201–210 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://terfisaslur.com/
an entire website with people saying things about terfs but not a single sentence explaining wtf a terf is, i'm too old for twitter feuds
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very obtuse and dishonest take of the the Nazi party and socialism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-need... Besides, party names have never been a good indicator of political standing. Only policy is. You can look at the Liberals in Australia as an example of a conservative party.
No it's not. They built roads, made the people's wagon (volkswagen), etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except /r/conservative never claimed to be unbiased. After people started brigading and posting threats (examples are occasionally shown by moderators) they had to tighten up their moderation. In contrast, /r/politics claims to be about general politics but most content to the right of AOC/Bernie gets downvoted or deleted.
Right leaning content is downvoted because the US population leans left. The centrist view, the average American, would be considered a leftist by conservatives. This is why they think they're getting brigaded everywhere. They are. Their beliefs are unpopular. The only reason the US Republican party is viable while being so far right is structural voting advantages. That's why they've lost the popular vote almost eve…
But I'll have to disagree, since the comment above me suggests that there are a significant number of non-American Reddit users who lean more left than the average American, skewing the upvoting patterns. I'd argue that there are a different set of "artificial advantages" on the internet, such as that.
And when I browsed r/politics during the 2016 and 2020 election seasons, it was clear that Bernie Sanders was the favored candidate by Redditors. However, more moderate politicians like Clinton and Biden actually won the nominations.
And the popular vote count is a reflection of the Electoral College process...if elections were actually decided on the popular vote, campaign strategies would be focused more on cities than rural areas shifting the results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s mostly normal people freely associating with other normal people, without fascist establishment elite government control, like Twitter, Facebook, elite media, and most other social media. Did you ever wonder why you are calling others far right or far left? Why are you referring to other American citizens with those terms? Who is pushing those terms that divide the vast majority of normal Americans? Who stands t…
Wait, you object to describing "american citizens" with political labels and then in the very next paragraph use a political label on a specific group of american citizens. Interesting position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why do so many people confusedly assume free speech means forcing printers to print neo-nazi propaganda. Whatever happened to freedom of association? Some businesses and people don’t want to associate with neonazis and don’t want to be known as the company that helps neonazis. Why do people who espouse free speech want to take away freedom to choose who one associates with?
'Free speech' means nothing at all in the private sector - but 'supporting free speech' most definitely does. If a company opts to not support free speech (which is an ideal that I believe most Americans would say should be supported) by enacting censorship rules beyond what is illegal, they shouldn't be surprised when people that believe in that ideal look on them less favorably.
Imagine if email providers were not allowed to filter. Your email would be totally unusable.
Enacting no filters beyond what's illegal would make most of the internet unusable. Like imagine if HN had no moderation? It would lose its original purpose.
So what do you mean support free speech exactly? Allow people to freely post porn, scams, lies, death threats?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not as much as you'd like to think of the "western world" is northern and western Europe. The "rest" of it includes, among other things, most of eastern Europe and pretty much all of South America.
The "western world" as a term is understood to mean Australia, Canada, Catholic and Protestant Europe, New Zealand, plus the United States [definition from wikipedia]. Not saying that isn't silly, but everyone understands that the western world does not include those other places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parler is basically a direct clone of twitter's basic features. They use different names but have features similar to that of Twitter's tweet/like/retweet. Gab's current iteration is a mastodon fork (although iirc they don't participate in the fediverse via activitypub). Gab is similar to Twitter like Parler but is less of a direct clone, offering other features Twitter doesn't have. Gab has been along for longer and…
"you can say anything that is not directly illegal in the US without fear of being banned or other mode“ For a non-American, could you explain how this is far right? Sounds pretty liberal.
Since free speech platforms don't censor any content, leftists naturally hate them...and they'll do anything in their power to slow them down. Rather than acknowledge this, they make themselves feel better by claiming any non-censoring platform is "hosting far right terrorists".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parler is basically a direct clone of twitter's basic features. They use different names but have features similar to that of Twitter's tweet/like/retweet. Gab's current iteration is a mastodon fork (although iirc they don't participate in the fediverse via activitypub). Gab is similar to Twitter like Parler but is less of a direct clone, offering other features Twitter doesn't have. Gab has been along for longer and…
> Both market to the (mostly American) far right, with their shtick being basically "you can say anything that is not directly illegal in the US without fear of being banned or other moderation". It’s incredible that supporting free speech is considered to be only important enough to the “far right” now to be worth marketing to. Free speech used to be something all Americans supported and defended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why do so many people confusedly assume free speech means forcing printers to print neo-nazi propaganda. Whatever happened to freedom of association? Some businesses and people don’t want to associate with neonazis and don’t want to be known as the company that helps neonazis. Why do people who espouse free speech want to take away freedom to choose who one associates with?
Hmm... so in your opinion, back in the days of the Hollywood blacklist, when Louis B. Mayer decided that he wasn't going to buy any more screenplays from communists (or anyone who even had friends who were communists), that was perfectly okay? "Freedom of association", right? The truly bizarre thing about the "woke" movement is that they seem to have absolutely no conception that the stuff they're doing to others can…