871–880 of 939 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. Can you give examples?
Not OP, but this example is probably the most famous: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/30/business/elon-musk-private-je...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. Can you give examples?
Elon Musk, for instance, claims to be a free speech absolutist. However, in practice, he attempts to suppress speech that is expressed through bots that advertise crypto currency in replies to him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol who says he's being exploited? The dude has a couple billion, one doesn't get that kind of money by being gullible and easily exploitable. He can handle himself. Do we even know the valuation?
There has been some speculation that Candace Owens is "manipulating" him and his mental illness because her husband is the co-owner of Parler. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/p...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. Can you give examples?
If you look at it politically, there are people on the right in the US who complain incessantly about cancel culture and how they feel persecuted on Twitter who like to ban books and passed the "don't say gay" legislation in Florida. CPAC, the conservative PAC, canceled Milo Yiannopoulos when was planning to speak there. I don't blame them, because Yiannopoulos was always acting in bad faith. If one of his talks hadn…
There’s a massive difference between de-facto public squares like Twitter and political party conferences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is open about having been diagnosed, not about having a "public breakdown", being "increasingly unhinged" or "quite evidently sick". Those are your inventions. Though they might well be true I think one should be careful diagnosing people at a distance (and without being a mental health professional) especially when it is used as a justification for taking away someone's agency (which I acknowledge you haven't don…
You're right. Maybe there is a conspiracy to plant child actors at his house to sexualize his children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon Musk, for instance, claims to be a free speech absolutist. However, in practice, he attempts to suppress speech that is expressed through bots that advertise crypto currency in replies to him.
Wanting to stop fraud isn’t the same thing as wanting to stop political speech you don’t like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, we've had something very not capitalist to compare it to (which those people tend to love) and boy, was that worse. But the past tends to be forgotten and on the internet nobody knows that the Soviet Union existed, so why not claim that it didn't. Or that it does, but is being attacked by NATO. Or, my favorite, that Russia doesn't exist, but is just a mirage used by NATO countries to pretend there's an externa…
This is just a classic straw man, because people don’t typically believe that. Or a red herring, because that’s not really the point. No one here is suggesting that the Soviet Union has a good track record on pollution. People are suggesting that capitalism doesn’t. “Capitalism is the problem” does not imply that the Soviet Union is the solution. When people say “capitalism is the problem,” they’re often looking towa…
We did it because of fracking nat. gas replacing coal due to innovation. Capitalism brings a lot of innovation including advancements in green energy too.
Tesla was able to economically compete and take a huge segment away from the automobile giants through capitalism, forcing them to compete and develop EV cars.
I don't see many socialist countries actually doing much, hell Germany still wanted Russian gas so much someone (wonder who) had to blow up the pipeline!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think mandated information disclosure is extremely important in a capitalist system. How can we make good decisions if we don't have good information? We need to ask more questions, trust, but verify. We do pass laws that require those that sell products and services to disclose X, Y and Z for their products in a standardized and uniform manner. Likewise, we should be skeptical and critical about what others are te…
I just feel like there’s no other choice. I check out Fox News, Infowars, and other conservative news every once in a while. It’s incredible what they report. Everything is charged against democrats, and everything is a conspiracy. Of course, left leaning news sites demonize republicans in the same way, but it tends to be less extreme. I think that in general censorship is wrong, but I just see so few options. I thin…
That's from your perceived bias. All MSM is biased and plays these tricks, you cross verify reporting from both extremes, check first hand sources and think for yourself!
You fight misinformation with more information. That's it.
Censorship leads to truth counsels, which leads to corruption.
We already had an example where valid topics were banned even though they were true (laptop story)
You're being a useful idiot if you advocate to take inalienable rights away from your brethren.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. The notion of "free speech" was one of the most successful and liberating memes (in the original sense of the word) in human history. But with the advent of technology, overflow attacks on free speech make unrestricted speech as useless as no speech. It's like living in darkness, and then someone invents light, and everyone cries "more light", and it's great, and then after a while the light gets so bright…
To borrow from Popehat: > If you block people on Twitter you’re not truly open to different arguments or ideas. Similarly if you were truly open to trying new and different foods, you’d eat this hot dog I found in the gutter. I think in the context of social media the replacement/adjunct rallying cry is "free association", i.e. moderation. I don't have to engage with racist nonsense or the people who produce it. How…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a right and the government isn't protecting it, do you really have a right? Sure you can get all philosophical and say things like every soul has a right to X Y and Z, but that doesn't mean anything in practice outside of the ivory tower if the government you are beholden to has a stance to the contrary. OTOH if its only about values and not about the actual legal idea of freedom of speech, then you can a…
> If you have a right and the government isn't protecting it, do you really have a right? Yes, but only to the extent that you're capable of protecting it yourself. This is why the second amendment exists in the United States. I don't really care to get into whether or not this a valid point of view since that could be its entire own discussion, but that is at least partially the rationale behind protecting people's…
It's bigger than that - what if these ideas become popular and we elect a leader whose primary drive is to go "death con 3 on the jews"?