9 ms·

Why does the left have to censor the right? Surely they should be able to beat the right with logical and reasoned arguments? Censorship has always struck me a

Why does the left have to censor the right? Surely they should be able to beat the right with logical and reasoned arguments? Censorship has always struck me as a tool that a side which isn't confident in its arguments uses.

ratww 6y ago
A large portion of extremists are not willing to discuss the results of the election even with other Republicans. People were calling Pence a traitor, boycotting Fox, etc. Those people are not willing to talk to or listen to anyone who's supposedly on their side but has a different opinion. What makes you think they will listen to the "other side"?
- LetsPlayNice 6y ago
  I understand what you're saying, but in my limited experience, it appears it isn't exactly what information is being presented so much as How it is presented. Often I see some with a differing opinion begin along the lines of: "You're an idiot Trumper, you're killing the planet!!" How about begin with a question to engage? For example: " why is it you think climate change doesn't exist? From the studies I've seen, I was convinced. " That's better right?
  - ratww 6y ago
    You seem to be requesting perfection from one side but not from the other. To keep on the previous example: Pence and Fox News never called anyone "idiot Trumper" or anything and they are being attacked by that crowd. About climate change: Greta Thunberg has been called all kinds of names without equivalent provocation. And there's a lot of people willing to engage with climate change deniers in the way you're suggesting they should, but a large part of climate change deniers are not willing to accept that those people are acting in good faith. There's lot of accusations that non-deniers are paid shills and stuff like that. Again, why does every person on one side has to be perfect, but the other side gets a pass? Even the Republicans can't control the Trump crowd.
    - zepto 6y ago
      The problem with this is that it’s black and white. Yes, there are clearly completely intractable extremists who won’t engage in good faith. But there are a lot of their people who will.
      - ratww 6y ago
        Absolutely, and I acknowledge that: the right itself is full of completely reasonable people that is being shunned by some of the extremists. On the other hand, the same thing should apply to the left! Just because someone on the left has not been using logical arguments and acting in bad faith, it doesn't mean the whole left is doing it. People don't get a free pass on claiming "the left caused it" or (EDIT) "the left not talking to them is the reason they have this opinion".
        zepto 6y ago
        ‘"the left caused it"’ I agree that this is obvious bullishit. But it’s also bullshit to say ‘the right caused it’. How many people are getting a free pass on saying that right now?
        ratww 6y ago
        Wait, just so we're on the same page: by "the left caused it" I mean that I don't believe the theory that "the left is to blame for people having extremist opinions because the left doesn't want to talk to them". Not some specific event. I also believe that blaming the whole right for anything is incorrect too, and repeatedly mentioned that some of the right are being shunned by extremists too.
        zepto 6y ago
        I think that one possible disconnect is the issue of ‘extremism’. I don’t think we can make a black and white division between extremists and everyone else. For example, I think things like saying ‘whiteness’ is the problem, is not particularly associated with the extremes and yet very much are part of the cause of the problem. Similarly, calling everyone on the left a snowflake or a communist, is not only the purview of extremists.
  - LetsPlayNice 6y ago
    ratww, I didn't intend to suggest perfection from either side. But, only one side wants to censor the other for their opinion, the manner in which they convey it, or broad association with extremists by way of similar beliefs on a much narrower subset of ideas. My example of climate change was merely a "for instance" rather than for the topic of the example to become part of the discussion. Point being, silencing one side doesn't work if the alleged reason is their ideas are so wrong they are too dangerous to be read unless you can properly show what you claim is "right".
    - ratww 6y ago
