free speech Dissenter - The comment section of the internet - And a severe game-changer for free speech

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

No, the people who demand fucking up of someone's life just because they don't absolutely support their idea.

*Shrugs* fucking up someones life is relative. I wouldn't physically attack or try to destroy someone who supported such a thing - though if they were a business owner, I would sure as hell not give them any business.

 

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

So what if he was donating to people who oppose same sex marriage.

I mean, it's kind of a big deal?

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

You don't need to fuck his life for it specifically.

We live in a free society, we're able to make our own choices. His life wasn't fucked over by the donation. In fact, he was ousted because his strategy didn't line up with what the company wanted to do, re: mobile, and other things.

 

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

This isn't islamic society where they achieve goals by straight up murdering people.

Did Mr. Eich get murdered? I don't think so. So we're still doing alright here.

 

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

The way our western society is going, no amount of donations will change the general acceptance of LGBT people. So, why is there need to fuck up someone's life because their opinions don't align with LGBT people?

How was his life fucked up, exactly?

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

There always were and always will be opposing views on everything. The last thing we need is everyone fucking up everyone's lives for it. Which is exactly what everyone seems to be doing. On the left and right. And I'm in the middle rolling with my eyes...

When your rights start to interfere with another person, it fucks up their life.

 

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Running away from the point is normally a sign you've conceded it. You're also now calling it "my opinion" rather than previously presenting it as a statement of fact.  "The Former CEO is a right-wing extremist." is a pretty blanket statement associating Mr. Eich, co-founder of Mozilla, inventor of Javascript and developer of Brave (the browser) with actual extremist movements considered to be on rightwing. To much of the world, you're implying that Mr. Eich is a Nazi, which is slander.

Yes, "claim to be". 

The Former CEO is a right-wing extremist. Yes. That's my opinion. Are you having trouble following this? I don't know why.

 

No, I wouldn't say he's a Nazi. Nazi's have specific ideology. Anti-LGBT is just one of many things they believe in. Whether he's a Nazi or not is not information I contain. I do love you putting words in my mouth though.

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

 

 

Without ever having seen your identification, I cannot say whether you're Canadian, American, Thai or you live in a pineapple under the sea. Being Canadian on a Canadian forum subjects you to local law quite directly. While I doubt Mr. Eich would pursue litigation against you with either the Crown Counsel, the Human Rights Commission or as a civil matter, words have meanings & implications. I repeat my offer.

Lmao. Please. Canadian law 100% supports my position. I feel like you're taking this a bit personally - you've already questioned my nationality (twice now).

 

Mr. Eich would have his case thrown out, if it ever got that far in court. My local laws are entirely on my side, so please stop that nonsense.

[RejZoR]

No, they do the same for businesses. It's not "Uh oh I won't support you personally". No, they go out of their way to fuck you up and make sure no one will, because you know, they spread their poem of tolerance by acting like a Hitler. This is why I fucking can't stand these people even if I generally support LGBT people and rights for them. I'm not saying all of them are like this, but they are just crawling all over Facebook and Twitter and other social networks with their idiotic faux activism. But they always go unchallenged because these mega corporations stand behind with exact same mentality. Gab and Dissenter are in a way opposing view or alternate opinion. Ups, can't have that. You'll think our way and no other way and they remove Gab/Dissenter from everywhere, everyone at the same time as always. That's their message and all this banning and censoring of Gab is showing this very clearly as they absolutely desperately try to paint it as this horrible "hate speech" platform. Social networks are not connecting people, not because there is Facebook and Gab as polarizing opposites, but they are dividing them with dumb single sided policies, particularly on the side of leftist progressive ones. Media is portraying Gab as right wing extremist platform and I'm there friends with bunch of center and left aligned people, libertarians, liberals and at least one is transgender that we know each other back from GamerGate thing as well as moderate right wingers to more extreme ones. Because we like to hear the other side too and have a talk or argument over it and only way you can do that is pretty much on Gab, because they don't censor or filter it by default. On Twitter everyone is just blocking everyone like retards as soon as you prove them wrong or disagree with them. It's entirely pointless to even try and engage any kind of discussion.

[cj09beira]

3 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Buttom Line:
YOUR way makes Nazis!

You know how you destroy them? By talking to them in a civilized maner. That is what the founding fathers knew, that to have a country, you have to be able to speak what you think without fear of prosecution.

 

the Us has its problems but man the founders were wise

[Sauron]

15 hours ago, Sampsy said:

This is literally just unmoderated comments, nothing more. We all know how well that works.

 

Except no it isn't, because not only that, this is only useful for those who can't chat using the normal functionality because they would get banned. So that will make up the vast majority of users.

