6 ms·

Balance is a false paradigm, not all ideas are valid, ie. just because some people believe the earth are flat doesn't mean that in school we have to teach the e

Balance is a false paradigm, not all ideas are valid, ie. just because some people believe the earth are flat doesn't mean that in school we have to teach the earth is both flat and round. (a more 50/50 idea would be evolution or carbon dating) I would also say Jack Dorsey has been pretty fair about the platform. I don't think the left feel like Twitter is exceptionally more open to them.

robin_reala 7y ago
I’m not sure that either evolution or carbon-dating approach 50/50…
ravenstine 7y ago
Not all ideas are valid, but that therefore means that balance is a false paradigm? I don't see how that follows. There was a time(supposedly) when the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun was considered invalid.
- Riverheart 7y ago
  Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    > Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. There's lots of "scientific" claims that are dictated by dogma or other motivations. Various aspects of nutrition science, psychology, economics, and sociology are either made up or based on low quality evidence, yet people continue to believe them. Humans, including scientists and academics, are imperfect, despite how this is the "modern age". > And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm. Which I would consider a straw man. I don't believe anyone is saying that all ideas are equal regardless of merit. What people are asking for is a wider Overton window. If people were suggesting that all ideas are equal, then they'd have to accede that the ideas of racists, child molestors, and serial killers are perfectly valid and should be treated the same as other ideas, which I don't think is a very common point of view, at least when a person is tested on it.
asdkjh345 7y ago
When you get banned for simply posting facts that one group dislikes, while "KILL ALL WHITE MEN" is totally fine and acceptable, there's definitely a balance problem. The idea that one socio-political viewpoint is objectively correct, and another is the same as believing the earth is flat is not a reasonable analogy.
- 12xo 7y ago
  You can be kicked out of any place of business for any reason... The web is no different.
  - asdkjh345 7y ago
    First of all, no you can not. Go try to kick a black person out of your business for being black and let me know how that goes. Second, what does your statement have to do with the discussion? I said balance isn't a false paradigm, how is "it is legal to be biased" a response to that?
    - 12xo 7y ago
      Wow. You went off the cliff. Paring racial discrimination with a difference of views is asinine. And yes, you can choose to serve anyone individual, you cannot globally discriminate. Get the difference?
      - asdkjh345 7y ago
        >Wow. You went off the cliff. Paring racial discrimination with a difference of views is asinine. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You made an objective claim, I provided an example that demonstrates it is false.
        12xo 7y ago
        You dont seem to understand the difference between discrimination and a difference of views. Unless you feel that being a "insert political party here" is a protected class...
BurningFrog 7y ago
> don't think the left feel like Twitter is exceptionally more open to them. "When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"
- Bendingo 7y ago
  LOL. Pithy _and_ correct!
rdiddly 7y ago
Are you comparing being a Republican to being a flat-earther here? There can be two or more competing opinions about how to run the government.
- arcticfox 7y ago
  In large measure, as a former Republican I think it's a valid comparison. Being a respected Republican these days is far less about an actual opinion on how to run the government, and far more about fealty to Trump, which doesn't have anything to do with the truth. The Republicans that were strongly grounded in either policy positions and/or truth have all been vilified (Comey, Mueller, Amash, Flake, McCain, G Conway, Bush, Romney, etc). Even guys like Bolton, who holds extreme conservative opinions on how to run government, cannot succeed in the party because he doesn't toe the line on fealty to Trump / 'flat-earth'.
  - rdiddly 7y ago
    Yeah nothing is actually what it claims to be anymore. Still, I'd hardly say that makes the people you mention stop being Republicans, much less conservatives. If the party leadership traitorously turns against them, then it's the party that stops being Republican. Just like (ever since Bill Clinton) the Democratic leadership has deserted what the party used to be about, allowing millions of voters to be seduced to the other side (and back again, for that matter!) without even so much as a platform. All you need is a good disinformation campaign. Good times. Don't even get me started -- disillusioned Democrat here. I'm kind of "neither" at this point, but I'm old enough to remember a time when as a Democrat I could at least respect actual Republicans, i.e. actual conservatives, who "had ideas about stuff and shit," and had reached a certain conclusion. Trump is a fake Republican, and a temporary aberration that will soon go away or perhaps wreck the country permanently, making it all irrelevant! EDIT: Actually no, I think I would dial back the "temporary aberration" bit as being too glibly optimistic. Because things seem to trend toward entropy, and bringing back a structure is a lot harder than letting a structure go to shit. i.e. what I said at the outset still remains true even after Trump, namely, "nothing is actually what it claims to be anymore."

robin_reala 7y ago

I’m not sure that either evolution or carbon-dating approach 50/50…

ravenstine 7y ago

Not all ideas are valid, but that therefore means that balance is a false paradigm? I don't see how that follows. There was a time(supposedly) when the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun was considered invalid.