      I never mentioned anything about censorship here, so I don't see how this applies to my reply. What I was objecting here is the theory that people on the right has been radicalised due to the left not wanting to discuss. I'm just demonstrating that not only the left wants to speak to the extremists, but also the right itself wants (Pence and Fox News). But the extremists don't care: they're even attacking both left and right preemptively. There's zero interest from extremists to understand opposing opinions. This theory that the left is to blame for the radicalisation of those people holds absolutely no water.
  - nxc18 6y ago
    It’s really tiresome seeing the “Republicans are victims of the left“ meme over and over. You’ve controlled the government for years. You’ve mismanaged the pandemic, killing more Americans than world war 2. We’re not supposed to take the president’s words literally, unless he’s saying something that you happen to personally agree with. And no, discussing studies doesn’t work. See the anti-vax debate. We’ve been pointing out the science on climate change and vaccines, clearly and respectfully, for _decades_ and it has not mattered. I’ve never seen anyone directly start a persuasive argument with “you’re an idiot Trumper”. It isn’t that common. Your helpless victim attitude is showing. Trump had every opportunity to win this election rightfully. He is not a victim and neither are you or his supporters. Stop playing one.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > People were calling Pence a traitor More than that: > Others called for Vice President Mike Pence — who enraged Trump when he acknowledged that he did not have the power to unilaterally throw out electoral college votes — to be tried for treason. One Facebook post, quickly deleted, said Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should be hanged. * https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-michael-pence-media-social-media-daba3f5dd16a431abc627a5cfc922b87 https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-... See also: * https://www.businessinsider.com/nooses-spotted-as-pro-trump-rioters-spark-chaos-on-capitol-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/nooses-spotted-as-pro-trump-...
lanstin 6y ago
Deplatforming isn’t censorship, it is publishers saying they find said speech to be garbage. I don’t typically stop arguing someone because I have convinced them of my view but because I guess further interaction with them on the topic is a waste of energy. I am confident in all my arguments but a lot of people are too dumb and too emotional to be worth debating. And in the group context, arguing without moderation has mostly devolved into name calling and child porn. It is an experiment often repeated. Some people want a different experience, which seems to mean they want moderation in exchange for a good forum, e.g. this web site.
- LetsPlayNice 6y ago
  That is censorship. Prior to this point in time only hate speech, inciteful, vulgar, things were censored. To remove speech from the view of others that is contrary to your own simply because you believe it is "garbage" is censorship. Perhaps the other side believes your speech should be censored. Let's have your comment removed because of your generalization of speech you don't like as "garbage" doesn't conform with the guidelines i just thought of right now and actually, i think your comment is "garbage". How to punish you for your opinion now? 12 hours ban? 24? Deplatformed? Where does it end? THAT is censorship.
  - kombucha111 6y ago
    Stop using someone else's services for your expression. Just imagine you are in Walmart or a Target or your local grocery store. You don't have a right to be there or to engage in any speech or really anything else if the manager wants you removed from private property. If you want to nationalize Twitter and Facebook be my guest but until then the owners of said private property can continue to kick people off of it. I still have yet to see one case where a person's right to free speech were somehow infringed upon.
    - simplicitea 6y ago
      I would put forth that you're not going to get far in this conversation if you can't acknowledge that censorship and government abridgement of free speech are not one and the same. A company deplatforming an individual is indeed censorship, but is not government abridgement of free speech.
Tokkemon 6y ago
That doesn't work with people who didn't get to their beliefs by reason in the first place.