 

Dissenter does not exist to protect free speech - that is just another transparent lie the far right uses as a shield to dismiss criticism. It exists to create an echo chamber of extremist conversation not allowed elsewhere - racism, death threats etc

Yes! Thank you!

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Oh, that shit. Typical leftist nonsense. What, you don't align with my way of thinking? Well, tough luck, lets fuck up your life. Wasn't the first time and won't be the last. These people are pretty much insane at this point.

That's a pretty interesting claim, do you feel your life is being actively "fucked up" because you're disagreeing with a leftist?

 

@dalekphalm @Nowak what are you doing to him?! Leave this poor guy alone! Stop fucking up his life! Oh, the humanity!

3 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

You're using dogwhistle language to attempt to out-group Mr. Eich. Seeing as he was supporting the side of a ballot measure that won popular support is the progressive State of California, his support for Prop 8 was neither "right wing" nor "extremist". Your position, however, is extremist. It's also Islamophobic and Anti-Christian, generally speaking. Words have meaning and implications.

I am a Christian and I do not feel attacked in the slightest by his position on same sex marriage. I don't feel threatened nor invalidated by other people's political opinions on things that don't affect me directly. Go figure.

 

On the other hand, I can see how a Jew could feel threatened by someone claiming they are everything that's wrong with the world and should be exterminated. Or how a gay person could feel threatened by someone who wants to ban ssm, especially in a state where it was already legal.

[cj09beira]

25 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes! Thank you!

That's a pretty interesting claim, do you feel your life is being actively "fucked up" because you're disagreeing with a leftist?

 

@dalekphalm @Nowak what are you doing to him?! Leave this poor guy alone! Stop fucking up his life! Oh, the humanity!

I am a Christian and I do not feel attacked in the slightest by his position on same sex marriage. I don't feel threatened nor invalidated by other people's political opinions on things that don't affect me directly. Go figure.

 

On the other hand, I can see how a Jew could feel threatened by someone claiming they are everything that's wrong with the world and should be exterminated. Or how a gay person could feel threatened by someone who wants to ban ssm, especially in a state where it was already legal.

when disagreeing with the right has no effect on you what so ever but disagreeing with the left gets you banned, and in some cases gets you fired, something is really wrong.

 

the way for society to be stable is to have free speech, let everyone talk, this is how people's differences are minimized, if we start separating people things will go south quickly.

right now its mostly people on the right being banned and silenced, but in a few years it could be the left, and neither is good, on both extremes sits very authoritarian regimes where most people suffer greatly

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

when disagreeing with the right has no effect on you what so ever but disagreeing with the left gets you banned, and in some cases gets you fired, something is really wrong.

Words have consequences. Normal conservatives aren't saying stuff like "Ban gay marriage". They are saying "Low tax, less government".

 

I'm okay with a normal conservative.

 

Normal conservatives don't seem to be getting banned or fired.

12 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

the way for society to be stable is to have free speech, let everyone talk, this is how people's differences are minimized, if we start separating people things will go south quickly.

right now its mostly people on the right being banned and silenced, but in a few years it could be the left, and neither is good, on both extremes sits very authoritarian regimes where most people suffer greatly

Indeed, yet people are trying to shut down my opinion that I think Mr. Eich is reprehensible for being against gay marriage. Go figure? Does Free Speech affect us all, or just right wing people?

[mr moose]

So let me get this straight, some people are arguing in support of Mr. Eich  because "you shouldn't fuck up someones life because of their views", even though he was doing exactly that in trying to ban SSM because of his views? 

 

I'm sorry, but he went out of his way to make life harder for everyday people just because they are gay,  People who don't like that kind of attitude have every right to do the same to him, be that to deny him business or a right to something that everyone else enjoys.

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, anything else is not a free democracy.

 

 

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

when disagreeing with the right has no effect on you what so ever but disagreeing with the left gets you banned, and in some cases gets you fired, something is really wrong.

Disagreeing with basic human rights can get you fired, yes. I don't see a problem with that, people get fired for all sorts of undesirable behavior and being a nazi generally makes someone quite undesirable. There's no such thing as a nice nazi, by definition.

 

If disagreeing with nazis could get you fired, on the other hand, I'd take issue with it simply because that would be an endorsement of nazism on the employer's part; wouldn't you?

 

There's a fundamental difference in what you're "disagreeing" with, and it's not a matter of left or right. It just so happens that the nazis tend to be on the right. Regardless, actual instances of this happening are extremely rare and I find it quite dishonest to act as though every right winger's job is in immediate danger of being taken away by vaguely defined "leftists". And it's quite obviously not true that right wingers get autobanned from social media... just take a trip on twitter or facebook and you'll find flat earthers, climate change deniers, antivaxxers and racists who are in no danger of being banned any time soon. Imagine being so insufferable that those people don't get banned but you do.

