181–189 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about legal threats from government representatives when they don’t like your speech and attempt to force the social media platforms to reveal your burner identity? Devin Nunes attempted to doxx a “cow” for example: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/devin-nunes-subpoena-ai...
Devin failed and the cow goes on.
I wonder to what extent we can establish a common dialogue of "just don't be a hateful asshole" where you just don't have any interest about random personal crap you have zero entitlement to be involved in or are not entitled to retain any say in. The same way if I don't pay your electricity bill, I can't tell you what to use your electricity on. If I'm not having sex with you and I don't want to have sex with you, s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech This neatly avoids the question of whether we should want advertisers and multi-billion dollar corporations to be gatekeepers of the public sphere. As usual, laissez-faire when things are going my way, anti-discrimination and disparate impact laws when they're not.
Our "public spheres" are in fact not public, but rather are private property. Advertisers having control over them is a consequence of this. If you actually go into town IRL and talk in the public square, no advertiser will be able to silence you because the public square is actually public. Or if you use an actually public means of communication like the postal service, again you won't be cut out because some corpor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"? Not really, because I specifically stated that my response was not about the Musk situation. "Jewish communities hate whites" does sound pretty antisemitic to me. But so does the equivalent trash of "all whites are racist", which for some reason is a-ok for…
> But so does the equivalent trash of "all whites are racist", which for some reason is a-ok for the advertising companies. Is it okay with them? Any kind of proof to back this up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many racists proclaim people “misunderstand racism” when their different standards for different races are denounced for being racist. After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism, generation after generation, people are done hearing the moralizing excuses for why this time Democrats have the magic formula for virtuous bigotry.
>After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism Is this serious comment? There was nothing that happened in the parties in the 1960s? Maybe 1964? All of a sudden the people in the south just suddenly decided to no longer be racist, and joined the Republican party fighting _against_ racism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said 'sufficiently coercive', because the equivalence is in the limit. Even just one corporation that you can opt out of is a step up from government in many regards. But it can also be a step down in other regards if there are fewer ways to influence that corporation, and the consequences of opting out are significant. There are of course differences in the ways you can " address, rebuke, curtail, and prevent that…
Realistically, I think you're more hitting up on how to convey, than what the actual is. Probably this should be more dynamic, where different audiences receive the same, but differently phrased message. Here's an example. Discrimination. Here's a factual phrase: women are less intelligent than men. That's not discriminatory, what is discriminatory, is if I use a minor deviation in averages, to look at $random_woman,…
Hypothetically I can see this happening with my argument, but I'm only imagining more checked-out cynicism. Maybe you see how it's poised for something worse?
What I do commonly see are arguments in the vein of "it's impossible for a company to be coercive", which I'd say is the same exact dogmatic pattern you're describing. They're used to justify a state of affairs, and then offer a fallacious solution like "go start your own company". The wishful thinking here seems to be based on emphasizing the distinction between corporate power and government power [1], which is why I think it's useful to point out the commonalities.
[0] like only now that the mobs have passed, can you use this spicy but technically correct example
[1] see the common trope of people asserting that freedom of speech only pertains to the government, when it's just a general concept and the government-specific bit is the legal framing of the first amendment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many racists proclaim people “misunderstand racism” when their different standards for different races are denounced for being racist. After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism, generation after generation, people are done hearing the moralizing excuses for why this time Democrats have the magic formula for virtuous bigotry.
you can’t be racist against white people. the definition of racism centers on power not the tone of dermis. read some different books and open up that independent thinking some.
"you can’t be racist against Jewish people. the definition of racism centers on power not the tone of dermis. read some different books (Mein Kampf, The International Jew) and open up that independent thinking some."
Pat yourself on the back I guess. Your blind hatred of White people has caused you to use literal Nazi rhetoric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many racists proclaim people “misunderstand racism” when their different standards for different races are denounced for being racist. After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism, generation after generation, people are done hearing the moralizing excuses for why this time Democrats have the magic formula for virtuous bigotry.
>After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism Is this serious comment? There was nothing that happened in the parties in the 1960s? Maybe 1964? All of a sudden the people in the south just suddenly decided to no longer be racist, and joined the Republican party fighting _against_ racism?
That's pretty much what happened. The CRA (passed despite the opposition of southern Democrats) shifted the social equilibrium away from racism and a segregated society being totally normal and state-sanctioned, and Southern states had to reinvent themselves along different lines. They broadly chose economic freedom starting from the 1980s (despite continuing opposition by Dems, who to this day favor heavy-handed state intervention and a highly paternalistic attitude towards minorities), which is what created the modern Sunbelt.