- finder83 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you're applying that statement in mass or not, but I have seen this reasoning from both sides, straw-manning people into a belief system and calling them irrational because they disagree. I see this much more about the right from the left though. I think if you sat down with an educated conservative and an open mind you'd have a different point of view. If your statement was just a blanket statement about people in general, I apologize for mis-categorizing it.
jimbob45 6y ago
Agreed. If I say, “One equals two”, and you say, “Don’t ever talk to me again, you racist”, then I’m never going to understand the flaws in my thinking and you’re going to wonder why you are unable to convert people to your side.
- ratww 6y ago
  Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2. If you want to debate in good faith whether people are too quick to call others racist, maybe you should start the debate by enumerating what kind of speech have sparked those claims? Otherwise you're just being hyperbolic and increasing the political divide. I get that people are pissed for being called racist, but if they REALLY wanna fix that, the first step is admitting that the other side might be pissed about something too.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > admitting that the other side might be pissed about something too. I spend most of my mental effort trying to get people on each side to do this, its not easy bro.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2." ? A woman is under arrest for trying to grab what she thought was her phone back from a black kid. It's a national story. In 2020, getting into an argument with a Black person is 'racist' and 'criminal' if you happen to be wrong. The woman did 1=2, in that, her actions are wrong. But because someone is a different colour, she's being destroyed and doxxed on the MSM for the assumption of racism. (Ironically, she could easily pass as a 'person of colour' if she chose to). This is unfortunately a problem right now in politics and it's perpetuated by the press.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > ? A woman is under arrest for trying to grab what she thought was her phone back from a black kid. It's a national story. > In 2020, getting into an argument with a Black person is 'racist' and 'criminal' if you happen to be wrong. Assault isn't a mere argument, and it's a crime regardless of the race of the perpetrators or victim. > But because someone is a different colour, she's being destroyed and doxxed on the MSM for the assumption of racism. No, she’s being condemned for the objective fact of assaulting a child.
johnchristopher 6y ago
> Surely they should be able to beat the right with logical and reasoned arguments? It's a self-harming myth the left believes in. You don't need to be right to win the argument.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
A significant number of people are threatened by rational critical thinking. They instill these values in their children who then they go off on raving rampages touting false patriotism. You can't make them listen. Taking away their echo chambers is the only way to cool them off.
- tanseydavid 6y ago
  "You can't make them listen." You are correct about that but why are you so set on making other adults think the way you do?
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    I don't need them to think like me. I need them to be self-reflective enough to admit when they're wrong. You can see this inability in action when their pugnacious behavior is held up to the light and they immediately dodge with conspiracy theories about planted agitators from the other side.
    - sillycon-valley 6y ago
      From my side, you are wrong. The stances you think I have are probably inaccurate too. Your side seems to always lock us into a prison of two ideas without letting us speak for ourselves. The extreme assumptions and generalizations don't help. There are many of us that don't agree with you but don't exactly line up with Republicans or even Trump supporters at times. Many Trump supporters are Libertarians that do not agree full with Republican ideals completely, but it's the closest home.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      I need them to be... You're setting yourself up for lots of disappointment, in this life. If you truly need complete strangers you haven't met to do pyschological work for you, happiness will always slip away.
    - dmingod666 6y ago
      Maybe you're the one who's wrong, ever think of that?
kmbfjr 6y ago
