3 ms·

Again, that depends on how you do it. Are you going to block them through argument, or positive example? Or are you going to block them through violence and sup

Again, that depends on how you do it. Are you going to block them through argument, or positive example? Or are you going to block them through violence and suppression? Which side is the morally better and truly better side? I think historians will be judging us by our words and actions. My argument was never that blocking X was being X. My argument is always that acting as X is being X. If Antifa wants to argue that they can use assault (or tolerate it from those wearing their colors) because they are only X% as bad as Nazis, then I think we should take them at their word and treat them if they're as bad as X% Nazis.

tptacek 8y ago
Obviously I'm going to block them by filtering them mechanically, because nobody has a right to demand an argument or a "positive example" from me. With that answer in hand, can you refine your answer to my question?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Obviously I'm going to block them by filtering them mechanically, because nobody has a right to demand an argument or a "positive example" from me. Obviously. However, historically it's a good way to go. Please demonstrate the necessity of your using "demand" in your sentence? You seem to have a pointed bias in how you read my comments. I do demand, however, that people do not use political violence in the US. I also note who does and does not call out political violence.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    You're the only person I see talking about "violence" in this thread, which is actually about mechanically filtering unwanted comments. If there's bias here, it's not coming from me. I don't support political violence either.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Intimidating, shaming, and otherwise excluding people from the public sphere is "mechanically filtering?" I don't support political violence either. I'm glad to hear it. I wish I'd hear a lot more of that from the US political left. Have you ever experienced negative attention "just short of violence" from people who have an axe to grind, but who don't want to get in trouble from violence? I have. I've received such attention from people who had an axe to grind against homosexuals. I've received such attention from people who didn't like immigrants. In recent years, the most negative attention "just short of violence" I've received is from people on the far left of US politics.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        First, I'm not the "US political left". Second, the thread you're commenting on is about the ability of social network operators to block people, both on Twitter and on Mastodon. You're commenting on a thread rooted in a comment suggesting that people should not, under ordinary circumstances, be allowed to block other users on a social network. The whole thread is there for you to read, and I object to you pretending for the sake of your argument that I'm the one veering it off course. Please stop.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        The underlying issue is convincing vs. exercising force.
      - detcader 8y ago
        "Conflict is Not Abuse" by Sarah Schulman is supposed to be a good book.
throwaway8879 8y ago
Morality has nothing to do with it, or at least shouldn't. It's a business with profit in mind. You think all these recent deplatforming/censoring has anything to do with freedom of speech or setting positive examples? Nobody has time for that, especially businesses that are profit-driven and rightfully so. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind, but you don't get to violate the right of a private platform to exclude you based on rules they have set. You have a right to be heard, just build your own platform, nobody is stopping you.

tptacek 8y ago

Obviously I'm going to block them by filtering them mechanically, because nobody has a right to demand an argument or a "positive example" from me. With that answer in hand, can you refine your answer to my question?

stcredzero 8y ago
Obviously I'm going to block them by filtering them mechanically, because nobody has a right to demand an argument or a "positive example" from me. Obviously. However, historically it's a good way to go. Please demonstrate the necessity of your using "demand" in your sentence? You seem to have a pointed bias in how you read my comments. I do demand, however, that people do not use political violence in the US. I also note who does and does not call out political violence.
- tptacek 8y ago
  You're the only person I see talking about "violence" in this thread, which is actually about mechanically filtering unwanted comments. If there's bias here, it's not coming from me. I don't support political violence either.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Intimidating, shaming, and otherwise excluding people from the public sphere is "mechanically filtering?" I don't support political violence either. I'm glad to hear it. I wish I'd hear a lot more of that from the US political left. Have you ever experienced negative attention "just short of violence" from people who have an axe to grind, but who don't want to get in trouble from violence? I have. I've received such attention from people who had an axe to grind against homosexuals. I've received such attention from people who didn't like immigrants. In recent years, the most negative attention "just short of violence" I've received is from people on the far left of US politics.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      First, I'm not the "US political left". Second, the thread you're commenting on is about the ability of social network operators to block people, both on Twitter and on Mastodon. You're commenting on a thread rooted in a comment suggesting that people should not, under ordinary circumstances, be allowed to block other users on a social network. The whole thread is there for you to read, and I object to you pretending for the sake of your argument that I'm the one veering it off course. Please stop.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        The underlying issue is convincing vs. exercising force.
    - detcader 8y ago
      "Conflict is Not Abuse" by Sarah Schulman is supposed to be a good book.

throwaway8879 8y ago

Morality has nothing to do with it, or at least shouldn't. It's a business with profit in mind. You think all these recent deplatforming/censoring has anything to do with freedom of speech or setting positive examples? Nobody has time for that, especially businesses that are profit-driven and rightfully so. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind, but you don't get to violate the right of a private platform to exclude you based on rules they have set. You have a right to be heard, just build your own platform, nobody is stopping you.