671–680 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
One can always find whatever bullshit one goes looking for. Nobody at CPAC made up a stage out of a nazi symbol. Some people made up a narrative to fit a false conclusion they created and produced in the media.
Why make the assumption that someone is looking for bullshit when this connection exists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can always find whatever bullshit one goes looking for. Nobody at CPAC made up a stage out of a nazi symbol. Some people made up a narrative to fit a false conclusion they created and produced in the media.
So you've got voters for this party that use a symbol. And then later their stage is shaped that way. Why make the assumption that someone is looking for bullshit when this connection exists?
The simple geometric shape of a stage isn't a nazi rune. Full stop. You're making shit up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that Democrats are center-right. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders are definitely left wing, even for European standards. But you might be partly right. One of the reasons for that are rules of political marketing (rarely politicians have enough courage to ignore them). One of those rules says that you need to differ and polarization is good. You want to win? Show how different you are. Another ru…
No, most of the stuff Bernie and AOC advocate for are considered fairly centrist policies in western Europe. Universal healthcare coverage? Paid parental leave? These are the norm in western Europe, they're not radical in the least.
It's not a centrist policy at all - the parties (I think there are two, one of which is probably the Libertarian party) that don't support it here don't hold _any_ elected seats on any level. Not even a single city council seat in a backwater town in the middle of nowhere.
So yeah, this is the norm. I'm not saying this to argue, I'm saying it to reinforce you (hopefully that's obvious) :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Charlottesville protestors used that symbol explicitly Okay, so what? Should I start adding all the random incidents where people made something that was coincidentally shaped like swastika to the Wikipedia article as examples of modern usage? > CPAC hasn't come out with a denial that their stage was that shape intentionally. They did, they called it slanderous. > slander (noun) - the utterance of false charges…
They called the attack on them slanderous. Interestingly they didn't actually deny it. This is exactly how dog whistles work, dude...
I haven't seen anyone picking up that "dog whistle" besides people like you.
edit: search on twitter the phrase "cpac rune based" or "cpac stage based". If it was a dog whistle, I would expect someone to pick up on it and call it "based". Yet the only people who are talking about it are the people who are making those stupid accusations. Literally no one cared about it until you made a big deal out of it. And still barely anyone cares.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Adverse selection. If your differenciating feature is "you can say what you want without getting banned", your userbase is going to tend towards people who get banned on other platforms. In todays climate, that is mostly the far right. And in Hong Kong, it's anti-CCP protestors. In Iran, it is opponents of the theocracy. We can play this game all day. Tech's obsession with hating on Gab/Parler is based upon on the…
> Tech's obsession with hating on Gab/Parler is based upon on the identity of the people in them, not on whether offensive or not-sanctioned speech should be allowed in general. Because it’s often one and the same: the “identity” of the people on them are the ones spreading hate speech and disinformation. You don’t need to sugar coat it as “not-sanctioned speech”, nobody is banning anyone for saying “hey I support Do…
They most certainly are. That exact phrase will literally get you banned on some forums. [0][1]
If you want to radicalize people, a good way to start is to marginalize them.
[0]https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump
[1]https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-...
I think all censorship should be deplored. My position is that bits are not a bug. That we should create communications technologies that allow people to send whatever they like to each other. And when people put their thumbs on the scale and try to say what can and can't be sent, we should fight back - both politically through protest and technologically through software. - Aaron Swartz
What is the context for this quote? Swartz never created a social media platform nor had to make decisions on how to moderate user generated content across millions of users. He made JSTOR articles freely available.
He is credited as a co-founder of Reddit.
Why is the second sentence of this article about how the CEO of Gab used a Transphobic slur? It kind of seems like the author threw that in there to make sure the reader agrees with their political views, but the article doesn't say what the slur was, and I don't think the author would defend the idea that being transphobic makes it okay to hack a person's website, but it kind of feels like that's the point implicitl…
To be clear, the words were: "Mentally ill tr**ny demon hackers (I’m very serious) are attacking Gab right now."
The article then quotes the rest of the tweet.
How is it irrelevant to briefly talk about the introduction paragraph of the tweet before discussing its more technical content?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many left wing dictators have there been?
Stalin and Pol Pot are good examples.
The reality is that communism as a movement spans a wide political range, and both Stalin and Pol Pot had diverged significantly from any form of leftist Marxism in their hunt for power.
Even stalinist supporters decry Pol Pot https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/khmerrouge.html
Looking at simple party names is a red herring at best. It's best to look at the policy choices of the dictators in question.