491–500 of 565 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So tell me how the "refuting" of the idea that Sandy Hook was a hoax caused the harassment of parents of children murdered there to stop?
The people harassing Sandy Hook victims should be arrested for stalking and assault or sued for libel and slander. Letting them talk about it on the Internet just helps the idiots incriminate themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At no point I was trying to argue against free speech. Just about the notion that "lie is almost always a matter of perspective". I'm aware there has been criticism of the concept of objective reality in philosophy, but I'm also not aware of any framework of thought that would fit the observable reality better. In fact, all the progress of science and technology, as well as all communications we do with each other, a…
I have no idea how to articulate these notions, please forgive. #1 While I think of myself as a Popperian, I've begun to adopt a "true enough to act now" view of the world. It's close to the notion "a good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow". Mostly, I'm sick of the debate. I have relatives and friends who are creationists, climate change deniers, supply-siders, etc. Instead of tryin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> lie is almost always a matter of perspective This meme I do not understand. There is one physical reality[0]. A thing either happened, or it didn't. Physics doesn't change its workings because of perspective . A precise enough statement about reality can be either true or false, there's no middle. There's no "depends on perspective". If I say, "the Sun is shining", the truth of that fact does not depend on perspect…
I do agree that there's one objective physical reality that's accessible to us. There is quantum level stuff, where indeterminacy is an issue. But at the macroscopic level, that's pretty much averaged out. Except maybe entanglement. But anyway, as you say, complex statements typically involve multiple facts, assumptions, inferences, conclusions and speculation. And yes, we have language for that. The problem, though,…
That's very true. My point is that we need to do that work - and encourage people to do that work, and teach them how to do it - instead of just saying that "lie is a matter of perspective" and giving up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn't. It's floundering, because it is a site that caters to white supremacists, with an aspirational sideline in catering to normal people. Among people who have any name recognition for Gab whatsoever, simply having a Gab account with your name on it is a pretty icky social signal to be sending. In practice, what I see as I regularly check up and screenshot it is a whole lot of bot content punctuated by an o…
> In practice, what I see as I regularly check up and screenshot it is a whole lot of bot content punctuated by an occasional neo-Nazi post. I don't even think the white supremacists are all that invested in it. For what it's worth, I think that's just the effect of the default feed. If you actually follow anyone it completely changes. If what you're saying about the bots is true, maybe I don't see them so much as a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's important to distinguish between platforms that host content of a given topic, and platforms that are specifically set up for a certain topic. For example, Reddit has /r/motorcycles, but I wouldn't call it "a motorcycling discussion platform". I'd call advrider.com or bayarearidersforum.com motorcycle discussion platforms. They're websites specifically set up for motorcycling related discussion. A websit…
Andrew Torba is obviously a neo-Nazi, so can we put this argument to rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just created a Gab account to try to find hashtags or accounts that are not WN. You did what Andrew Torba wanted you to do. He wants people to come for "free speech", to "give it a fair chance", and so forth, so that they can be exposed to, and grow to accept, neo-Nazi rhetoric. It's a scam. Don't fall for it.
There's already a bunch on Twitter, where I've had an account for a while. So it's too late for me, but save yourself...!
Are you really maintaining a Gab account? Why? You could also wear a swastika armband on the same premise: "I'm demonstrating my right to wear what I want, without being coerced by society". Sure, man. But also you're a dude wearing a swastika armband. Reconsider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is a large enough group of people that's effectively banned from mainstream social media, it's entirely natural that they will be over-represented within the largest platform that doesn't ban them. This doesn't mean the platform in question is designed specifically to cater to those groups.
So? Andrew Torba is obviously a neo-Nazi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction. If you want to control the platform, create your own. You'll need the hardware and the software, and it could get expensive. But if you want to spread hate speech or libel, suck up the cost. If you want to be on someone else's platform you accept the restrictions of using that platform. Hate speech is on the list of almost every major platform (exc…
> A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction. The Supreme Court seemed to have very different take (Packingham v. North Carolina): "Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads…
North Carolina was also banning convicts' access to multiple websites, so it was more of an internet ban.
(It helps to read the entire case.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes them private? They're operated on the phone company's lines and by talking on their lines you're compelling them to carry certain speech. The logic that states private communication carriers have an unlimited right to ban what they want to on their networks leads to the conclusion that "private" phone calls can be censored.
> What makes them private? The law. Wire-tapping isn't legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction. The Supreme Court seemed to have very different take (Packingham v. North Carolina): "Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads…
North Carolina was doing the banning, not the website. AKA, it was a government sanction... North Carolina was also banning convicts' access to multiple websites, so it was more of an internet ban. (It helps to read the entire case.)