Maybe the right needs to understand that no corporation is required to give them their platform. It isn’t “censorship” to toss your ass off Twitter for violating their TOS. It is censorship for the government to demand Twitter shut ya down See the distinction?
- whatthesmack 6y ago
  > It isn’t “censorship” to toss your ass off Twitter for violating their TOS This is a misnomer. It's certainly censorship to "toss your ass off Twitter", even if somebody's arbitrary interpretation of a TOS concludes in the finding of a violation. The concept of free speech doesn't just restrict the government via the First Amendment... it is a tradition and a founding principle (as documented in the Federalist Papers) of the United States of America, as well as a social contract. I would argue that companies are obligated to abide by the principles of free speech, not from a legal perspective, but from a social perspective, lest they face the consequence of controversy Twitter is currently facing for banning the account of a sitting US President. Ultimately, silencing people you disagree with is a no-win path to go down.
FridgeSeal 6y ago
Because every single time the left agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments. In spite of this, they keep offering. As soon as they do anything except bend-over-backwards to accomodate the right, they are met with “so much for the tolerant left”. Is it any surprise that people get fed up when this is all they’re ever met with. If you can’t come to the table and behave like an adult, don’t be surprised when you get relegated to the kids table.
- Frondo 6y ago
  I am quite worried for the future of the country when Republican voters elected not one but two adherents of QAnon to the House of Representatives. What is any sort of reasoned debate about policy going to look like when one of the participants is coming into it with a set of beliefs as divergent from reality as QAnon?
- pixl97 6y ago
  "Meet in the middle" says the man in bad faith. You take one step forward, he takes one step back. "Meet in the middle" says the man in bad faith.
- zepto 6y ago
  “every single time the left agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments“ Absolutely true. Also true: “every single time the right agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments“
tedunangst 6y ago
Why not try both approaches? We'll let Pence and Graham explain, with logic and reason, why the Electoral College selected Biden, and then we'll see how people respond.
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  Assuming you are serious, let’s watch Lindsay walk thru Reagan International today: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lindsey-graham-called-traitor-by-crowd-at-airport https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lindsey-graham-called-trait... I’m reminded of Qaddafi’s last video. If only he had used logic and reason...
  - Frondo 6y ago
    In case it isn't clear to people who only watch briefly, the people in the video are Trump supporters, yelling at Graham for giving up on perpetuating the "stolen election" lie. These are people who are nominally on his side, angry that he's no longer carrying water for Trump.
vzcx 6y ago
The left/right dichotomy is not something that is rooted in logic or argumentation but in psychology. The left is succeeding because it has abandoned argument in favor of the raw pursuit and exercise of power, including their incessant moralizing, which is of course how a priestly caste expresses power. Why would they go back to debating? They censor because its playing field they're winning on.
- 8note 6y ago
  Technically the corporations censor because it's profitable to do so. The profit motive to keep trump on is gone, so he's gone
physicsyogi 6y ago
Research into belief perseverance shows that even when people are shown overwhelming evidence contradicting one of their beliefs that they dig in their heels and stick to the belief anyway. [1] There's also Frank Lunz's observation that many people form opinions based solely on the emotive content of the words (Russell conjugation [2]) they're presented with, regardless of the facts. [3] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language
throwaway19937 6y ago
The woke don't believe in debate[0]. They feel that the deck is rigged against them, debating reinforces the current oppressive system, that all disagreement is illegitimate, and that anyone with power who isn't dismantling the current system is evil. [0] https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/ https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres...

