Yeah, but there needs to be balance. Don't silence one group and not another if they are both doing something wrong. Edit: Me saying that there should be a balance in this process is not the same...
Yeah, but there needs to be balance. Don't silence one group and not another if they are both doing something wrong.
Edit:
Me saying that there should be a balance in this process is not the same thing as me saying that this shouldn't be happening.
When a person makes a statement they shouldn't be expected to lay out every single thing that is implied. If I wrote my comment and I explained every little detail of what I meant people are just going to come in and say well he listed all these details, but he didn't list this detail. He must not be talking about it even though he was clearly giving an example... It's just too easy to pick a part. People are going to pick a part things no matter what. I said there should be a balance in this process. That's not the same thing as me saying Nazis are good. We can all post a bunch of feel good replies and say, but but I think Nazis are bad, hate speech is wrong, etc.
I just feel like there needs to be a balance in this process. That is all I said, and it is all I meant. I didn't mention hate speech or racism directly because my comment wasn't aimed at talking about that. What I said is what I mean. To expand on it - There needs to be a balance because we can't remove bad things one group is saying or doing, but leave up another..
You don't promote balance by accommodating people who would see anybody who isn't just like them exterminated. Bullshit. Why do you think neo-Nazis, fascists, and the alt-right deserve to have a...
Yeah, but there needs to be balance.
You don't promote balance by accommodating people who would see anybody who isn't just like them exterminated.
Don't silence one group and not another.
Bullshit. Why do you think neo-Nazis, fascists, and the alt-right deserve to have a say? Those goose-stepping assholes had their chance, and they turned Europe into an abbatoir. Their presence on the internet, if not their very existence, constitutes a public health hazard that must first be contained if it is to be cured.
I am saying, there are more than one groups saying bad things. But there is going ti be the issue of letting one group get away with something but not another. And that shouldn't happen.
I am saying, there are more than one groups saying bad things. But there is going ti be the issue of letting one group get away with something but not another. And that shouldn't happen.
It's funny you say that. I said just that about another issue here the other day and people said that was a silly way to do things. Either way. There still needs to be a balance. Having a balance...
It's funny you say that. I said just that about another issue here the other day and people said that was a silly way to do things.
Either way. There still needs to be a balance. Having a balance in no way dictates the order things are done.
Why don't we deal with the group currently being a problem for society
Great. Sounds good. There still needs to be a balance, and no where have I said what order things should happen. I said, "There should be a balance." IF you want to read into or add onto that, that's your deal. I say what I mean and just what I mean. No hidden meaning in there.
So I am wrong for something everyone in this thread did? If I had commented, "Nazis are bad." Would you be saying these things?... There needs to be a balance, that is all I said. You added on it...
So I am wrong for something everyone in this thread did? If I had commented, "Nazis are bad." Would you be saying these things?...
There needs to be a balance, that is all I said. You added on it and conflated it. I don't want to argue over semantics. I still stand by what I said.
In my observation, there is an imbalance but it's not what you're implying. Left-wing users are already punished for bad behavior (and even for not-so-bad behavior -- I've seen LGBT users get...
In my observation, there is an imbalance but it's not what you're implying. Left-wing users are already punished for bad behavior (and even for not-so-bad behavior -- I've seen LGBT users get suspended from Twitter for using the word "queer" self-referentially, for example). Shutting down the alt-right isn't creating an imbalance, it's fixing one.
I can't speak for @acr, but I'm OK with throwing the Stalinists and Maoists under the bus. The tankies had their chance, and like the Nazis racked up double-digit megadeaths.
I can't speak for @acr, but I'm OK with throwing the Stalinists and Maoists under the bus. The tankies had their chance, and like the Nazis racked up double-digit megadeaths.
Because it is irrelevant to my original statement. (And I don't mean that in a rude way.) I never mentioned the left in my original statement. You came at me with "Who on the left do you think...
Because it is irrelevant to my original statement. (And I don't mean that in a rude way.) I never mentioned the left in my original statement. You came at me with "Who on the left do you think should be silenced?" My original comment didn't even divide up sides or mention any sides at all.
Your question makes it seem like I think only groups from one side should be silenced, and I never said that. So I responded in line with what I initially said to keep along that line.
