5 ms·

I don't know what a high profile conservative is, can you reinforce your point with specific examples?

ctdonath 7y ago
Just casually considered... James Woods, famous actor and outspoken conservative, was repeatedly suspended on Twitter for posting reasonable comments. He finally quit Twitter in frustration. Scott Adams, major cartoonist and popular Trump-observing pundit, is regularly demonetized on YouTube for no apparent reason. Some videos are removed entirely if he says certain words perfectly sensible for polite political discourse. Fortunately he has "F U money" and continues producing political content. Popular conservative show "Louder With Crowder" (of the "...change my mind" meme) has been functionally demonized by YouTube and is struggling to stay afloat on their own servers. Crowder simply expresses views conservatives think reasonable. There are many such cases.
- ssully 7y ago
  I don't go on Twitter much anymore, but last I saw of James Woods he was saying something about hanging people and I remember Crowder getting heat for using homophoic slurs. It wasn't a smear job - I watched the videos myself. I don't know much about Scott Adams, so I can't comment on that. But your examples so far are not reasonable people.
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    And yet Leftist calls to metaphorically/actually "kill whitey", depictions of Trump's head severed, advocacy/support of Antifa violence, vicious takedowns of anything resembling white or straight "pride" (no different than any other "pride" movement), dismantling of "safe spaces" in favor of others, and a host of other overt assaults on conservatism for simply existing/disagreeing remain in public with no equivalent censorship. When one side is smacked down for the slightest transgression as perceived by the other, yet the other gets a pass for all but the most overt calls to violence against the former, we have a problem.
- jowsie 7y ago
  Crowder is a poor example as his troubles come mainly from the fact that he keeps specifically targeting people with harassment campaigns. It probably doesn't help that his go to insults are all homophobic.
- jbob2000 7y ago
  Your comment is not made in good faith, and really just highlights that there aren't many "good" conservatives (at least not in the social conservative realm. Like I said, I find fiscal conservatives to be much more reasonable as they tend not to care about petty social problems). Here's your boy James Wood and his "reasonable comments": > In later years, Woods has become known for frequently espousing his political views on his Twitter page which has 2 million followers. In September 2018, Twitter briefly blocked Woods' account over a hoax meme he shared purporting to be from the Democratic Party telling men not to vote.[59][60] > Woods has promoted conspiracy theories on Twitter; in 2017, he used the platform to echo claims that George Soros was behind a violent far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia,[61] and in 2018 he suggested that a series of mail bombs sent to Trump critics was a staged "political stunt," although he later deleted that tweet.[62] And here's Scott Adams, with his misogyny laid bare: > Adams has shared on his blog and elsewhere that men may feel emasculated by the nomination of a female candidate for president. Of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, he said the following: "If you're an undecided voter, and male, you're seeing something different. You're seeing a celebration that your role in society is permanently diminished. And it's happening in an impressive venue that was, in all likelihood, designed and built mostly by men."[45] Where are these "high conservatives" you speak of? These two are just angry old white men with nothing left to contribute to society.
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    And there you exhibit the problem: taken out of context, and selectively quoted, you declare sociopolitical opposition "bad" and implicitly support censorship thereof while yourself demean them via racist insults. THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
  - jbob2000 7y ago
    > And there you exhibit the problem: taken out of context, and selectively quoted, you declare sociopolitical opposition "bad" and implicitly support censorship thereof while yourself demean them via racist insults. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. What is taken out of context here? What context do you need to understand bullshit conspiracy theories? What other context do you need to understand that bit about Scott? Could you dig up something redeeming he has said recently? Sociopolitical opposition is not bad, harming people is bad. If your sociopolitical opposition is hurting people, then your opposition is bad. We had a word for these people on old school messages boards and forums - flamers - people that add nothing to the conversation but just fan the flames and sully good discourse for no real reason. I'm not supporting censorship, I'm not saying to censor these guys. What I'm saying is that if you are nothing but a flamer, then you will find that people will just start ignoring you. That's not censorship, that's just the side effect of losing your damn mind.

