials of journalists who criticize him. He encourages people to attack journalists, and some of his supporters have already done so. I advise caution against spreading false information so blithely.
Even when governments don’t limit freedom of expression we do it to ourselves as can be seen with all the Twitter mobs.
Those "mobs" are only ordinary people exercising their own freedom of expression online. I think a more correct sentiment would be that even when there are governments that don't want to limit freedom of expression, multinational corporations will still oblige those governments and influential citizens that do.