17 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

the way for society to be stable is to have free speech, let everyone talk, this is how people's differences are minimized, if we start separating people things will go south quickly.

You can say whatever you want, so long as it's not threatening or bullying other people. Regardless, no private platform is under any obligation to give you a pedestal; if they consider you to be an arse, they have every right to ban you. I invite you to ask Breitbart to publish a left leaning article or Alex Jones to host Bernie Sanders, let's see how the enlightened right reacts.

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So let me get this straight, some people are arguing in support of Mr. Eich  because "you shouldn't fuck up someones life because of their views", even though he was doing exactly that in trying to ban SSM because of his views?

Yes, that seems to be the case.

[Master Delta Chief]

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

You guys do realize this is likely to get the thread locked, right?

Claiming what is a standard belief in multiple cultures and religions (not just Christianity, not just the US) to be "extremism", is itself an extremist position.  That's all I'll say on that.

I disagree with that statement. From my point of view (and also from the other person who replied to you), it is an ethical question rather than something from a belief or culture. I know that certain cultures and religions have their opinions, but when it comes to laws, a state should be secular, not vice versa. Culture nor religion should have any sort of influence when it comes to the basic rights of a person. It isn't an extremist point of view, but one from a humanist.

[Arika]

37 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You can say whatever you want, so long as it's not threatening or bullying other people.

I would love if this was actually true. Back when i was on twitter, i would constantly push back against the people saying things like "kill all white men" "kill all white people" "if you're having a white baby, abort it" "all men are rapists" etc. you know, the things that twitter is happy to give a platform for despite it being against their Ts & Cs.

 

Because i dont think these things should happen, yes i'm white, yes I like men, but these views are actually violent and consistently come from the left, switch the gender and skin colour and twitter will ban you so fast you wont have time to blink and all of a sudden you're a nazi or alt-right. i went against them and was met with "reverse racism doesn't exist" "you have internalized misogyny" "nazi" and the posters of these tweets and a whole bunch of their fans attempt to doxx me...why? because i don't think killing people based on their gender or skin colour is acceptable? i reported the people to twitter that we trying to doxx me, they didn't give a flying blue fuck, depsite having linked a number of tweets and DMs explictly stating they were trying to doxx me.

 

There is a clear divide on what is and is not acceptable to post on social media.

 

 

- not related to the above quote, just a rant -

 

In the case of Gab, it was created because people were being banned for their views with the response "don't like it? build your own platform"

they did

the left shrieked and got the payment processors to stop service with the response "don't like it? build your own payment processor"

they did

now they are shrieking even harder because Gab and Dissenter keep trying to just exist. they get labeled as an "alt-right platform" in an effort to take them down simply because it allows people to say things that are against the status quo without the ability to censor it, they do not promote right or alt-right views, they promote an open platform where anyone can say what they like provided it's not actually illegal.

 

The terms "alt-right" and "nazi" have lost all meaning, it's a buzzword thrown around to discredit anyone with a different opinion so they can just ignore that person, instead of, you know, just ignoring them.

 

 

With all that said, is the right innocent? absolutely not, they can be dicks just as much as the left, maybe more, because they are people. but there is an air of left = good, right = bad on the internet these days.

 

 

Anyway that's my rant over.

this is why i try to avoid political shit now, i'm all wound up....i need candy...

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

I would love if this was actually true. Back when i was on twitter, i would constantly push back against the people saying things like "kill all white men" "kill all white people" "if you're having a white baby, abort it" "all men are rapists" etc. you know, the things that twitter is happy to give a platform for despite it being against their Ts & Cs.

 

Because i dont think these things should happen, yes i'm white, yes I like men, but these views are actually violent and consistently come from the left, switch the gender and skin colour and twitter will ban you so fast you wont have time to blink and all of a sudden you're a nazi or alt-right. i went against them and was met with "reverse racism doesn't exist" "you have internalized misogyny" "nazi" and the posters of these tweets and a whole bunch of their fans attempt to doxx me...why? because i don't think killing people based on their gender or skin colour is acceptable? i reported the people to twitter that we trying to doxx me, they didn't give a flying blue fuck, depsite having linked a number of tweets and DMs explictly stating they were trying to doxx me.

 

There is a clear divide on what is and is not acceptable to post on social media.

Did you report any of this to Twitter? I'm a left leaning "socialist" (dirty word in the US), and what you witnessed was wrong.

 

Reverse racism does exist, etc. No shit. Racism is racism. Stand up for it. But don't just stand up for anti-white racism. Call out all racism wherever you see it. Black, white, whatever.

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Did you report any of this to Twitter? I'm a left leaning "socialist" (dirty word in the US), and what you witnessed was wrong.

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

i reported the people to twitter that we trying to doxx me, they didn't give a flying blue fuck, depsite having linked a number of tweets and DMs explictly stating they were trying to doxx me.

this was one of the reason i eventually deleted my twitter, because it's clear they dont give a shit.

