4 ms·

I'm all for nuance, but I can't imagine this being the hill people want to die on RE: censorship. As long as the calls for violence aren't overt we're cool wit

by _dibly 6y ago

I'm all for nuance, but I can't imagine this being the hill people want to die on RE: censorship. As long as the calls for violence aren't overt we're cool with them? I might be in the minority but I don't have a problem lumping plain old hate speech in with inciting violence. I'm trying to imagine the best possible take on what Trump is trying to do by tweeting incendiary misinformation and I just can't get there.

pstuart 6y ago
I'm not advocating for censorship, I'm simply pointing out that it's not so simple as to say that if there is no direct incitement to violence, that said speech is "acceptable". Ongoing dehumanization of "others" is dangerous territory and needs to be acknowledged as such. I think the closest solution is "cancel culture" (hate that term) where the general market rejects the offering but it's still allowed for "fairness".
- _dibly 6y ago
  Oh I agree with you, I was referring to the person you were replying to. The idea that a private company making decisions about users on their platform is censorship is ridiculous to begin with. 1 in 10 Americans use Twitter, to say that Twitter is even capable of censoring the president, even if had they would disable his account permanently, would be laughable.
LakesideDrive 6y ago
"Plain old hate speech" is subjective though. May I censor those calling for my country to become more diverse? I consider that an explicit declaration of racial hatred and indirect incitement of violence. May I censor those advocating abortions? I can hardly think of a more violent action than butchering an unborn baby. I could go on. I'm sure you see my point. Do what you will with your power, but don't insult us by claiming the moral high ground. And don't expect any favours when the pendulum swings back.
- _dibly 6y ago
  Hate speech is absolutely not subjective. And further, the counterexamples you gave don't really support your argument. There's no moral high ground to claim when the opposition has repeatedly said things disparaging minorities and more recently repeatedly posted false information with the express purpose of inciting a reaction from your their supporters. I'm not a straight white male so when/if the pendulum ever swings back in favor of evangelical christian 'morality' I would expect the exact same amount of favors I have always been afforded. I'm sure you could go on, but I don't think you have much of a point.
  - LakesideDrive 6y ago
    Those are some good examples that demonstrate the subjectivity. You know it, that's why you ignored them. Keep poking Whites. Please. We're waking up.
    - _dibly 6y ago
      Sorry, I don't see any value in engaging with someone who's going to be intentionally obtuse about the semantics of hate speech to justify their regressive and objectively disgusting opinions.

by _dibly 6y ago

pstuart 6y ago

I'm not advocating for censorship, I'm simply pointing out that it's not so simple as to say that if there is no direct incitement to violence, that said speech is "acceptable". Ongoing dehumanization of "others" is dangerous territory and needs to be acknowledged as such. I think the closest solution is "cancel culture" (hate that term) where the general market rejects the offering but it's still allowed for "fairness".

_dibly 6y ago
Oh I agree with you, I was referring to the person you were replying to. The idea that a private company making decisions about users on their platform is censorship is ridiculous to begin with. 1 in 10 Americans use Twitter, to say that Twitter is even capable of censoring the president, even if had they would disable his account permanently, would be laughable.

LakesideDrive 6y ago

"Plain old hate speech" is subjective though. May I censor those calling for my country to become more diverse? I consider that an explicit declaration of racial hatred and indirect incitement of violence. May I censor those advocating abortions? I can hardly think of a more violent action than butchering an unborn baby. I could go on. I'm sure you see my point. Do what you will with your power, but don't insult us by claiming the moral high ground. And don't expect any favours when the pendulum swings back.

_dibly 6y ago
Hate speech is absolutely not subjective. And further, the counterexamples you gave don't really support your argument. There's no moral high ground to claim when the opposition has repeatedly said things disparaging minorities and more recently repeatedly posted false information with the express purpose of inciting a reaction from your their supporters. I'm not a straight white male so when/if the pendulum ever swings back in favor of evangelical christian 'morality' I would expect the exact same amount of favors I have always been afforded. I'm sure you could go on, but I don't think you have much of a point.
- LakesideDrive 6y ago
  Those are some good examples that demonstrate the subjectivity. You know it, that's why you ignored them. Keep poking Whites. Please. We're waking up.
  - _dibly 6y ago
    Sorry, I don't see any value in engaging with someone who's going to be intentionally obtuse about the semantics of hate speech to justify their regressive and objectively disgusting opinions.