4 ms·

Are you saying that we shouldn't complain about Alex Jones because there are still unbanned bad people on the internet?

downandout 8y ago
Absolutely not, and yours is a disingenuous response because you couldn’t have reasonably inferred that I was saying that from my response. You are just trying to stir things up. Both examples should have been banned. One was just as bad as the other - one of them just had less reach. However, only one was suspended. The other was actually rewarded for her racist tweets, both with new followers among those who agreed with her racist views on her never-suspended Twitter account, and with a shiny new job at the NYT. On what planet is that a reasonable, unbiased outcome?
- tomlock 8y ago
  Ok so you think Alex Jones should be banned, we agree.
  - downandout 8y ago
    I do, yes. I also think Sarah Jeong and her ilk should be both banned from Twitter and fired from the NYT. If her comments were directed at any other race, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion - she would have been banned and never hired. That is an extraordinary double standard. The bottom line is, nobody should be giving those that wish to spew hate speech a large platform with which to do it - regardless of who that hate is directed at. Edit: The fact that a comment with this sentiment has been downvoted says everything one needs to know about how toxic HN has become.
    - tomlock 8y ago
      It could be that generally whataboutism is something people don't like, rather than some indication of the "toxicity" of this website.
      - downandout 8y ago
        “Whataboutism” is relevant in a case where there is clear bias. If what Alex Jones posted violated Twitter’s rules, I am perfectly fine with his account being suspended or even permanently banned. I certainly don’t agree with or want to see his whacked out posts. But I’m not at all fine with the rules being selectively enforced, seemingly along political lines. And yes, if saying that nobody should be given a megaphone with which to spew hateful rhetoric gets downvotes, that is an indication of the toxicity of HN.
        tomlock 8y ago
        But both Jeong and Jones are currently not banned, so I'm not sure why you think saying "what about how Jeong isn't banned" is anything but whataboutism.
        downandout 8y ago
        Point is that Jeong was never banned, while Jones was.
        tomlock 8y ago
        But their situations aren't equivalent.
        downandout 8y ago
        How are they not? They both said truly terrible, almost unspeakable things. What makes them not equivalent?
        tomlock 8y ago
        They clearly aren't equivalent. What specific people were harmed by Jeong's speech? Were you specifically upset by Jeong's speech? Yes? Ok, now imagine your child has been shot and then someone says you're a liar, and that since their death people keep showing up at your house and church calling you a liar. Do you think you'd be more or less upset by this?

Absolutely not, and yours is a disingenuous response because you couldn’t have reasonably inferred that I was saying that from my response. You are just trying to stir things up. Both examples should have been banned. One was just as bad as the other - one of them just had less reach. However, only one was suspended. The other was actually rewarded for her racist tweets, both with new followers among those who agreed with her racist views on her never-suspended Twitter account, and with a shiny new job at the NYT. On what planet is that a reasonable, unbiased outcome?

tomlock 8y ago
Ok so you think Alex Jones should be banned, we agree.
- downandout 8y ago
  I do, yes. I also think Sarah Jeong and her ilk should be both banned from Twitter and fired from the NYT. If her comments were directed at any other race, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion - she would have been banned and never hired. That is an extraordinary double standard. The bottom line is, nobody should be giving those that wish to spew hate speech a large platform with which to do it - regardless of who that hate is directed at. Edit: The fact that a comment with this sentiment has been downvoted says everything one needs to know about how toxic HN has become.
  - tomlock 8y ago
    It could be that generally whataboutism is something people don't like, rather than some indication of the "toxicity" of this website.
    - downandout 8y ago
      “Whataboutism” is relevant in a case where there is clear bias. If what Alex Jones posted violated Twitter’s rules, I am perfectly fine with his account being suspended or even permanently banned. I certainly don’t agree with or want to see his whacked out posts. But I’m not at all fine with the rules being selectively enforced, seemingly along political lines. And yes, if saying that nobody should be given a megaphone with which to spew hateful rhetoric gets downvotes, that is an indication of the toxicity of HN.
      - tomlock 8y ago
        But both Jeong and Jones are currently not banned, so I'm not sure why you think saying "what about how Jeong isn't banned" is anything but whataboutism.
        downandout 8y ago
        Point is that Jeong was never banned, while Jones was.
        tomlock 8y ago
        But their situations aren't equivalent.
        downandout 8y ago
        How are they not? They both said truly terrible, almost unspeakable things. What makes them not equivalent?
        tomlock 8y ago
        They clearly aren't equivalent. What specific people were harmed by Jeong's speech? Were you specifically upset by Jeong's speech? Yes? Ok, now imagine your child has been shot and then someone says you're a liar, and that since their death people keep showing up at your house and church calling you a liar. Do you think you'd be more or less upset by this?