ratww 6y ago

A large portion of extremists are not willing to discuss the results of the election even with other Republicans. People were calling Pence a traitor, boycotting Fox, etc. Those people are not willing to talk to or listen to anyone who's supposedly on their side but has a different opinion. What makes you think they will listen to the "other side"?

LetsPlayNice 6y ago
I understand what you're saying, but in my limited experience, it appears it isn't exactly what information is being presented so much as How it is presented. Often I see some with a differing opinion begin along the lines of: "You're an idiot Trumper, you're killing the planet!!" How about begin with a question to engage? For example: " why is it you think climate change doesn't exist? From the studies I've seen, I was convinced. " That's better right?
- ratww 6y ago
  You seem to be requesting perfection from one side but not from the other. To keep on the previous example: Pence and Fox News never called anyone "idiot Trumper" or anything and they are being attacked by that crowd. About climate change: Greta Thunberg has been called all kinds of names without equivalent provocation. And there's a lot of people willing to engage with climate change deniers in the way you're suggesting they should, but a large part of climate change deniers are not willing to accept that those people are acting in good faith. There's lot of accusations that non-deniers are paid shills and stuff like that. Again, why does every person on one side has to be perfect, but the other side gets a pass? Even the Republicans can't control the Trump crowd.
  - zepto 6y ago
    The problem with this is that it’s black and white. Yes, there are clearly completely intractable extremists who won’t engage in good faith. But there are a lot of their people who will.
    - ratww 6y ago
      Absolutely, and I acknowledge that: the right itself is full of completely reasonable people that is being shunned by some of the extremists. On the other hand, the same thing should apply to the left! Just because someone on the left has not been using logical arguments and acting in bad faith, it doesn't mean the whole left is doing it. People don't get a free pass on claiming "the left caused it" or (EDIT) "the left not talking to them is the reason they have this opinion".
      - zepto 6y ago
        ‘"the left caused it"’ I agree that this is obvious bullishit. But it’s also bullshit to say ‘the right caused it’. How many people are getting a free pass on saying that right now?
        ratww 6y ago
        Wait, just so we're on the same page: by "the left caused it" I mean that I don't believe the theory that "the left is to blame for people having extremist opinions because the left doesn't want to talk to them". Not some specific event. I also believe that blaming the whole right for anything is incorrect too, and repeatedly mentioned that some of the right are being shunned by extremists too.
        zepto 6y ago
        I think that one possible disconnect is the issue of ‘extremism’. I don’t think we can make a black and white division between extremists and everyone else. For example, I think things like saying ‘whiteness’ is the problem, is not particularly associated with the extremes and yet very much are part of the cause of the problem. Similarly, calling everyone on the left a snowflake or a communist, is not only the purview of extremists.
- LetsPlayNice 6y ago
  ratww, I didn't intend to suggest perfection from either side. But, only one side wants to censor the other for their opinion, the manner in which they convey it, or broad association with extremists by way of similar beliefs on a much narrower subset of ideas. My example of climate change was merely a "for instance" rather than for the topic of the example to become part of the discussion. Point being, silencing one side doesn't work if the alleged reason is their ideas are so wrong they are too dangerous to be read unless you can properly show what you claim is "right".
  - ratww 6y ago
    I never mentioned anything about censorship here, so I don't see how this applies to my reply. What I was objecting here is the theory that people on the right has been radicalised due to the left not wanting to discuss. I'm just demonstrating that not only the left wants to speak to the extremists, but also the right itself wants (Pence and Fox News). But the extremists don't care: they're even attacking both left and right preemptively. There's zero interest from extremists to understand opposing opinions. This theory that the left is to blame for the radicalisation of those people holds absolutely no water.
- nxc18 6y ago
  It’s really tiresome seeing the “Republicans are victims of the left“ meme over and over. You’ve controlled the government for years. You’ve mismanaged the pandemic, killing more Americans than world war 2. We’re not supposed to take the president’s words literally, unless he’s saying something that you happen to personally agree with. And no, discussing studies doesn’t work. See the anti-vax debate. We’ve been pointing out the science on climate change and vaccines, clearly and respectfully, for _decades_ and it has not mattered. I’ve never seen anyone directly start a persuasive argument with “you’re an idiot Trumper”. It isn’t that common. Your helpless victim attitude is showing. Trump had every opportunity to win this election rightfully. He is not a victim and neither are you or his supporters. Stop playing one.
throw0101a 6y ago
> People were calling Pence a traitor More than that: > Others called for Vice President Mike Pence — who enraged Trump when he acknowledged that he did not have the power to unilaterally throw out electoral college votes — to be tried for treason. One Facebook post, quickly deleted, said Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should be hanged. * https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-michael-pence-media-social-media-daba3f5dd16a431abc627a5cfc922b87 https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-... See also: * https://www.businessinsider.com/nooses-spotted-as-pro-trump-rioters-spark-chaos-on-capitol-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/nooses-spotted-as-pro-trump-...

lanstin 6y ago

Deplatforming isn’t censorship, it is publishers saying they find said speech to be garbage. I don’t typically stop arguing someone because I have convinced them of my view but because I guess further interaction with them on the topic is a waste of energy. I am confident in all my arguments but a lot of people are too dumb and too emotional to be worth debating. And in the group context, arguing without moderation has mostly devolved into name calling and child porn. It is an experiment often repeated. Some people want a different experience, which seems to mean they want moderation in exchange for a good forum, e.g. this web site.

