171–180 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I being paranoid in thinking that Musk’s exposure in China & disdain for the LGBTQ community could lead him to lower the reach of tweets related to this issue?
> Musk’s ... disdain for the LGBTQ community I'm not a Musk fan, but what are you referring to?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the into…
Government policy ideals from a small handful of European men in the 18th century may be noble but I value more the documented modern observable effects of policies than their inspiration and goals. The 20th century alone is not short on case studies. Again and again the empirical outcome of tolerating bad faith weaponized speech is the sharp reduction in the diversity of ideas and perspectives actually present in sp…
So the problem isn't 'tolerating bad faith weaponized speech' but rather tolerating 'violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives.'
The second does not follow on from the first.
Also, what is (and who defines) 'weaponized speech'?
Likewise, who defines 'bad faith'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true. The paradox doesn't apply to actors operating in good faith who simply disagree, but those whose intolerance extends to authoritarianism and violence in oppressing the free speech of their opponents, such as the Nazi regime that insipired it, and its truth se…
In America it is legal to advocate for Nazism. This is legal and simultaneously a non-threat because our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government. They are not denied their first amendment rights, and yet they're abject losers. The US government is simultaneously tolerant of them and not threatened by them. The supposed paradox of intolerance says that silencing people who would si…
They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralism,' the meaning of which is well understood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking tweets about her or CCP oppression in general, not necessarily from her. There is plenty of proof out there showing that Musk has his fingers on the scales. Citations can be provided upon request.
Just search for "Naomi Wu" on Twitter. There's plenty of people Tweeting about how she was silenced. You can find all sorts of China critical tweets. Uyghurs, Peng Shui. Take your pick.
In any case, this does not at all indicate if the reach of those tweets was restricted or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the into…
A version that might be harder to misunderstand would be that if the other side resorts to violence first there's not much reason to continue using only rhetoric. Which even still isn't a hard rule, there's a few well known examples of remaining tolerant (not trying to prevent your opponents from speaking) in the face of intolerance (your opponents do try to prevent you from speaking) and succeeding rather well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the into…
Government policy ideals from a small handful of European men in the 18th century may be noble but I value more the documented modern observable effects of policies than their inspiration and goals. The 20th century alone is not short on case studies. Again and again the empirical outcome of tolerating bad faith weaponized speech is the sharp reduction in the diversity of ideas and perspectives actually present in sp…
The proof is in the pudding, the American system of political tolerance has an excellent track record and leads to better outcomes in the long run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mentioning that somebody is from South Korea does not constitute a refutation of that person being a western journalist I don't understand other peoples' denial of the intent with GP's comment. GP specifically quoted the sentence that ended with "Western journalist" and followed that with "South Korean journalist", as an implied correction, when that journalist's South Korean birthplace could hardly be any consider…
> that journalist's South Korean birthplace could hardly be any consideration into her journalism Self-identity can absolutely be relevant, especially if there is a history of anti-white racism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I being paranoid in thinking that Musk’s exposure in China & disdain for the LGBTQ community could lead him to lower the reach of tweets related to this issue?
No. At this point Twitter (I refuse to call it "X" and I will die on this hill) is little more than Elon's personal agitprop and trolling platform, and he would absolutely be petty enough to pull something like that.
People are assuming this is about gender, but it may well be about COVID. Wu refused to go along with China's huge policy shift, from trying hard to contain COVID to giving up. She still takes precautions and has been plugging for UV sterilizers and HEPA filters. The government of China has been hassling people who still want to control COVID spread. It's like "return to office" enforced by the cops. She had a previo…
> Wu refused to go along with China's huge policy shift She was also heavily attacked by people in the West as she also refused to go along with the Wests 'masks don't matter policy' She created Google Docs early on with evidence masks would work contravening the Western governments and the 'trust the science' crowd. Lets not pretend it's just China here, it maybe offtopic to this incident, but at the time you could…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is healthy thinking. China might not be a place where there is any censorship, nor goons rounding up Uyghers, nor restrictions on travel, nor foreign-country-located police stations hounding ex-pats to return home under threat to their families. It could all be made up and China could be a free-thinking, free-speech paradise where an insufficient number of western visitors have realized that everyone is free to…
Right, because those are the only two options.