It's not disingenuous, you just disagree with my opinion so you're reading it that way. I am being sincere. I like how everyone can just post feel good comments that don't say anything real at...
It's not disingenuous, you just disagree with my opinion so you're reading it that way. I am being sincere.
I like how everyone can just post feel good comments that don't say anything real at all, and it gets eaten up / bought, but me having an opinion makes me disingenuous. I can say Nazis are bad too, but the fact is - it doesn't need to be said.
You say, "The topic that serves as context for this discussion specifically applies to the right" So then why are you assuming I am talking about the left, if it makes the most sense that anyone here talks about the right, why are you automatically assuming the left? You're guilty of what you're accusing me of. TO me sides don't matter when it comes to my statement.
I said there should be a balance on groups being silenced. I feel that way. Whether it is on the left, whether it is on the right. You can't silence one group, and then not another that operates under the same principles. This type of thing opens a can of worms where people use it to abuse things. All they have to do is label something and manipulate the perception and paint something to be something it isn't to get is silenced and out of the way. So there needs to be a balance and a lack of bias.
But you didn't word it like that. I don't quite follow this. Are you saying I think Twitter shouldn't silence the far right? When I used the word group I more meant factions between the larger...
My question was, then, if you feel it’s happening on the left, what groups would you silence in the same way as the far right?
But you didn't word it like that.
but it feels a hell of a lot like concern trolling to invoke “balance” between “groups” as a “yeah, but” to Twitter silencing the far right, and then try to walk it back and claim that you’re not referring to the political group most likely to bring said “balance” to the table. Otherwise, why bring it up as an objection?
I don't quite follow this.
Are you saying I think Twitter shouldn't silence the far right?
When I used the word group I more meant factions between the larger groups. I think maybe our communication / perception is off.
I'll answer and people will say I am pro right and anti left... I think some parts of Antifa somewhat hurt free speech. I'll leave it at that. As far as the factions I really don't want to get...
I'll answer and people will say I am pro right and anti left...
I think some parts of Antifa somewhat hurt free speech. I'll leave it at that. As far as the factions I really don't want to get into it.. End of day and it's been a wild one,
See, that's the thing I'm not debating. Anytime I say something, something else just gets added on to it. It gets old having to lay every little detail out only to have someone say will hold on...
See, that's the thing I'm not debating. Anytime I say something, something else just gets added on to it. It gets old having to lay every little detail out only to have someone say will hold on you didn't mention this detail what about this detail.
I think I understand what you are saying. Basically, that hate speech is hate speech and to not just tackle hate speech from the alt-right or death threats from PETA but to take a strong...
I think I understand what you are saying. Basically, that hate speech is hate speech and to not just tackle hate speech from the alt-right or death threats from PETA but to take a strong consistent approach to filtering to everyone, regardless of their group identity. Is that right?
I think because this topic covers a filtering a group know for their rhetoric and hatefulness, any sort of punishment that extends past this group, would extend past the 'them' and into the 'us'. Sometimes article's like these frame the narrative into that 'us vs. them' frame of mind.
I think I understand what you are saying. Basically, that hate speech is hate speech and to not just tackle hate speech from the alt-right or death threats from PETA but to take a strong consistent approach to filtering to everyone, regardless of their group identity. Is that right.
Yeah, but there needs to be balance. Don't silence one group and not another if they are both doing something wrong.
Edit:
Me saying that there should be a balance in this process is not the same thing as me saying that this shouldn't be happening.
When a person makes a statement they shouldn't be expected to lay out every single thing that is implied. If I wrote my comment and I explained every little detail of what I meant people are just going to come in and say well he listed all these details, but he didn't list this detail. He must not be talking about it even though he was clearly giving an example... It's just too easy to pick a part. People are going to pick a part things no matter what. I said there should be a balance in this process. That's not the same thing as me saying Nazis are good. We can all post a bunch of feel good replies and say, but but I think Nazis are bad, hate speech is wrong, etc.
I just feel like there needs to be a balance in this process. That is all I said, and it is all I meant. I didn't mention hate speech or racism directly because my comment wasn't aimed at talking about that. What I said is what I mean. To expand on it - There needs to be a balance because we can't remove bad things one group is saying or doing, but leave up another..
