3 ms·

I haven't conceded anything. I have maintained the whole time that it isn't a free speech issue because it is a private platform. I've also not responded by i

I haven't conceded anything. I have maintained the whole time that it isn't a free speech issue because it is a private platform. I've also not responded by insulting people. I honestly have no clue which discussion you're reading but it's not one I'm participating in by your description of it.

wallace_f 10y ago
Posts of you insulting people and their ideas: > The idea that the other side has a valid opinion just because they won is stupid. A lot of believes don't deserve any respect at all. > You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech. > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. > The stuff people are taking about blocking and removing from their services is far from the best arguments or adversaries. It is the trash. Conceding your argument in the other thread: > Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago. Let's take a step back. What you responded to was this: > I think that Reddit will be throwing away one of its most essential contributions to the internet if it resorts to servicing just one side of this deba That is about reddit being about free speech. You said: > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. I said: > Historically speaking, moral righteousness has always been the primary argument for curtailing free speech. And you said: > No one is talking about curtailing free speech they are talking about a private platform not wanting to promote that speech anymore. You are trying to redefine the words "Free speech" to have a specific meaning that is taken out of context (the context was plainly a discussion about reddit allowing both sides of the debate, not about government retaliation--your argument against that was today's foremost argument against free speech: that the world already has too much hate speech), and I do not find that argument constructive because (a) free speech being defined as speech without censorship is a perfectly correct definition (it is not necessary for their to be a direct or indirect government actor as you seem to believe--this is why I said it was ignorant), and (b) this is not a direct rebuttal but instead what it does is redirect the debate to be about what exactly free speech is which I do not find that useful in contributing to the conversation thread. This same general idea proceeded in another thread then you conceded in the other thread that the issue was reddit "stopped being about free speech," so there, you use that language with the same definition yourself, substantiating point (a).

wallace_f 10y ago

Posts of you insulting people and their ideas: > The idea that the other side has a valid opinion just because they won is stupid. A lot of believes don't deserve any respect at all. > You don't have to give every idiot a platform to believe in free speech. > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. > The stuff people are taking about blocking and removing from their services is far from the best arguments or adversaries. It is the trash. Conceding your argument in the other thread: > Reddit stopped claiming to be about free speech years ago. Let's take a step back. What you responded to was this: > I think that Reddit will be throwing away one of its most essential contributions to the internet if it resorts to servicing just one side of this deba That is about reddit being about free speech. You said: > There is a lot of worthless hate speech in the world. Nothing is learned from it except that the speaker is ignorant. I said: > Historically speaking, moral righteousness has always been the primary argument for curtailing free speech. And you said: > No one is talking about curtailing free speech they are talking about a private platform not wanting to promote that speech anymore. You are trying to redefine the words "Free speech" to have a specific meaning that is taken out of context (the context was plainly a discussion about reddit allowing both sides of the debate, not about government retaliation--your argument against that was today's foremost argument against free speech: that the world already has too much hate speech), and I do not find that argument constructive because (a) free speech being defined as speech without censorship is a perfectly correct definition (it is not necessary for their to be a direct or indirect government actor as you seem to believe--this is why I said it was ignorant), and (b) this is not a direct rebuttal but instead what it does is redirect the debate to be about what exactly free speech is which I do not find that useful in contributing to the conversation thread. This same general idea proceeded in another thread then you conceded in the other thread that the issue was reddit "stopped being about free speech," so there, you use that language with the same definition yourself, substantiating point (a).