271–280 of 299 posts
I have trouble taking this article seriously when Canada, where a bill is under consideration to regulate posting on social media, is colored more free than the United States (at least if that awful heat diagram is accurate).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's telling to see this comment suppressed with not even a hint as to why. Feminism has changed drastically over the years. The gay movement has been taken over by toxic individuals. Occupy Wall St was taken over. Antifa shootings, BLM riots, lockdowns, get vaccinated or lose your job, and the redefinition of words, all occurred recently. Biden's rhetoric re Trump voters, 80+ million people, is very interesting. We'…
> Feminism has changed drastically over the years This is so true. All your comment is true, but, the mention of feminism really caught my eye. So, I’m a man. But once in a blue moon I’ll visit ovarit. It’s a reddit clone but for gender critical feminists. To me, the women there seem perfectly reasonable. I genuinely like seeing what they post there and it makes sense to me. They believe women are adult female humans…
To be honest, I think Reddit did them a favour kicking them off the platform. Though it was unfair, and the Reddit admins were taking the side of delusion and foolishness, it's worked out really well for the radfems who had to leave. Now they have their own women-centred space, away from the misogynists who want to keep them down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a restriction, but not a particularly punitive or effective one, unless you live in a city that's become so beholden to a single mode of travel that car usage has become some kind of dependency . Even then I'd hardly compare it to being booted from a single platform like Twitter that despite the claims of many here only represents a fraction of "public discourse" (indeed, not even a particularly large percentage…
>unless you live in a city that's become so beholden to a single mode of travel that car usage has become some kind of dependency Then I guess it's a good thing no one in the world lives like that...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eliminating the word fascism from discourse, and replacing it with a description of the thoughts and attitudes you find intolerable, would clarify your claims are here. It's not an invitation to argue about those views mind you, but if you had said "whoa, it's totally fine if we don't have racism, sexism, transphobia, islamophobia, etc expressed anywhere in polite mainstream society" then suddenly it becomes clear 1.…
Tolerated is taking on a wide range is meanings here. On one the of the spectrum, absolutely no, part of a free society is not forcing people to tolerate speech they find intolerable. If I go to a TED talk about fixing poverty and the speaker talks about his plan for eugenics and a final solution, I will walk out. In the other end of the spectrum, the government may disappear people who's speech they or the society t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting kicked off social media is essentially having your ability to engage in public discourse removed, or at least severely restricted.
Do you truly believe that? It's a privately owned place to post thoughts, you were not being restricted if no newspaper would print your letter to the editor.
People forget: none of these services are direct connections between one person and their audience like the telephone or public square. There are always three distinct steps: 1. You send content to them, 2. They analyze/curate, and 3. They publish it (or not) to the recipient(s). If you want a direct connection unencumbered by a company, choose a medium that works by establishing direct TCP connections between users.
I have trouble taking this article seriously when Canada, where a bill is under consideration to regulate posting on social media, is colored more free than the United States (at least if that awful heat diagram is accurate).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you're talking about independent media, your whataboutism doesn't make much sense.
"Independent" of who? Who gets to decide what is "independent" and therefore deserving of the human right to free speech, versus what is "not independent" and therefore subhuman and not deserving of rights?
But it's not as if you don't know. The dictionary provides two useful definitions of the word:
* not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence
* capable of thinking or acting for oneself
which both apply here. So, media that does not depend on some benefactor (such as a state or larger corp) to stay alive, and that is free to form its own opinions. RT fails these criteria.
So how about using common sense instead of trying that state indignant, passive-aggressive relativism.
This is not talking about bogus "my freedoms" claims of people being kicked off Twitter, it's talking about actual loss of freedom of expression, where the government imprisons people for saying the wrong things. In the US we have loss sight of what real freedom of expression means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting kicked off social media is essentially having your ability to engage in public discourse removed, or at least severely restricted.
There are still city / township board meetings. You have the ability to converse with your neighbors. You can write to / contact your local representatives. If you feel that being kicked off social media is the same as the removal of your ability to engage in public discourse can you tell me what people did BEFORE social media?
The people they want to communicate with have all moved to social media.
Before the Internet, there were systems in place for public discourse. Most of them have been dismantled. In the 1970s or 1980s, you read or wrote letters to the editor (now nonexistent or ignored), subscribed to specialty publications (all moved to social media), attended physical meetings (now organized mostly over social media if they happen at all). You might even have literally gone down to the public square to see what people had posted or were saying there (but nobody's posting or speaking now, because nobody's listening, because they've all moved to social media).
If you build a new public square, and everybody abandons the old one, you don't get to forbid soapboxing in the new one because the old one is "still available".
... and formal "board meetings" and one-to-one communication are NOT what is meant by public discourse.
I have trouble taking this article seriously when Canada, where a bill is under consideration to regulate posting on social media, is colored more free than the United States (at least if that awful heat diagram is accurate).
Interesting, anywhere to read about that?