5 ms·
Can't have any wrongthink out there.
by throwawaygulf 6y ago
Can't have any wrongthink out there.
- SN76477 6y agoToo many conversations inciting violence.
- Proven 6y agoSo what? Every platform has them. They get reported and removed. Fortunately we don't have to use company stores. I use Gab in the Web browser.
- akhilcacharya 6y agoFor those not aware, Gab is notable for having a bunch of QAnon adherents post regularly.
- another_sock 6y agoPut them in prison and get them fired, they are fascists!
- inawarminister 6y agoAye, like the ol' Red Scare. Purges are good an' all. After all, their worldview is too scary to tolerate, beyond the pale.
- another_sock 6y agoWe can't have the dangerous Qanonners around. It's too dangerous, they might take our rights away. They must be rounded up asap.
- chillwaves 6y agoYou are all over these threads just trolling with nonsense. That's against our community guidelines. It'd be a service to the community if HN banned you.
- another_sock 6y agoYes we should ban everybody who shows open disagreement and doesn't take the party line in the serious manner we see fit. I am not trolling, I am highlighting the absurd manner in which so many HN commenters have suddenly become champions of Stalinistic censorship by all these multinational corporations. Yes, it's a great idea for the community to ban people who say things which are unpopular. That will lead to a very healthy community filled with free thought and critical thinking.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shadowgovt 6y agoThe failure to put any constraint leads to 4chan. Optimum is probably somewhere between the extremes. But the QAnon conspiracy thrives in the 4chan laissez-faire extreme.
- another_sock 6y agoThe people who think 4chan is some existential threat to society rather than anti-social people and people with autism blowing off steam and being mean to each other are the people who aren't very familiar with 4chan. 99% of it is just shitposts, the other 0.9% is people who aren't doing anything bad, the 0.1% is removed.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoHaha, socker moms are fascist!
- another_sock 6y agoYes they just tried to have a violent coup! They tossed papers on the floor of our leaders. It was the worst thing I ever saw, rioting on steroids. An insurrection!
- akhilcacharya 6y agoI'm struggling to see where I said that. I will, however, state the fact that many of the people who participated in the insurrection on Wednesday, of which a large cross-section believe in QAnon and wore QAnon paraphernalia, have been fired from their jobs or have been imprisoned.
- cauthon 6y agoI’m confused. You don’t think social media platforms should remove posts inciting violence, because the posts will get removed by the platform?
- asdf333 6y agothe supreme court has repeatedly affirmed that speech that incites violence is not allowed.
- throwawaygulf 6y agoEveryone repeats this orthodox line as if it's true, but there's rarely any evidence for it. Can you post three Parlor links that supposedly contain "calls to violence" here?
- SN76477 6y agohttps://imgur.com/a/7hTCD3w https://imgur.com/a/7hTCD3w
- throwawaygulf 6y agoThat is two separate screenshots stitched together from posts that were removed within an hour for inciting violence. Multiple leftists calls to violence posted on reddit: https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/06/29/reddit-ignores-calls-violence-left-leaning-subreddits-despite-censoring-pro-trump-subreddit-n109864 https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/06/29/reddit-ignores... I'll ask again, since you didn't even follow the instructions: post three links from Parlor that show calls for inciting violence. I'll wait.
- DangitBobby 6y agoThe lizard people are finally taking over
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SerLava 6y agoThe CEO said he wouldn't stop crimes happening on there
- throwawaygulf 6y ago[citation needed]
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoIf you'd like to post some wrongthink on my personal blog, or the ardour.org forums, or even right here on HN, just let me know. I'm sure we can arrange something.
- throwawaygulf 6y agoAs long as you're honest, philosophically even-keeled, and apply the rules consistently, let's go. But for some reason, I have this feeling that that's not the case. If you're pro-safetyism, you're anti-truth, anti-facts, pro-illogic, and are against wrongthink.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoWell, I admit that the first location was a purely rhetorical ploy, because even I don't post on my personal blog anymore, and we'd prefer not to have a forum site about a digital audio workstation cluttered with unrelated posts. But I think my point is clear: there are oodles of places you can write and post whatever you want. Even here on HN, you can say a great deal of stuff that others will consider wrong without being "censored". I'm certainly against "wrongthink" which is just a stupid re-use of a literary trick currently being massively over-referenced online in response to various events today. There's wrong, there's false, there's stupid. There isn't any wrongthink in my conception of the world.
- throwawaygulf 6y ago>But I think my point is clear: there are oodles of places you can write and post whatever you want. Awesome, so we agree there are oodles of places BLM and leftists can protest that are not high traffic roads, freeways, main streets, federal courthouses, etc. They can protest in the Mojave desert, they won't be censored there. >I'm certainly against "wrongthink" ... There's wrong, there's false, there's stupid. There isn't any wrongthink in my conception of the world. Awesome, so we both agree with the objective fact that Blacks commit more violent crimes per capita than any other race. That's a fact, that's neither wrong, false, nor stupid.