481–490 of 781 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll have to explain why it's such a great travesty because it's not obvious.
Because the types of people that would believe in Holocaust-denial in 2020, are the same types of people that are fed by conspiracy theories when things are banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you talk to most cisgender people, two of the biggest transgender issues they mention are sports and bathrooms. Meanwhile when transgender people are allowed to choose what sport to compete in or what bathroom to choose, there have been very few problems from them. It seems to me that lots of people just fundamentally believe that transgender people are wrong, gross, or whatever derogatory term you want to use a…
Have you ever been an athlete in a serious way? Honest question. If people who've competed or deeply cared about sports seem to all get hung up on this, maybe they're seeing something you're not? Your two issues are issues because, even without any prejudice, there are physical differences that we have to handle and it's not easy to figure out how to be fair to all parties. In the case we're talking about, for exampl…
Fox fractured her opponent's orbital. This is a facial fracture, not a skull fracture. Skull fractures are life threatening whereas facial fractures generally are not.
There is a large discrepancy in the force required to cause a facial vs skull fracture as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this even mean? Are you suggesting a private company should be forced to host content they don't want to? Should Fox News be forced to host Rachael Maddow and a Huffpost show? Is Fox News "censoring" Huffpost by not hosting a show on their network?
No, none of that. This is different. Imagine a public town square. Would you want any company acting as the gatekeeper, deciding what speech is allowed or not in that setting? YouTube, Twitter and a few others are effectively the new town square. I don't think we want to end up in a position where a few corporations are dictating acceptable speech and open debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Alex Jones is riling people up on conspiracy theories that actively do harm in order to make money. This is literally what Rachel Maddow did with the Russia conspiracy nonsense.
Let's go to specifics. Alex Jones is facing a civil suit alleging that he defamed the families of Sandy Hook victims, the harm from which include harassment and death threats from Jones' followers [0]. When you say that Maddow's coverage of Russiagate is "literally" the same: what actual harm – both in layperson's terms and legally actionable – do you see as a consequence? Defamation? Who would be the aggrieved and t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All these cries of "censorship" misunderstand that what is happening is fundamentally a business decision. When Alex Jones gets pulled from Youtube, it's because he is effecting their business relationships and ability to make money.
Couldn't you make the same argument about gay couples in a small town rural restaurant? But would it be morally right to ban those couples from a restaurant?
Someone spouting asshole opinions is not the same as an immutable trait by birth.
Alex Jones is not even being sincere in his quackery, this has been explored in court and he admitted to being a fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people agree with Rogan that transgender women who have only recently started on female hormones should not hide that status from biologically female opponents in mixed martial arts. It isn't feminist for women's bodies to be brutalized by men's bodies.
> It isn't feminist for women's bodies to be brutalized by men's bodies. If you broach the topic in this way—jumping straight to an inflammatory statement on one of the most divisive of all topics—you're guaranteeing a flamewar. That's vandalism, nay, trolling. It breaks the site guidelines, damages this place badly, and you've done it more than once before. You also committed to us that you wouldn't to do it again.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no law protecting conspiracy theorists.
I'm not sure there is a national law requiring businesses to serve gay customers either. I'm just curious how OP feels about that. Besides, who decides who is and who isn't a conspiracy theorist. You? A twitter mob? The government? Some people in San Francisco? The fact that there is apparently such strong disagreement (most of which probably is from people who believe that it is appropriate to use the strong market…
Alex Jones is banned from Youtube. People, largely, do not give a shit. Now try banning gay people from a resturant.
Good luck with that.
And in many jurisdictions it is illegal to discriminate over sexual orientation. There is no such law protecting conspiracy theorists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It isn't feminist for women's bodies to be brutalized by men's bodies. If you broach the topic in this way—jumping straight to an inflammatory statement on one of the most divisive of all topics—you're guaranteeing a flamewar. That's vandalism, nay, trolling. It breaks the site guidelines, damages this place badly, and you've done it more than once before. You also committed to us that you wouldn't to do it again.…
How is that even remotely inflammatory? It’s the truth.
See also my reply in the current thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23243538.
Btw, if you read those links and still feel like there's some question that hasn't been addressed, I'd love to know what it is. I'm beginning to feel like years' worth of moderation comments (the ones I keep linking to with HN search URLS) are converging into a set of building blocks that can be articulated relatively clearly.