 

 

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Reverse racism does exist, etc. No shit. Racism is racism. Stand up for it. But don't just stand up for anti-white racism. Call out all racism wherever you see it. Black, white, whatever.

more people need to think you like you. but unfortunately they dont because "white people have all the power, therefore you can't be racist against them" which is some of the biggest bullshit on twitter

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

this was one of the reason i eventually deleted my twitter, because it's clear they dont give a shit.

 

 

more people need to think you like you. but unfortunately they dont because "white people have all the power, therefore you can't be racist against them" which is some of the biggest bullshit on twitter

It's certainly something that along with extremism of all kinds (such as extremist terrorism, white supremacy, etc) needs to be dealt with.

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

I would love if this was actually true. Back when i was on twitter, i would constantly push back against the people saying things like "kill all white men" "kill all white people" "if you're having a white baby, abort it" "all men are rapists" etc. you know, the things that twitter is happy to give a platform for despite it being against their Ts & Cs.

 

Because i dont think these things should happen, yes i'm white, yes I like men, but these views are actually violent and consistently come from the left, switch the gender and skin colour and twitter will ban you so fast you wont have time to blink and all of a sudden you're a nazi or alt-right. i went against them and was met with "reverse racism doesn't exist" "you have internalized misogyny" "nazi" and the posters of these tweets and a whole bunch of their fans attempt to doxx me...why? because i don't think killing people based on their gender or skin colour is acceptable? i reported the people to twitter that we trying to doxx me, they didn't give a flying blue fuck, depsite having linked a number of tweets and DMs explictly stating they were trying to doxx me.

 

There is a clear divide on what is and is not acceptable to post on social media.

You may be right, some people may get away with it because their attacks aren't against marginalized groups and they shouldn't - that doesn't mean that the groups that do attack marginalized groups don't deserve to be banned. If anything, you're making an argument for more moderation, not less.

 

On a side note, "kill all white men" has never resulted in anything more than a bunch of angry twitter posts. "Kill all Jews", however...

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

In the case of Gab, it was created because people were being banned for their views with the response "don't like it? build your own platform"

they did

the left shrieked and got the payment processors to stop service with the response "don't like it? build your own payment processor"

they did

now they are shrieking even harder because Gab and Dissenter keep trying to just exist. they get labeled as an "alt-right platform" in an effort to take them down simply because it allows people to say things that are against the status quo without the ability to censor it, they do not promote right or alt-right views, they promote an open platform where anyone can say what they like provided it's not actually illegal.

That's meaningless - inevitably things like Gab become a hive of people who were kicked out from everywhere else, and that mostly means fascists. You can go in and say whatever you like, just don't be surprised if you get a shower of hate and horrible profanities in return. It's like going in a room with Hitler, Göring and Mussolini and praising Marx. You won't be reaching any audience that cares or has a chance of changing their mind. It's like shouting into a pillow - you can say whatever you want, but none of it matters, and the pillow demeans your humanity every time you say something.

 

Therefore platforms like that become recruiting zones for nazis; they prey on young people who buy the idea of gab style ""'free speech""" and radicalize them as they sink into the vortex.

 

As for the left "shrieking", I always find it interesting how people represent "the left" as an entitled group that complains about everything, then proceed to complain (or perhaps shriek?) about how they're getting banned from social media and people don't like them when they are racist. There's nothing wrong with complaining about things you think are unfair or dangerous; everyone does it, but only "the right" tries to invalidate it when it's coming from someone else.

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

The terms "alt-right" and "nazi" have lost all meaning, it's a buzzword thrown around to discredit anyone with a different opinion so they can just ignore that person, instead of, you know, just ignoring them.

No, they haven't. That makes no sense. Denying that there are some very real fascists among the "alt-right", which by the way is how they call themselves, is delusional. Just take a look at the Charlottesville rally where people were waving swastika flags and chanting "Jews will not replace us".

 

I assert that the opposite is true; nazis want you to think it's a "buzzword" so that you'll listen to their bullshit.

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

With all that said, is the right innocent? absolutely not, they can be dicks just as much as the left, maybe more, because they are people. but there is an air of left = good, right = bad on the internet these days.

I don't know what air you're breathing, but I see plenty of people making this sort of argument all the time on the internet, and they don't seem to think "left = good, right = bad"... just look at this very thread. The POTUS is right wing for crying out loud, and so are many EU governments; clearly someone likes the right wing, and it's not just a couple of people...

 

-edit-

 

Also, if you think a political ideology violates human rights there's really nothing wrong with saying the are "bad". Not all arguments are equally valid. Let's not pretend you can have a discussion with a nazi where their points deserve the same respect and evaluation as yours. One of the two is advocating for genocide and pretending it's a valid opinion to have does nobody any good.

