4 ms·

> will you pay me a dollar for each time I'm called a racist, white supremacist, xenophobe, etc.? I'll pay you a dollar every time your account gets blocked, b

> will you pay me a dollar for each time I'm called a racist, white supremacist, xenophobe, etc.? I'll pay you a dollar every time your account gets blocked, because I don't give a crap if other users call you mean names for expressing bigoted views. That's not what anything in this thread is about. > Do you think, for example, Twitter is going to limit engagement on tweets from political opponents calling Trump a racist? If they break their terms, sure. But calling someone racist doesn't fall under any of these: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu...

zaroth 7y ago
> ... I don't give a crap if other users call you mean names for expressing bigoted views. Are you trying to prove my point here, or was that inadvertent? I listed a set of political and legal discussions around sensitive topics that happen to involve race and national origin. I didn't even express any personal viewpoints at all. But in your mind, a "carefully and precisely represented right-leaning position" is enough to warrant being slandered for bigotry. Which is precisely the problem here.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  > those rules, exactly how you have stated them, can be--and are--used to clamp down on valid political speech. As far as I can tell Twitter has not “clamped down on valid political speech”, but only on targeted harassment, threats, and so on. You are complaining that supporting a racist worldview gets someone called out as a racist by other users of the site. But that’s expected and healthy discourse for a democracy. There’s nothing in Twitter’s terms of service that says people can’t make fun of someone or call them racist. This is entirely different from getting banned by the platform for e.g. inciting violence.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Claiming that a right-leaning political worldview is racist is a nasty ploy, it’s slander to suppress a dissenting opinion. It’s a dodge from someone unwilling or unable to defend their position by engaging in meaningful debate. However, repeated degrading attacks against someone are against Twitter policy. > Repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone. We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. When these policies are applied with an uneven hand, they betray the political bias of those applying the policies.
- input_sh 7y ago
  If you have an opinion (any opinion really) about a race or a national origin, that makes you a bigot, yes. Non-bigots don't have opinions on a color of a skin, nor a place of birth. Those things are not chosen by an individual and therefore should not be discussed nor should the individual be generalized based on them. You can criticize an individual based on their action regardless of where they're from or how they look like. As soon as you start generalizing everyone who looks like them / is born in the same area as them, you become a bigot. There, you were already so close to being self-aware that I hope I helped you achieve awareness.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    I think you misread what I wrote. Nothing in there was an opinion about a race or a national origin.
    - input_sh 7y ago
      No, you haven't expressed any opinion here. You've alleged that you do have some though: > around sensitive topics that happen to involve race and national origin.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        I’ve been careful not to, because the point isn’t to argue a side, it’s to discuss how valid political arguments might be suppressed due to wrongful accusations of, e.g. racism or alleged violations of terms / codes of conduct. To be clear I agree with your first two paragraphs. It’s only the third which alleges that you’re correcting a belief I have, that I do take issue with. So I think again you’re reading into what I wrote too much. Why beat a dead horse, but the point there is to recognize that e.g. “immigration policy” is necessarily going to impact populations that are predominantly of a certain race and/or national origin. But crucially, it’s not racist to think that a country should have a border or debate how set immigration policies are enforced along that border. It’s not racist to examine sub-populations which are moving illegally across the border, e.g. to examine the prevalence of drug running, human trafficking, or gang activity within that sub-population, or to examine the share of that sub-population that is currently charged or has been found guilty of committing a violent crime versus other populations such as legal immigrants or natural citizens. This is just basic sociology. So that’s what I mean by “sensitive [political] topics” that happen to involve race and national origin.

zaroth 7y ago

> ... I don't give a crap if other users call you mean names for expressing bigoted views. Are you trying to prove my point here, or was that inadvertent? I listed a set of political and legal discussions around sensitive topics that happen to involve race and national origin. I didn't even express any personal viewpoints at all. But in your mind, a "carefully and precisely represented right-leaning position" is enough to warrant being slandered for bigotry. Which is precisely the problem here.

jacobolus 7y ago
> those rules, exactly how you have stated them, can be--and are--used to clamp down on valid political speech. As far as I can tell Twitter has not “clamped down on valid political speech”, but only on targeted harassment, threats, and so on. You are complaining that supporting a racist worldview gets someone called out as a racist by other users of the site. But that’s expected and healthy discourse for a democracy. There’s nothing in Twitter’s terms of service that says people can’t make fun of someone or call them racist. This is entirely different from getting banned by the platform for e.g. inciting violence.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Claiming that a right-leaning political worldview is racist is a nasty ploy, it’s slander to suppress a dissenting opinion. It’s a dodge from someone unwilling or unable to defend their position by engaging in meaningful debate. However, repeated degrading attacks against someone are against Twitter policy. > Repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone. We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. When these policies are applied with an uneven hand, they betray the political bias of those applying the policies.
input_sh 7y ago
If you have an opinion (any opinion really) about a race or a national origin, that makes you a bigot, yes. Non-bigots don't have opinions on a color of a skin, nor a place of birth. Those things are not chosen by an individual and therefore should not be discussed nor should the individual be generalized based on them. You can criticize an individual based on their action regardless of where they're from or how they look like. As soon as you start generalizing everyone who looks like them / is born in the same area as them, you become a bigot. There, you were already so close to being self-aware that I hope I helped you achieve awareness.
- zaroth 7y ago
  I think you misread what I wrote. Nothing in there was an opinion about a race or a national origin.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    No, you haven't expressed any opinion here. You've alleged that you do have some though: > around sensitive topics that happen to involve race and national origin.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      I’ve been careful not to, because the point isn’t to argue a side, it’s to discuss how valid political arguments might be suppressed due to wrongful accusations of, e.g. racism or alleged violations of terms / codes of conduct. To be clear I agree with your first two paragraphs. It’s only the third which alleges that you’re correcting a belief I have, that I do take issue with. So I think again you’re reading into what I wrote too much. Why beat a dead horse, but the point there is to recognize that e.g. “immigration policy” is necessarily going to impact populations that are predominantly of a certain race and/or national origin. But crucially, it’s not racist to think that a country should have a border or debate how set immigration policies are enforced along that border. It’s not racist to examine sub-populations which are moving illegally across the border, e.g. to examine the prevalence of drug running, human trafficking, or gang activity within that sub-population, or to examine the share of that sub-population that is currently charged or has been found guilty of committing a violent crime versus other populations such as legal immigrants or natural citizens. This is just basic sociology. So that’s what I mean by “sensitive [political] topics” that happen to involve race and national origin.