4 ms·

Here’s the irony: Parler has been banning “liberals” and “leftists” for months. It’s an overtly political platform and clearly for a particular political ideolo

• iambateman 6y ago
  There’s nothing wrong with enabling a platform which is overtly political. If I want to start a libertarian-only dating site...why not? There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence.
  • centimeter 6y ago
    > There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence. Socialism as an ideology actively and inherently supports violence, but it has plenty of platforms in the US.
    • eyelidlessness 6y ago
      Let’s hear about how socialism as an ideology actively and inherently supports violence. I’m genuinely curious.
      • pmiller2 6y ago
        Certain forms of socialism ("revolutionary socialism") explicitly reject electoralism, reformism, and incrementalism as means toward change. After a socialist regime is established, however, I know of no form of socialism that encapsulates violence as a core concept.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
        • eyelidlessness 6y ago
          Even revolutionary variants don’t necessarily need violence. It’s certainly a high potential in revolution, but not a guarantee. This isn’t just hypothetical, all or nearly all of us on here have witnessed revolutions which didn’t employ violence (though they certainly endured it).
          • pmiller2 6y ago
            This is true. Revolutions need not be violent. It's simply the case that the vast majority are. Revolutionary socialism does not reject revolution simply because it may be violent. Rather, it accepts violence as a possible necessary means to an end.
            • eyelidlessness 6y ago
              Agreed. But ~some variants of socialism consider officially blessed outlets for change insufficient and accept that violence may be a part of circumventing their limitations~ is a very far leap from ~socialism is inherently violent~. Edit to add: it’s probably helpful in illustrating the difference to remove political ideology and highlight other movements which have drawn similar conclusions. As an example, in the Civil Rights era, many people trying to effect change according to officially blessed outlets were sprayed with fire hoses, beaten, attacked with dogs, even murdered. Often in plain sight, sometimes symbolically as a warning to others who might follow their lead. Others drew the conclusion that the officially blessed outlets for the change they sought were a facade, that they’d be similarly violently excluded from shaping the world they lived in. Some of them determined that the only way they could achieve any kind of justice was to reserve the right to use force to achieve it. Were they inherently violent?
              • pmiller2 6y ago
                Yes, that was my actual point: > After a socialist regime is established, however, I know of no form of socialism that encapsulates violence as a core concept.
                • 6y ago
      • ekianjo 6y ago
        > how socialism as an ideology actively and inherently supports violence Curious how you take away the bourgeoisie's possessions to establish Socialism without firing a few shots.
        • eyelidlessness 6y ago
          First of all, I’m not sure if the word choice was intentional, but socialists distinguish between property in this analysis and possessions. No one’s talking about running off with Scrooge McDuck’s good silverware or whatever. Second with that clarification being made, workers have negotiated ownership stakes in the means of production peacefully. Quite a lot of HN members have done it individually. Collective, larger scale negotiations have involved strikes and occupation. Using my imagination, I’m sure there’s a possibility of organizing the workers who would otherwise use force to defend private ownership. In all honesty I don’t think any of these things is more likely than just a gradual shift toward social democracy.
      • centimeter 6y ago
        How else are you going to liquidate the kulaks? Whatever your response is, I'm sure I'd give it more credence if there was ever a successful socialist state in history that didn't rely on oppressive violence.
  • justaguy88 6y ago
    Though we need to carve out some exceptions, like people discussing UFC
• blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  Parler doesn't ban anyone but actual trolls and crazies who post porn, promote commercial content, or post vindictive or violent content. Pretty much the same TOS as most other platforms.
  • xxpor 6y ago
    Trolling isn't free speech?
• ekianjo 6y ago
  > It’s an overtly political platform and clearly for a particular political ideology. You could say exactly the same for Twitter (remember the Hunter Biden laptop story? Of no you don't, because it was censored there), or even Google which clearly de-prioritizes search results based on their ideologies.