[cj09beira]

11 hours ago, Sauron said:

Disagreeing with basic human rights can get you fired, yes. I don't see a problem with that, people get fired for all sorts of undesirable behavior and being a nazi generally makes someone quite undesirable. There's no such thing as a nice nazi, by definition.

 

If disagreeing with nazis could get you fired, on the other hand, I'd take issue with it simply because that would be an endorsement of nazism on the employer's part; wouldn't you?

 

There's a fundamental difference in what you're "disagreeing" with, and it's not a matter of left or right. It just so happens that the nazis tend to be on the right. Regardless, actual instances of this happening are extremely rare and I find it quite dishonest to act as though every right winger's job is in immediate danger of being taken away by vaguely defined "leftists". And it's quite obviously not true that right wingers get autobanned from social media... just take a trip on twitter or facebook and you'll find flat earthers, climate change deniers, antivaxxers and racists who are in no danger of being banned any time soon. Imagine being so insufferable that those people don't get banned but you do.

You can say whatever you want, so long as it's not threatening or bullying other people. Regardless, no private platform is under any obligation to give you a pedestal; if they consider you to be an arse, they have every right to ban you. I invite you to ask Breitbart to publish a left leaning article or Alex Jones to host Bernie Sanders, let's see how the enlightened right reacts.

Yes, that seems to be the case.

there have been quite a few cases of unjust bannings on the right and the lack of it on the left (like when a female celebrity offered a blowjob to whoever punched the covington kid), just some posts up there is a good example of it, 

dont assume everyone banned is a nazi, thats certainly not the case, and if it was why not ban Communists too, after all they killed as many or more people.

i think platforms like twitter need to follow the same rules a public private property would (malls for example), and only remove things that are illegal and almost never with unlimited bans, (the same way criminals usually aren't imprisoned for life), having these massive corporations deciding what is or isn't acceptable speech isn't right.

though this posses a problem as laws vary greatly from one country to another.

the right hosting left leaning people isn't rare, steven crowder does it often, ben shapiro did a full hour with one just a few weeks ago

Quote

On a side note, "kill all white men" has never resulted in anything more than a bunch of angry twitter posts. "Kill all Jews", however...

That's meaningless - inevitably things like Gab become a hive of people who were kicked out from everywhere else, and that mostly means fascists. You can go in and say whatever you like, just don't be surprised if you get a shower of hate and horrible profanities in return. It's like going in a room with Hitler, Göring and Mussolini and praising Marx. You won't be reaching any audience that cares or has a chance of changing their mind. It's like shouting into a pillow - you can say whatever you want, but none of it matters, and the pillow demeans your humanity every time you say something.

I dont think white farmers in africa would agree with you, we also have that time when a bunch of black people tortured a retarded kid because he was white (in chicago), and streamed it all. in the end both cases involve direct incitement of violence which is illegal so it should be handled by the authorities.

about gab, getting more "normal" people into it would then allow things to improve

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You may be right, some people may get away with it because their attacks aren't against marginalized groups and they shouldn't - that doesn't mean that the groups that do attack those groups don't deserve to be banned. If anything, you're making an argument for more moderation, not less.

 

 

Therefore platforms like that become recruiting zones for nazis; they prey on young people who buy the idea of gab style ""'free speech""" and radicalize them as they sink into the vortex.

 

As for the left "shrieking", I always find it interesting how people represent "the left" as an entitled group that complains about everything, then proceed to complain (or perhaps shriek?) about how they're getting banned from social media and people don't like them when they are racist. There's nothing wrong with complaining about things you think are unfair or dangerous; everyone does it, but only "the right" tries to invalidate it when it's coming from someone else.

No, they haven't. That makes no sense. Denying that there are some very real fascists among the "alt-right", which by the way is how they call themselves, is delusional. Just take a look at the Charlottesville rally where people were waving swastika flags and chanting "Jews will not replace us".

 

I assert that the opposite is true; nazis want you to think it's a "buzzword" so that you'll listen to their bullshit.

I don't know what air you're breathing, but I see plenty of people making this sort of argument all the time on the internet, and they don't seem to think "left = good, right = bad"... just look at this very thread. The POTUS is right wing for crying out loud, and so are many EU governments; clearly someone likes the right wing, and it's not just a couple of people...

do you even keep up with the news, the media as been trowing the alt-right sticker at everything that moves, including the person that gets the most hate from them (they had to issue a retraction just a few weeks ago).

even nazis can have some valid issues that we might want to look at, and in having those conversations we might get some of them to start believing that things can improve without radical movements.

