5 ms·

Please don't fall into the trap of calling the things that are banned just "unpopular". We're not talking about disagreements over tax policy. These things are

• duncan_bayne 10y ago
  Leaving aside threats of violence, which are properly illegal, what you're arguing for here is for free speech to be limited to the expression of ideas with which you agree.
  • jolux 10y ago
    This is true in the extreme but to reduce white supremacy to a mere disagreement is reductive and also willfully naive, I think.
    • duncan_bayne 10y ago
      And it's the extreme that matters. Free speech is a human right.
      • s73ver 10y ago
        I don't think so. They have the right to not be arrested for spouting their trash. They are not entitled to a platform to shove that in everyone else's face.
        • duncan_bayne 10y ago
          I think we're in agreement here. My point was relating to the legal freedom of speech, not any obligation on Twitter's part re. the use of their platform.
  • s73ver 10y ago
    Not at all. I'm not calling for the government to arrest white supremacists just for spouting their garbage. However, I am stating my support for Twitter and everyone else to be able to exercise their free speech rights to not associate with them.
    • duncan_bayne 10y ago
      Sorry, I must have misread your post. I thought you were lumping "garbage speech" in with threats of violence, which are illegal. Yes, it's Twitter's platform, and so entirely their choice whose speech happens there.
    • the8472 10y ago
      But doesn't that mean twitter isn't a platform for free speech, since only twitter-approved speech gets through, and therefore can't defend free speech rights of its users since they do not exercise such speech on twitter?
      • s73ver 10y ago
        No. Because there is a world of difference between speech and harassment. Not to mention, Twitter is a business. Their business depends on having users. If too many of their users leave the platform because they are constantly being assaulted by white supremacist drivel or being harassed by other users, then they're in trouble (kinda like they are now)
        • duncan_bayne 10y ago
          I'm still uncomfortable with the use of terms like 'assault' for protected speech, because I've seen people use equivocation between speech and assault to shut down free speech. Meta: I'm _so_ twitchy about this stuff. I'm sorry if that's lead me to read your posts less charitably than I should :(
      • dpark 10y ago
        Of course not. Twitter also has a right to free speech and can exercise that by telling whoever they want to leave their platform.
• jquery 10y ago
  Does supporting Trump make you a white nationalist?
  • s73ver 10y ago
    Considering everything that Trump said on the campaign, supporting Trump doesn't automatically make you a white nationalist, but it shows that, along with sexual assault, you're not bothered by it.
    • insickness 10y ago
      "They let you do it" is not sexual assault. If I let people do sexual things to me, they aren't sexually assaulting me.
      • s73ver 10y ago
        If they're only "letting you do it" because they know that they have no choice, and that even if they were to say something or speak out, they'd not get justice, but instead be negatively affected themselves, that is very much sexual assault.
      • FireBeyond 10y ago
        No, if I walk up to you and grab you, unless you're successfully able to fend off my spontaneous grab, do you consider that you "let" me?
    • zepto 10y ago
      I'm not a trump supporter but I know some and this is simply false. There are many people who supported trump who strongly dislike him, especially when it comes to racism, but found key aspects of Hilary's platform unacceptable and didn't see another choice. It's quite possible to be bothered by both sides.
    • golergka 10y ago
      > you're not bothered by it I'm genuinely curious, by what logic did you come to this conclusion?
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]