You don't promote balance by accommodating people who would see anybody who isn't just like them exterminated.
Bullshit. Why do you think neo-Nazis, fascists, and the alt-right deserve to have a say? Those goose-stepping assholes had their chance, and they turned Europe into an abbatoir. Their presence on the internet, if not their very existence, constitutes a public health hazard that must first be contained if it is to be cured.
I am saying, there are more than one groups saying bad things. But there is going ti be the issue of letting one group get away with something but not another. And that shouldn't happen.
It's funny you say that. I said just that about another issue here the other day and people said that was a silly way to do things.
Either way. There still needs to be a balance. Having a balance in no way dictates the order things are done.
Great. Sounds good. There still needs to be a balance, and no where have I said what order things should happen. I said, "There should be a balance." IF you want to read into or add onto that, that's your deal. I say what I mean and just what I mean. No hidden meaning in there.
So I am wrong for something everyone in this thread did? If I had commented, "Nazis are bad." Would you be saying these things?...
There needs to be a balance, that is all I said. You added on it and conflated it. I don't want to argue over semantics. I still stand by what I said.
In my observation, there is an imbalance but it's not what you're implying. Left-wing users are already punished for bad behavior (and even for not-so-bad behavior -- I've seen LGBT users get suspended from Twitter for using the word "queer" self-referentially, for example). Shutting down the alt-right isn't creating an imbalance, it's fixing one.
That isn't what I said.
I can't speak for @acr, but I'm OK with throwing the Stalinists and Maoists under the bus. The tankies had their chance, and like the Nazis racked up double-digit megadeaths.
I am not in favor of silencing one group for something and letting another get away with it.
Because it is irrelevant to my original statement. (And I don't mean that in a rude way.) I never mentioned the left in my original statement. You came at me with "Who on the left do you think should be silenced?" My original comment didn't even divide up sides or mention any sides at all.
Your question makes it seem like I think only groups from one side should be silenced, and I never said that. So I responded in line with what I initially said to keep along that line.
Hate speech is not in anyway limited to the right.
No it isn't.
It's not disingenuous, you just disagree with my opinion so you're reading it that way. I am being sincere.
I like how everyone can just post feel good comments that don't say anything real at all, and it gets eaten up / bought, but me having an opinion makes me disingenuous. I can say Nazis are bad too, but the fact is - it doesn't need to be said.
You say, "The topic that serves as context for this discussion specifically applies to the right" So then why are you assuming I am talking about the left, if it makes the most sense that anyone here talks about the right, why are you automatically assuming the left? You're guilty of what you're accusing me of. TO me sides don't matter when it comes to my statement.
I said there should be a balance on groups being silenced. I feel that way. Whether it is on the left, whether it is on the right. You can't silence one group, and then not another that operates under the same principles. This type of thing opens a can of worms where people use it to abuse things. All they have to do is label something and manipulate the perception and paint something to be something it isn't to get is silenced and out of the way. So there needs to be a balance and a lack of bias.
But you didn't word it like that.
I don't quite follow this.
Are you saying I think Twitter shouldn't silence the far right?
When I used the word group I more meant factions between the larger groups. I think maybe our communication / perception is off.
I'll answer and people will say I am pro right and anti left...
I think some parts of Antifa somewhat hurt free speech. I'll leave it at that. As far as the factions I really don't want to get into it.. End of day and it's been a wild one,
See, that's the thing I'm not debating. Anytime I say something, something else just gets added on to it. It gets old having to lay every little detail out only to have someone say will hold on you didn't mention this detail what about this detail.
I dunno, the resurgence of similar values in modern society makes me think it does need to be said.
I more meant in this thread.
If you say so. The question was kind of set up to paint me into a corner. Any answer would make me look anti left / in favor of hate speech.
I think I understand what you are saying. Basically, that hate speech is hate speech and to not just tackle hate speech from the alt-right or death threats from PETA but to take a strong consistent approach to filtering to everyone, regardless of their group identity. Is that right?
I think because this topic covers a filtering a group know for their rhetoric and hatefulness, any sort of punishment that extends past this group, would extend past the 'them' and into the 'us'. Sometimes article's like these frame the narrative into that 'us vs. them' frame of mind.
Yes. Exactly.