251–260 of 863 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donald Trump did not join Parler or Gab.
https://gab.com/realDonaldTrump edit: should have done my own research better, the profile reads: >Reserved for the 45th President of the United States of America🇺🇸 This account is an uncensored Twitter archive and shares email statements sent by The Office of Donald J. Trump. AFAIK Trump isn't on gab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're the same racists on the left and the right extremes. It's just, we had decades of wars and (justified) propaganda that thoroughly discredited fascism and their style of racism so it's easy to see how the right extremes is bad. What the extreme left is doing on the other hand is a more modern variation of racism and totalitarianism. It's ostensibly driven by noble concepts like social justice but in reality de…
Yup. Try saying, with genuine honest neutrality, “all lives matter”, “it’s ok to be white”, or “capitalism doesn’t care about race/gender” and see what happens.
(And in the incredibly unlikely situation where you'd somehow been exposed to enough of the discourse to come up with these phrases on their own, but NOT so much that you hadn't heard them yet, they're still terrible concepts that have been roundly denounced on their own merits. For just one example: https://www.instagram.com/p/CAsrVFXD3Ju/?utm_source=ig_embed...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is extremely odd to find so many on Hacker News arguing for laws to say "that server you own and run in your house that hosts a small web forum...that's a public space now, you'll not be deleting things from it anymore". Because there's no way somehow Twitter is a public space but any random phpBB isn't - they both ask for an email address to sign up and can reject me at that point if they don't like my provider.…
> It is extremely odd to find so many on Hacker News arguing for laws to say "that server you own and run in your house that hosts a small web forum...that's a public space now, I mean if for you the scale simply doesn't come into equation, then yeah, I guess Twitter, serving millions and millions of users and being used for communication by many public figures is exactly the same thing as a random server in someone'…
You're demanding the government step in and nationalize a business which in no way has a monopoly on a concept which has never been protected - the right to a broadcast platform.
Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. If there is some notion…
So, if AT&T cut out phone service from union sympathizers, that would be OK, because they are just expressing their right to free speech? I think there is such a thing as critical communication infrastructure, and even if it run by private companies, it should be protected from censorship. Whether all of FB or just private messaging fall under this is more debatable, but there have to be clear limits on what a compan…
Maybe there is a different set of regulations that could be applied to those platforms beyond something like Section 230. But the side effects of that could cause serious damage to those companies, depending on how the regulation was crafted.
Eliminate? No. Reduce to the point of practical irrelevance? Yep. Deplatforming works.
What if we starting deplatforming Jews or reducing Jewish influence to the point of pratical irrelevance? Would that be okay?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My race and ethnicity has nothing to do with whether or not I am actively oppressing others. Whether these are correlated right now is irrelevant to how we should be behaving in a modern day, postmodern civil society. Not sure the rest of your post makes any sense. I don't consider myself a racist or a sexist and I find it appalling that I am unable to comment on ongoing social issues without being called a "white ma…
I didn't call you racist or sexist. And you brought up "white male" in your post I replied to. Historically speaking, there was bo group more privileged than white, European males. Being one myself, I don't see anything wrong with simply acknowledging that simple fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the right also needs is a realization that some of its beliefs are akin to extremism. And some of the right inspired policies have really really hurt and isolated a significant population. The right needs to soften it's stand on such issues. It's such a generic statement that it's meaningless and could apply to any group of opinions.
Doesn't mean it's wrong... The racists on the right know they're racists. They admit it. The racists I've encountered on the left are the racism-of-low-expectations kind with a dash of openly-racist-against-white-people, and then they go and act morally superior to people who aren't racist against any race. The sanctimony is grating.
The youtube algorithm suggested this to me the other day, posting it here because it's pretty relevant.
When Wokes and Racists actually agree on everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well) that scolding people into guilt is not a viable approach to affect action or to change perceptions when you're dealing with adults. Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good. Like if all you want to do is dehumanize those guys so you can happily insult / hurt them without hurting…
Ctrl+F "Popper" - zero results found. If you don't provide a cogent counterargument to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance, I can't take an essay like this seriously. Simply throwing up your hands and saying, "hate exists, let it rain free on the marketplace of ideas" is ... well, not worth a lot. Also, I love the absence of evidence = evidence of absence argument: * Germans have stringent anti-hate speech laws * ...…
Yeah I found that a bit of a strange point. I don't think the goal of Germany's anti-hate laws was to magically and completely eradicate extremism. It was to prevent them from getting powerful enough to take Germany back down the path to darkness that they did during the Third Reich.
Not to say that I think their model should replicated or exported, just that I don't think that's right lens to view it through. Just like saying, 'Well the Civil Rights Act didn't eradicate racism, what's the point?'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All three of these phrases are political slogans. They are inherently associated with a set of political views, because they exist specifically to oppose another set of views and slogans. It’s unreasonable to echo a political slogan in public and then complain that people don’t assume your neutrality. You cannot say “it’s okay to be white” and expect others to consider it neutral, in much the same way that you can’t…
It's the other way around: these phrases are neutral observations and reasonable opinions, perhaps reasonable reactions to insanity of well-known political slogans - importantly, it's something a random person can come up independently, without reading the exact words first. But at some point, these phrases rapidly become politicized, and this catches a lot of people off guard. You voice your thoughts, fully expectin…
It's the same concept as dogwhistling at its core. Like the terms "urban", or "big government", or "states' rights", or "law and order". Completely "neutral phrases" that are often used to communicate a hidden message with plausible deniability. I mean after all, who could disagree that "all lives matter" – it's obvious isn't it?
I don't really accept it's all that hard to be aware of the implications of the language you use to communicate. I suppose you might theoretically step on a "landmine", but I'll tell you what – I am virtually certain that nobody who has said "it's okay to be white" to their audience has accidentally stumbled upon a neutral phrase with good intentions.