Just casually considered... James Woods, famous actor and outspoken conservative, was repeatedly suspended on Twitter for posting reasonable comments. He finally quit Twitter in frustration. Scott Adams, major cartoonist and popular Trump-observing pundit, is regularly demonetized on YouTube for no apparent reason. Some videos are removed entirely if he says certain words perfectly sensible for polite political discourse. Fortunately he has "F U money" and continues producing political content. Popular conservative show "Louder With Crowder" (of the "...change my mind" meme) has been functionally demonized by YouTube and is struggling to stay afloat on their own servers. Crowder simply expresses views conservatives think reasonable. There are many such cases.

ssully 7y ago
I don't go on Twitter much anymore, but last I saw of James Woods he was saying something about hanging people and I remember Crowder getting heat for using homophoic slurs. It wasn't a smear job - I watched the videos myself. I don't know much about Scott Adams, so I can't comment on that. But your examples so far are not reasonable people.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  And yet Leftist calls to metaphorically/actually "kill whitey", depictions of Trump's head severed, advocacy/support of Antifa violence, vicious takedowns of anything resembling white or straight "pride" (no different than any other "pride" movement), dismantling of "safe spaces" in favor of others, and a host of other overt assaults on conservatism for simply existing/disagreeing remain in public with no equivalent censorship. When one side is smacked down for the slightest transgression as perceived by the other, yet the other gets a pass for all but the most overt calls to violence against the former, we have a problem.
jowsie 7y ago
Crowder is a poor example as his troubles come mainly from the fact that he keeps specifically targeting people with harassment campaigns. It probably doesn't help that his go to insults are all homophobic.
jbob2000 7y ago
Your comment is not made in good faith, and really just highlights that there aren't many "good" conservatives (at least not in the social conservative realm. Like I said, I find fiscal conservatives to be much more reasonable as they tend not to care about petty social problems). Here's your boy James Wood and his "reasonable comments": > In later years, Woods has become known for frequently espousing his political views on his Twitter page which has 2 million followers. In September 2018, Twitter briefly blocked Woods' account over a hoax meme he shared purporting to be from the Democratic Party telling men not to vote.[59][60] > Woods has promoted conspiracy theories on Twitter; in 2017, he used the platform to echo claims that George Soros was behind a violent far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia,[61] and in 2018 he suggested that a series of mail bombs sent to Trump critics was a staged "political stunt," although he later deleted that tweet.[62] And here's Scott Adams, with his misogyny laid bare: > Adams has shared on his blog and elsewhere that men may feel emasculated by the nomination of a female candidate for president. Of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, he said the following: "If you're an undecided voter, and male, you're seeing something different. You're seeing a celebration that your role in society is permanently diminished. And it's happening in an impressive venue that was, in all likelihood, designed and built mostly by men."[45] Where are these "high conservatives" you speak of? These two are just angry old white men with nothing left to contribute to society.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  And there you exhibit the problem: taken out of context, and selectively quoted, you declare sociopolitical opposition "bad" and implicitly support censorship thereof while yourself demean them via racist insults. THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
- jbob2000 7y ago
  > And there you exhibit the problem: taken out of context, and selectively quoted, you declare sociopolitical opposition "bad" and implicitly support censorship thereof while yourself demean them via racist insults. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. What is taken out of context here? What context do you need to understand bullshit conspiracy theories? What other context do you need to understand that bit about Scott? Could you dig up something redeeming he has said recently? Sociopolitical opposition is not bad, harming people is bad. If your sociopolitical opposition is hurting people, then your opposition is bad. We had a word for these people on old school messages boards and forums - flamers - people that add nothing to the conversation but just fan the flames and sully good discourse for no real reason. I'm not supporting censorship, I'm not saying to censor these guys. What I'm saying is that if you are nothing but a flamer, then you will find that people will just start ignoring you. That's not censorship, that's just the side effect of losing your damn mind.