461–470 of 834 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves? Maybe (if it's about black or white), but anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in the "Western" world.
> anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in the "Western" world So do Jews. So are we seeing full free speech in action? Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musk is a hypocrite, but so too are progressives on the topic of freedom of speech. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
Wait so you're saying that anyone who criticizes Musk is in this bucket of "progressive" and therefore is accountable for the supposed hypocrisy of all "progressives"? Actually this argument makes no sense. I know that it's commonly repeated in propaganda, but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid on its face. You can't just throw people into a collective arbitrarily and then hold them responsible for everyone else you'd…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence. I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. It is your opinion to colour one side or the other 'hateful', 'racist' or any other wo…
> I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. This is an absurdly disingenuous way of phrasing the situation. One group is ideological and defined by its generalized hatred towards members of the other, while the other group is an ethnic/religious group. Being jewish does not imply that you subscribe to any particular opinion or identify with ei…
I dont agree with your definitions or opinions and thats OK, we have the right to do that.
Are you affording me the same courtesy? Because it sounds like you are not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything political gets downvoted, from either side, but you're going to need better evidence than Musk and rumors for this fraud. (There probably is some fraud! There is in any large money handling system! Japan had a problem with elderly people claiming pensions after they'd died, for example. It's just that you need a better standard of evidence before cutting off money that people are legally entitled to, becau…
Being down-voted is OK, but posts being flagged and removed for posting factual news is not. You will need to define your threshold for standard of evidence. If you automatically disbelieve everything on doge.gov, then there is nothing one can do to convince you. You have chosen to shut your eyes. Please note: I am not an American citizen. As for "rumours", when I was a junior developer working in a service company i…
Right now there is an interesting convergence of tech, politics and general newsworthiness that is going to stress the content moderation system. But people flagging a story as obviously political is the system working as designed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right? If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong? If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal and I will call the police or defend myself. If they pay somebody else to act on their opinion and cause me harm then again it b…
> If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong? In practice, the law not taking this seriously is how a lot of women in abusive relationships die
Yes agreed, and its also the reason we have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.
Things can be said in anger, and not really meant. In fact I would wager out of all the death threats made in the entire world, the vast majority are said in anger and not meant to be followed through on. This is why we dont lock people up for just saying things. There needs to be other motives and evidence behind it to show intent.
Unfortunately yes this means we have situations where people are not believed and go on to receieve harm. Humanity has decided as a society that this is less harmful than locking far too many innocent people up by mistake. I do not have an opinion on whether this is right or wrong, but it is what exists for us and created by us.
If you have a better idea for a more fair justice system then go advocate for it, but the whole history of humanity hasnt found one yet.
Can’t really tell what most of you are complaining about. You can say anything on X (short of doxing and inciting violence and things that are against the law), you can follow or block anyone on X. If they ban Signal links, a competitor platform, that’s a shame, but whatever you say on Signal you can say on X instead. Seems like some people think a “free speech platform” would be some sort of moderated debating space…
try saying "cisgender."
Somehow I don’t believe this, it is too much out of character, even if it fits so nicely with how we want to see Elon. Did anyone here actually confirm this? I never used Twitter nor X or id check myself.
I’m curious what you’re basing this on if you’ve never used X?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Freedom of speech" on Twitter is nothing more than Newspeak for censorship. In reality, the goal has always been to silence minorities who already struggle to express themselves, while allowing hate, racist, homophobic, and transphobic language to run rampant. It is a form of indirect censorship, through the self-censorship of minorities who fear speaking out. Then comes direct censorship, where certain terms or lin…
Aren't racists a minority who struggle to express themselves? How did you come to these conclusions about the goals and future of Twitter? My naive expectation was that Musk is mostly interested in enriching and aggrandizing himself, and that a crusade against some social group is only interesting as long as it serves the primary interests.
No, because people acting with hate as motivator don’t care if they are within a social minority. They will cease any opportunity to use every aggression tool they have at their disposal to express loudly their will to oppress whoever looks like unaligned with their mindset.
This is in sharp contrast with minorities whose only wish is to live in a way that is aligned with with their own aspirations that perfectly fit in a specter of harmonious social differences even if it doesn’t fall right in the middle of the median mainstream stereotype.
Everybody is part of some minorities. But not everyone think that because they are a member of this or that minority they should be given some hegemony over everything and the rest in the political matter of their society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech doesn't allow you to say anything at all you know? Calling for the eradication of people with certain sexual preferences or skin color for example.
Free speech doesnt have asterisks. If certain people say things that are undesireable to other certain people, they have to power to ignore them.
This is why the no asterisk position sets itself to implode.
The core defense of Free speech, one of the better articulated points is from Oliver Wendell Holmes. He articulates that free speech serves the search for truth, but the search for truth via the competition of ideas.
>that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,
This was his articulation in a sedition case brought by the government against citizens.
It is specifically in the case of government using its power to become a player in the market of ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is a legal construction and it does in fact come with exceptions. Child pornography, slander, and death threats are other examples of exceptions.
[flagged]
Porn is 100% speech.