2 ms·

>It's ironic, because the left, not the right, has spent nearly the last 50 years promoting pedophilia. ... What? Your evidence is that Salon.com had one artic

>It's ironic, because the left, not the right, has spent nearly the last 50 years promoting pedophilia. ... What? Your evidence is that Salon.com had one article about people who specifically avoid acting on their urges? >But what is kind of shocking is how anti-free-speech so many on this site are. I'm old enough to remember the idealistic - although rather fatuous in hindsight - early days of the "internet culture" which promoted John Perry Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" [0] and John Gilmore's sentiment that "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." [1] The difference is that many of us have seen how bad groups have benefited from the current state of affairs since then. It was easy to be idealistic about free speech on the internet back when it was almost solely populated by academic types. But the world changed, and we don't have to be dogmatic about old ideals. https://shift.newco.co/2017/12/26/My-Internet-Mea-Culpa/ https://shift.newco.co/2017/12/26/My-Internet-Mea-Culpa/ https://medium.com/@hondanhon/no-ones-coming-it-s-up-to-us-de8d9442d0d https://medium.com/@hondanhon/no-ones-coming-it-s-up-to-us-d... >>When Barlow said “the fact remains that there is not much one can do about bad behavior online except to take faith that the vast majority of what goes on there is not bad behavior,” his position was that we should accept the current state of affairs because there is literally no room for improvement. [...] In my opinion, Barlow’s opinions on online behavior, given his standing and influence were irresponsible. [...] Saying “we can do nothing” is like saying it’s not worth having laws or standards because we can’t achieve perfection. >and "racist" sentiments, are quite popular in America, Europe, and in all countries among all human populations on earth. Just because it might be natural or common doesn't make it acceptable and worth spreading.

thrwwy84732 8y ago
>many of us have seen how bad groups have benefited from the current state of affairs since then. It was easy to be idealistic about free speech on the internet back when it was almost solely populated by academic types. But the world changed, and we don't have to be dogmatic about old ideals. Exactly my point. This is simply a minority political faction using their political and economic power to silence those they don't agree with, all the while hypocritically pretending it's about pedophilia, which they, more than anyone, have been attempting to mainstream. >Just because it might be natural or common doesn't make it acceptable and worth spreading. Unacceptable - to you - you are simply asserting moral superiority. Why should anyone accept your assertion? The left certainly has no objective definition of "racist" which is why certain kinds of "racist" speech are acceptable to leftists. Again, this is the point. You, Google, Facebook, the SPLC and the ADL are simply declaring themselves the moral authority and censoring speech. The pretense at morality is just that, a pretense. It's just a display of raw political and economic power, couched - as naked displays of power typically are - in the language of morality. Many people find your ideas unacceptable and not worth spreading. > Your evidence is that Salon.com had one article about people who specifically avoid acting on their urges? That is called "an example" and one could give 100 more from the last 50 years, for instance, the German Green party chairman, who admitted in his own book to molesting children at his leftist school as part of "sexual liberation." But I obviously can't give anymore, because YCombinator doesn't allow expressions of opposition to the Silicon Valley/Democratic party political establishment, hence the removal of my comment.

thrwwy84732 8y ago

>many of us have seen how bad groups have benefited from the current state of affairs since then. It was easy to be idealistic about free speech on the internet back when it was almost solely populated by academic types. But the world changed, and we don't have to be dogmatic about old ideals. Exactly my point. This is simply a minority political faction using their political and economic power to silence those they don't agree with, all the while hypocritically pretending it's about pedophilia, which they, more than anyone, have been attempting to mainstream. >Just because it might be natural or common doesn't make it acceptable and worth spreading. Unacceptable - to you - you are simply asserting moral superiority. Why should anyone accept your assertion? The left certainly has no objective definition of "racist" which is why certain kinds of "racist" speech are acceptable to leftists. Again, this is the point. You, Google, Facebook, the SPLC and the ADL are simply declaring themselves the moral authority and censoring speech. The pretense at morality is just that, a pretense. It's just a display of raw political and economic power, couched - as naked displays of power typically are - in the language of morality. Many people find your ideas unacceptable and not worth spreading. > Your evidence is that Salon.com had one article about people who specifically avoid acting on their urges? That is called "an example" and one could give 100 more from the last 50 years, for instance, the German Green party chairman, who admitted in his own book to molesting children at his leftist school as part of "sexual liberation." But I obviously can't give anymore, because YCombinator doesn't allow expressions of opposition to the Silicon Valley/Democratic party political establishment, hence the removal of my comment.