Riverheart 7y ago
Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  > Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma. There's lots of "scientific" claims that are dictated by dogma or other motivations. Various aspects of nutrition science, psychology, economics, and sociology are either made up or based on low quality evidence, yet people continue to believe them. Humans, including scientists and academics, are imperfect, despite how this is the "modern age". > And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm. Which I would consider a straw man. I don't believe anyone is saying that all ideas are equal regardless of merit. What people are asking for is a wider Overton window. If people were suggesting that all ideas are equal, then they'd have to accede that the ideas of racists, child molestors, and serial killers are perfectly valid and should be treated the same as other ideas, which I don't think is a very common point of view, at least when a person is tested on it.

asdkjh345 7y ago

When you get banned for simply posting facts that one group dislikes, while "KILL ALL WHITE MEN" is totally fine and acceptable, there's definitely a balance problem. The idea that one socio-political viewpoint is objectively correct, and another is the same as believing the earth is flat is not a reasonable analogy.

12xo 7y ago
You can be kicked out of any place of business for any reason... The web is no different.
- asdkjh345 7y ago
  First of all, no you can not. Go try to kick a black person out of your business for being black and let me know how that goes. Second, what does your statement have to do with the discussion? I said balance isn't a false paradigm, how is "it is legal to be biased" a response to that?
  - 12xo 7y ago
    Wow. You went off the cliff. Paring racial discrimination with a difference of views is asinine. And yes, you can choose to serve anyone individual, you cannot globally discriminate. Get the difference?
    - asdkjh345 7y ago
      >Wow. You went off the cliff. Paring racial discrimination with a difference of views is asinine. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You made an objective claim, I provided an example that demonstrates it is false.
      - 12xo 7y ago
        You dont seem to understand the difference between discrimination and a difference of views. Unless you feel that being a "insert political party here" is a protected class...

BurningFrog 7y ago

> don't think the left feel like Twitter is exceptionally more open to them. "When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"

Bendingo 7y ago
LOL. Pithy _and_ correct!

rdiddly 7y ago

Are you comparing being a Republican to being a flat-earther here? There can be two or more competing opinions about how to run the government.

arcticfox 7y ago
In large measure, as a former Republican I think it's a valid comparison. Being a respected Republican these days is far less about an actual opinion on how to run the government, and far more about fealty to Trump, which doesn't have anything to do with the truth. The Republicans that were strongly grounded in either policy positions and/or truth have all been vilified (Comey, Mueller, Amash, Flake, McCain, G Conway, Bush, Romney, etc). Even guys like Bolton, who holds extreme conservative opinions on how to run government, cannot succeed in the party because he doesn't toe the line on fealty to Trump / 'flat-earth'.
- rdiddly 7y ago
  Yeah nothing is actually what it claims to be anymore. Still, I'd hardly say that makes the people you mention stop being Republicans, much less conservatives. If the party leadership traitorously turns against them, then it's the party that stops being Republican. Just like (ever since Bill Clinton) the Democratic leadership has deserted what the party used to be about, allowing millions of voters to be seduced to the other side (and back again, for that matter!) without even so much as a platform. All you need is a good disinformation campaign. Good times. Don't even get me started -- disillusioned Democrat here. I'm kind of "neither" at this point, but I'm old enough to remember a time when as a Democrat I could at least respect actual Republicans, i.e. actual conservatives, who "had ideas about stuff and shit," and had reached a certain conclusion. Trump is a fake Republican, and a temporary aberration that will soon go away or perhaps wreck the country permanently, making it all irrelevant! EDIT: Actually no, I think I would dial back the "temporary aberration" bit as being too glibly optimistic. Because things seem to trend toward entropy, and bringing back a structure is a lot harder than letting a structure go to shit. i.e. what I said at the outset still remains true even after Trump, namely, "nothing is actually what it claims to be anymore."