781–790 of 970 posts
3 of some of the biggest right wing YouTube channels, Trump's Twitch account, and 2000 other subreddits including The_Donald all being banned in the span of less than an hour is just a coincidence. More of a criminal conspiracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> /r/GenderCritical (anti-Trans) This is not a fair portrayal of that sub. Reddit can do what it likes about banning political subs but the banning of r/gendercritical is quite concerning, in my opinion.
Sadly current discourse does equate those two things. Being gender critical ("gender is fake and a tool of patriarchal oppression") is equated with erasing & attacking trans people - politically these two parties do seem to be at odds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see someone isn’t a fan of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. Organizations change. In the same way that just because the democratic party has a horribly racist history doesn’t make the current party horribly racist. > By the by, a lot of the “left wing” violence recently was caused by right wing militia “boogaloo” people. The “boogaloo” are a conspiracy theory. Which is more believable: 1) A f…
I was referring to the language used in the press during the civil rights era, which referred to the protests led by MLK as “riots” as well. I posted a link to a reputable news source. The right wing militias are well known, and the “boogaloo” has been well documented. You have presented no evidence whatsoever. Who is the far left wing group you speak of? These folks? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism I’m…
Were there riots along with the protests? Because there are now.
> I posted a link to a reputable news source. The right wing militias are well known, and the “boogaloo” has been well documented.
Can you show me a reputable news source with an exposé on them before 2019? I can for example with other far right groups like the proud boys.
> I’m on their side, 100%. You?
I’m not on Antifas side - I don’t condone political violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace. So by that logic it was wrong for Twitter to sensor the President’s tweet regarding using force to stop vandals destroying monuments.
1) The president was threatening physical harm to people who were destroying non-living objects. Violence and destruction are not the same thing. 2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following: >Having been well after the events or the deaths of the figures commemorated >During periods of economic declin…
They don’t have to be the same thing. It’s illegal activity and we shouldn’t have to wait for a person to be physically injured to stop a mob of maniacs.
> 2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following:
It doesn’t matter if it’s a statue of Krusty the Clown. You can’t destroy public or private property just because you feel it shouldn’t exist.
This is why we have police. To enforce the rules that we as a society have agreed to live by.
The alternative is a bunch of vigilantes beating the rioters. I can assure you that nobody wants that.
> In other words, those monuments tend to represent oblique commemoration of racist violence, and seem to threaten future violence by their presence. Taking them down is not instigation, it's a response. I mean, even without this context, how can one argue that the dismantling of an extant object is instigation? Its original erection would be the first act, courting a response of either general respect (it stays up) or general disdain/shame (it's taken down) over the course of its existence.
Then get public opinion to agree with you and have the city, State, or Federal government to get rid of them. Your misguided feelings, no matter how strong, do not supersede all others just because they’re not yelling loudly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and reasonable people understand this and don't need censorship. Who would hate a platform for not removing people for just honestly disagreeing and talking? Inciting violence and cheating the system is a different story and the obvious edge of free speech
The problem is "honest disagreement and talking" isn't . One person's honest disagreement is inciting violence, and with coded signals and dogwhistles, it's not a subject that everyone will agree on. Things that are clearly on one side or there other of the line aren't in question. It's more subtle stuff that can be argued either way, eg "When the looting starts, the shooting starts", where it gets more contentious.…
Beyond that who do you think these people are inciting? Like would any reasonable person read this subreddit and start commiting violent acts? That sounds like the scum of the earth anyway that don't need reddit to be incited or for any violence to happen, but stifling free speech is not worth it most of the time and you aren't really helping anything anyway. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a clear threat. People shitposting online isn't. If there's a clear violation of rules then fine, but saying that entire groups should be shut down without evidence is a fuckin slippery slope and if you use your brain you don't really need to worry about some dumbass subreddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't confront fascism with the truth, because they've no interest in playing that game and will laugh in your face. There is no statement you can present that will trigger a Damascene conversion.
You can confront fascism with truth, because the goal of that is to inform those reading the conversation, not to persuade the fascist. You're literally saying that because they're not playing our game, we should let fascists control what game is played.
Look at Daryl Davis's amazing work getting over 200 klansmembers to turn away from the klan through honest conversation.
Is it easy? Of course not. But it's not impossible to reach people - it happens every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and reasonable people understand this and don't need censorship. Who would hate a platform for not removing people for just honestly disagreeing and talking? Inciting violence and cheating the system is a different story and the obvious edge of free speech
> Who would hate a platform for not removing people for just honestly disagreeing and talking? A lot of people. And if your goal is quantity, not quality, those people are important, because they are who the investors give you money to build a site for.
So Spez claiming TD has been continuing to post rule breaking content is literally a lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is apparently another extremely liberal echo chamber. Just look at those downvotes. That's why I hang out where there is no voting, popularity contest, virtue signalling, or other nonsense.
> I hang out where there is no voting, popularity contest, virtue signalling I dislike these things as well. Where exactly do you hangout? Because if you meant 4chan, it's hard to have a meaningful conversation there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those were IRL things that happened before people even had computers in their homes. We're talking about modern-day web forums. How effective has "confronting fascism with the truth" ever been, when the fascist is not being upfront about it, but rather posting hundreds of subtly racist memes and dog whistles to reddit?
> How effective has "confronting fascism with the truth" ever been, when the fascist is not being upfront about it, but rather posting hundreds of subtly racist memes and dog whistles to reddit? I don't feel like I did this question justice with my previous answer. The most obvious example would be the George Floyd video, and in a larger sense, the extremely effective tool of filming police as they harass, plant evid…
That second video is revolting. I don't think I can correctly articulate my thoughts after watching that.
Wow. Just wow.