LetsPlayNice 6y ago
That is censorship. Prior to this point in time only hate speech, inciteful, vulgar, things were censored. To remove speech from the view of others that is contrary to your own simply because you believe it is "garbage" is censorship. Perhaps the other side believes your speech should be censored. Let's have your comment removed because of your generalization of speech you don't like as "garbage" doesn't conform with the guidelines i just thought of right now and actually, i think your comment is "garbage". How to punish you for your opinion now? 12 hours ban? 24? Deplatformed? Where does it end? THAT is censorship.
- kombucha111 6y ago
  Stop using someone else's services for your expression. Just imagine you are in Walmart or a Target or your local grocery store. You don't have a right to be there or to engage in any speech or really anything else if the manager wants you removed from private property. If you want to nationalize Twitter and Facebook be my guest but until then the owners of said private property can continue to kick people off of it. I still have yet to see one case where a person's right to free speech were somehow infringed upon.
  - simplicitea 6y ago
    I would put forth that you're not going to get far in this conversation if you can't acknowledge that censorship and government abridgement of free speech are not one and the same. A company deplatforming an individual is indeed censorship, but is not government abridgement of free speech.

Tokkemon 6y ago

That doesn't work with people who didn't get to their beliefs by reason in the first place.

finder83 6y ago
I'm not sure if you're applying that statement in mass or not, but I have seen this reasoning from both sides, straw-manning people into a belief system and calling them irrational because they disagree. I see this much more about the right from the left though. I think if you sat down with an educated conservative and an open mind you'd have a different point of view. If your statement was just a blanket statement about people in general, I apologize for mis-categorizing it.

jimbob45 6y ago

Agreed. If I say, “One equals two”, and you say, “Don’t ever talk to me again, you racist”, then I’m never going to understand the flaws in my thinking and you’re going to wonder why you are unable to convert people to your side.

ratww 6y ago
Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2. If you want to debate in good faith whether people are too quick to call others racist, maybe you should start the debate by enumerating what kind of speech have sparked those claims? Otherwise you're just being hyperbolic and increasing the political divide. I get that people are pissed for being called racist, but if they REALLY wanna fix that, the first step is admitting that the other side might be pissed about something too.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > admitting that the other side might be pissed about something too. I spend most of my mental effort trying to get people on each side to do this, its not easy bro.
- jariel 6y ago
  "Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2." ? A woman is under arrest for trying to grab what she thought was her phone back from a black kid. It's a national story. In 2020, getting into an argument with a Black person is 'racist' and 'criminal' if you happen to be wrong. The woman did 1=2, in that, her actions are wrong. But because someone is a different colour, she's being destroyed and doxxed on the MSM for the assumption of racism. (Ironically, she could easily pass as a 'person of colour' if she chose to). This is unfortunately a problem right now in politics and it's perpetuated by the press.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > ? A woman is under arrest for trying to grab what she thought was her phone back from a black kid. It's a national story. > In 2020, getting into an argument with a Black person is 'racist' and 'criminal' if you happen to be wrong. Assault isn't a mere argument, and it's a crime regardless of the race of the perpetrators or victim. > But because someone is a different colour, she's being destroyed and doxxed on the MSM for the assumption of racism. No, she’s being condemned for the objective fact of assaulting a child.

johnchristopher 6y ago

> Surely they should be able to beat the right with logical and reasoned arguments? It's a self-harming myth the left believes in. You don't need to be right to win the argument.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

A significant number of people are threatened by rational critical thinking. They instill these values in their children who then they go off on raving rampages touting false patriotism. You can't make them listen. Taking away their echo chambers is the only way to cool them off.

tanseydavid 6y ago
"You can't make them listen." You are correct about that but why are you so set on making other adults think the way you do?
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  I don't need them to think like me. I need them to be self-reflective enough to admit when they're wrong. You can see this inability in action when their pugnacious behavior is held up to the light and they immediately dodge with conspiracy theories about planted agitators from the other side.
  - sillycon-valley 6y ago
    From my side, you are wrong. The stances you think I have are probably inaccurate too. Your side seems to always lock us into a prison of two ideas without letting us speak for ourselves. The extreme assumptions and generalizations don't help. There are many of us that don't agree with you but don't exactly line up with Republicans or even Trump supporters at times. Many Trump supporters are Libertarians that do not agree full with Republican ideals completely, but it's the closest home.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    I need them to be... You're setting yourself up for lots of disappointment, in this life. If you truly need complete strangers you haven't met to do pyschological work for you, happiness will always slip away.
  - dmingod666 6y ago
    Maybe you're the one who's wrong, ever think of that?