 

[hobobobo]

Newspeak is beuatiful, embrace it. National socialism is apparently alt-right, critisim is discrimination, discrimination is compensaroty equity, equity is equality. Goddamn, if i was more high-energy id immigrate to states and try to grow my own strain of bullshit, seems like fun. Id call it "the freedom movement for the betterment of what precious(me) we have". Well burn down women and rape villages in the name of rebuilding the infrastracture, monopolize education in the name of enlightment and provide mandatory military training under the pretense of summer camps, all in the name of peace. Well fit right in, like a war on terror and iraq, or a war on drugs and cia...

 

The beuaty of this all is that its done under the guise of moral superiority, like the nazis actually did. Cant wait for american robo-troops to march on the pagan world to educate the barbarians on the values of "secular liberalism", with civilized communities explicit concent ofc, too long have they opressed gays, cripples, minorities etc, the news told us so... who gives a fuck whats happening irl, mondays is got season 6 boys

 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

there have been quite a few cases of unjust bannings on the right and the lack of it on the left (like when a female celebrity offered a blowjob to whoever punched the covington kid), just some posts up there is a good example of it, 

dont assume everyone banned is a nazi, thats certainly not the case, and if it was why not ban Communists too, after all they killed as many or more people.

You are still completely missing the point - if A and B should be banned, the fact that B wasn't banned doesn't mean A should get away with it.

3 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

i think platforms like twitter need to follow the same rules a public private property would (malls for example), and only remove things that are illegal and almost never with unlimited bans, (the same way criminals usually aren't imprisoned for life), having these massive corporations deciding what is or isn't acceptable speech isn't right.

Do you seriously think saying a fraction of the things these people say on twitter in a mall, out loud, to strangers wouldn't get them kicked out? I have no sympathy for twitter or facebook, but it's absolutely obvious that without moderation they would completely break down. As for the length of the bans, we're getting into pointless technicalities - twitter has no way of knowing how long it can take someone to learn to "behave", nor do they care. If someone disrupts their platform and drives other people away it's more profitable for them to kick them out and never think about it again. Twitter isn't the police and a twitter ban is not a jail sentence, the comparison is ludicrous.

10 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

the right hosting left leaning people isn't rare, steven crowder does it often, ben shapiro did a full hour with one just a few weeks ago

Oh, I don't mean an interview with them - I mean let them upload their own videos or write their own articles. That's what's being discussed here. That's what you expect twitter to let you do regardless of content.

11 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

I dont think white farmers in africa would agree with you, we also have that time when a bunch of black people tortured a retarded kid because he was white (in chicago), and streamed it all. in the end both cases involve direct incitement of violence which is illegal so it should be handled by the authorities.

Oh please, get right out of here with that bullshit. A bunch of idiots hurting a kid is horrible, but it's not an organized movement for genocide. And of course they should rot in jail, nobody is arguing against that. As for the farmers in SA, boo hoo, they don't get to keep all the land they unjustly claimed during apartheid and are now slightly less rich, though still a order of magnitude richer than the average black South African... how will they ever survive? SA is going through massive changes after hundreds of years of segregation and exploitation of the ethnic majority, the road is bound to be bumpy for everyone involved but the white farmers are still far better off than the part of the population they stole their land from. None of them are getting killed, though in that situation it wouldn't be weird at all if some of the population wanted to be violent.

 

But we're talking about countries like the US here, where "white" people are the overwhelming majority and hold most positions of power; comparing their situation to that of African farmers is meaningless and just a way to sidetrack the argument because you have nothing relevant to answer. I won't continue a conversation that's been so derailed.

20 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

do you even keep up with the news, the media as been trowing the alt-right sticker at everything that moves, including the person that gets the most hate from them (they had to issue a retraction just a few weeks ago).

And Fox News throws around the word socialist like it's candy, so what? News outlets can be biased, that doesn't mean nazis don't exist.

22 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

even nazis can have some valid issues that we might want to look at, and in having those conversations we might get some of them to start believing that things can improve without radical movements.

No, because they believe all their problems stem from other ethnic groups and those who defend them. There is no conversation to be had; any compromise in that direction would favor them because it would make things shittier for everyone else. There's no value to be gained by listening to their perspective, even when it comes to helping them with their problems, because they don't have a valid solution and they will refuse your help in any other form. A doctor doesn't ask for the patient's opinion on where they should start cutting in an surgery, least of all if the patient believes they should operate on the doctor instead.

[Arika]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

you're making an argument for more moderation, not less.

as long as its done equality i don't care, but currently there is a heavy bias on the mainstream social media sites about what they do and do not ban regardless of the written letter of their ToS, because if they actually enforced what they say they enforce then i wouldn't have made that entire post and gab would never have popped up.

 

this is my main point of contention because i have been on the receiving end of the supposed (and self proclaimed) "tolerant" left.

 

the Extreme left suck, the alt-left suck, the extreme right suck and the alt-right suck. fuck all of them, social media needs to sort their shit out and hold true to their own rules and punish people in an unbias way, that's all i want and i don't think it's asking that much.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

as long as its done equality i don't care, but currently there is a heavy bias on the mainstream social media sites about what they do and do not ban regardless of the written letter of their ToS, because if they actually enforced what they say they enforce then i wouldn't have made that entire post and gab would never have popped up.

Why do you think gab would have never popped up? The original argument here was about unlimited "free speech", not about whether twitter moderation is tightly enforced. If the stance is that you should be able to say literally anything, then gab and dissenter would have existed regardless. That's what I'm contesting, and that's what I thought you were defending. If all you're advocating for is consistently equal moderation, I suggest you distance yourself from the "everything should be allowed" camp - their goals are quite different.

[Arika]

32 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Why do you think gab would have never popped up? The original argument here was about unlimited "free speech", not about whether twitter moderation is tightly enforced. If the stance is that you should be able to say literally anything, then gab and dissenter would have existed regardless. That's what I'm contesting, and that's what I thought you were defending.

as much as i detest buzzfeed as a news source they actually did a piece on it when it cropped up in 2016, it's only been in the public eye in the last few months because it's now seen as a "save haven" for " for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right" but that's not why it was created

 

Quote

In an email to BuzzFeed News, Torba (the CEO) wrote that his frustration with existing social networks’ content moderation policies was one catalyst for creating Gab. “What makes the entirely left-leaning Big Social monopoly qualified to tell us what is ‘news’ and what is ‘trending’ and to define what "harassment" means?” he said. “It didn't feel right to me, and I wanted to change it, and give people something that would be fair and just.”

 

 

 

Quote

If all you're advocating for is consistently equal moderation, I suggest you distance yourself from the "everything should be allowed" camp - their goals are quite different.

partly true, while I do say that i'm for free speech i also understand that "private" companies (see: non-governement run companies) can moderate their platform how they like, however when they contradict themselves in how they say their moderation is done, that's what i have the issue with and why Gab was created (at least part of the reason for it). I also don't think it's a good idea to try and continuously try to shut down gab/dissenter because all that will do in inflame the already massive divide that exists between both sides. shut gab down and something else will popup and the users will get angrier at the left for trying to censor/deplatform them nothing good will come of it.

 

people of all political opinions need to have a place to talk about and debate their beliefs, keep shutting them down and they will feel oppressed, and bad things generally happen when a large group of people feel like they are being oppressed.

 

At this point it feels like the lesser of two evils because i truly don't see it going any other way, it's either

 

1. let people talk and vent about their opinions, regardless of how much you disagree with them

or

2. attempt to silence them and force their hand to act against their oppressors

 

And this is coming from someone from outside of the US, the political landscape over there feels like it's going to explode at any minute, where one side finally snaps and all hell breaks loose. whether or not that's what is actually going on over there, from an outside perspective, things are bad

 

 

EDIT:

Quote

I suggest you distance yourself from the "everything should be allowed" camp - their goals are quite different.

I don't associate with any "side" or "camp". it's hard to express the nuances of my political compass. i've been labeled pretty much everything under the political sun at some point because i don't align to any one side, i'm a mishmash of opinions from all sides on different issues.

[cj09beira]

51 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You are still completely missing the point - if A and B should be banned, the fact that B wasn't banned doesn't mean A should get away with it.

 

Do you seriously think saying a fraction of the things these people say on twitter in a mall, out loud, to strangers wouldn't get them kicked out? I have no sympathy for twitter or facebook, but it's absolutely obvious that without moderation they would completely break down. As for the length of the bans, we're getting into pointless technicalities -

twitter has no way of knowing how long it can take someone to learn to "behave", nor do they care. If someone disrupts their platform and drives other people away it's more profitable for them to kick them out and never think about it again. Twitter isn't the police and a twitter ban is not a jail sentence, the comparison is ludicrous.

 

Oh, I don't mean an interview with them - I mean let them upload their own videos or write their own articles. That's what's being discussed here. That's what you expect twitter to let you do regardless of content.

 

Oh please, get right out of here with that bullshit. A bunch of idiots hurting a kid is horrible, but it's not an organized movement for genocide. And of course they should rot in jail, nobody is arguing against that. As for the farmers in SA, boo hoo, they don't get to keep all the land they unjustly claimed during apartheid and are now slightly less rich, though still a order of magnitude richer than the average black South African... how will they ever survive? SA is going through massive changes after hundreds of years of segregation and exploitation of the ethnic majority, the road is bound to be bumpy for everyone involved but the white farmers are still far better off than the part of the population they stole their land from. None of them are getting killed, though in that situation it wouldn't be weird at all if some of the population wanted to be violent.

 

But we're talking about countries like the US here, where "white" people are the overwhelming majority and hold most positions of power; comparing their situation to that of African farmers is meaningless and just a way to sidetrack the argument because you have nothing relevant to answer. I won't continue a conversation that's been so derailed.

 

 

i am not completely against moderation, though i think we should strive for the lowest amount possible, in that case was just showing that there are biases right now and to show that both extremes are bad.

 

twitter is a platform not a publisher, there is quite a difference between the two, though they legally have been able to claim the advantages of both (which they should not be able to)

 

you said that "kill all whites" has never ended up in people getting killed/hurt i just proved thats not true, it being organized or not doesn't matter.

being a white farmer in the SA now is one of the most dangerous jobs you can do in SA, many have been killed and we do have the president saying things like "I have never called for the killing of white people, yet" or singing kill the white farmer, (could go deeper into this, if you want dms would be a better place to talk)

Quote

And Fox News throws around the word socialist like it's candy, so what? News outlets can be biased, that doesn't mean nazis don't exist.

you responded to someone which said

Spoiler

The terms "alt-right" and "nazi" have lost all meaning, it's a buzzword thrown around to discredit anyone with a different opinion so they can just ignore that person, instead of, you know, just ignoring them.

and you then said "No, they haven't. That makes no sense. Denying that there are some very real fascists among the "alt-right" "

so neither of us are saying that there are no alt-right or nazis, we are saying the media has been trowing those words at many people that arent those things thus making the word loose value (not a good thing of course, and its happening more with alt-right than nazi)

 

Quote

No, because they believe all their problems stem from other ethnic groups and those who defend them. There is no conversation to be had; any compromise in that direction would favor them because it would make things shittier for everyone else. There's no value to be gained by listening to their perspective, even when it comes to helping them with their problems, because they don't have a valid solution and they will refuse your help in any other form. A doctor doesn't ask for the patient's opinion on where they should start cutting in an surgery, least of all if the patient believes they should operate on the doctor instead.

we should always assume someone knows something we dont. and should try our best to talk to others with different opinions (some wrong ones) and maybe at the end there are less people in the extremes

some will completely ignore you but some will listen and if we listen back maybe we can get somewhere

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

And this is coming from someone from outside of the US, the political landscape over there feels like it's going to explode at any minute, where one side finally snaps and all hell breaks loose. whether or not that's what is actually going on over there, from an outside perspective, things are bad

I doubt it's actually that bad, I don't think the online world actually mirrors that closely to the in presence world. A bit like the hall of mirrors in fair ground shows, distorting views and proportions to unreal. Neither side, view, opinion, affiliation is pronounced as it seems. Extreme views are not that common and people are not in fighting in day to day lives and matters.

 

What actually gets people disgruntled usually ties back to economic situation, since that has such strong bearings on quality of life and education. So many factors branch out from that one thing you can trace many statistics back to it, like crime or career success. A lot of political views are tied in to it as well.

 

Get a group of people in a bad economic situation and resentment will grow, get a group of people fearing negative turn in their economic situation and resentment will grow. Personally I think what we are seeing is the effects of the decline in the true middle class, the classic family of a sole salary provider or an additional part time supplementer who can buy a a nice home (nice being important here) and pay for a good education for their children. It's these people that are trying to be vocal, they want to be heard but like many peaceful protests there are hijackers that come in and cause a riot.

 

The above applies to the left, right, middle, whatever.

 

What I have a problem with when it comes to a topic like this, free speech, is the ignoring of real consequences of it and that there are limits on it already. Speech really is that powerful, we all should know "The pen is mightier than the sword", and if we are to believe this then we also need to consider that such a powerful thing can be used for good and bad. And now here is the part that makes a lot of people argue back very strongly, if the amount of good is limited due to what we have to do to stop the bad (the real bad) is less worse than letting those bad things happen. People will still resent their success, ideas or whatever being limited (if at all) but stopping violence, death, radical overtake of governments is a greater benefit.

 

The other point I'd like to address is around the complaint about not being able to express views. Very often 'example person' complaining about it actually has been able to, what they are actually complaining about, the real heart of it, is that people aren't listening or accepting of their view so will seek out a place that does. Rather than reflecting on response received they reject that feedback. Please don't reply back with examples of people getting banned from twitter or other social media platforms I am well aware of it and some of, not all, that directly applies to what I just said.

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, hobobobo said:

Newspeak is beuatiful, embrace it.

It's almost like people don't realize 1984 was a warning, not a guide book.

[hobobobo]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

It's almost like people don't realize 1984 was a warning, not a guide book.

If you imagine yourself as an inner party member, 1984 is a pretty nice place. I wonder whats the magnitude of hubris in ordinary nobodies nowadays

[RoseLuck462]

I mean if you really have to get your opinion out there...