kmbfjr 6y ago

Maybe the right needs to understand that no corporation is required to give them their platform. It isn’t “censorship” to toss your ass off Twitter for violating their TOS. It is censorship for the government to demand Twitter shut ya down See the distinction?

whatthesmack 6y ago
> It isn’t “censorship” to toss your ass off Twitter for violating their TOS This is a misnomer. It's certainly censorship to "toss your ass off Twitter", even if somebody's arbitrary interpretation of a TOS concludes in the finding of a violation. The concept of free speech doesn't just restrict the government via the First Amendment... it is a tradition and a founding principle (as documented in the Federalist Papers) of the United States of America, as well as a social contract. I would argue that companies are obligated to abide by the principles of free speech, not from a legal perspective, but from a social perspective, lest they face the consequence of controversy Twitter is currently facing for banning the account of a sitting US President. Ultimately, silencing people you disagree with is a no-win path to go down.

FridgeSeal 6y ago

Because every single time the left agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments. In spite of this, they keep offering. As soon as they do anything except bend-over-backwards to accomodate the right, they are met with “so much for the tolerant left”. Is it any surprise that people get fed up when this is all they’re ever met with. If you can’t come to the table and behave like an adult, don’t be surprised when you get relegated to the kids table.

Frondo 6y ago
I am quite worried for the future of the country when Republican voters elected not one but two adherents of QAnon to the House of Representatives. What is any sort of reasoned debate about policy going to look like when one of the participants is coming into it with a set of beliefs as divergent from reality as QAnon?
pixl97 6y ago
"Meet in the middle" says the man in bad faith. You take one step forward, he takes one step back. "Meet in the middle" says the man in bad faith.
zepto 6y ago
“every single time the left agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments“ Absolutely true. Also true: “every single time the right agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments“

tedunangst 6y ago

Why not try both approaches? We'll let Pence and Graham explain, with logic and reason, why the Electoral College selected Biden, and then we'll see how people respond.

hindsightbias 6y ago
Assuming you are serious, let’s watch Lindsay walk thru Reagan International today: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lindsey-graham-called-traitor-by-crowd-at-airport https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lindsey-graham-called-trait... I’m reminded of Qaddafi’s last video. If only he had used logic and reason...
- Frondo 6y ago
  In case it isn't clear to people who only watch briefly, the people in the video are Trump supporters, yelling at Graham for giving up on perpetuating the "stolen election" lie. These are people who are nominally on his side, angry that he's no longer carrying water for Trump.

vzcx 6y ago

The left/right dichotomy is not something that is rooted in logic or argumentation but in psychology. The left is succeeding because it has abandoned argument in favor of the raw pursuit and exercise of power, including their incessant moralizing, which is of course how a priestly caste expresses power. Why would they go back to debating? They censor because its playing field they're winning on.

8note 6y ago
Technically the corporations censor because it's profitable to do so. The profit motive to keep trump on is gone, so he's gone

physicsyogi 6y ago

Research into belief perseverance shows that even when people are shown overwhelming evidence contradicting one of their beliefs that they dig in their heels and stick to the belief anyway. [1] There's also Frank Lunz's observation that many people form opinions based solely on the emotive content of the words (Russell conjugation [2]) they're presented with, regardless of the facts. [3] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language

throwaway19937 6y ago

The woke don't believe in debate[0]. They feel that the deck is rigged against them, debating reinforces the current oppressive system, that all disagreement is illegitimate, and that anyone with power who isn't dismantling the current system is evil. [0] https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/ https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres...