3 ms·

> Actually yours is the predominant view of those on the left Actually it is the predominant view, left and right. Except in this specific case, where the ri

> Actually yours is the predominant view of those on the left Actually it is the predominant view, left and right. Except in this specific case, where the right doesn't like it. > We are seeing the beginnings of a country of ~300 million people being cracked in two, on a much deeper level than has ever happened before. The Civil War may beg to differ. The real issue is that we've never reconciled the divergent view point from that war. Race is still the largest dividing factor in this country and this incident was about race (and ego) more than anything else.

downandout 6y ago
Except in this specific case, where the right doesn't like it. Show me an instance where anything remotely close to this happened - right leaning businesses banding together to take a left-leaning business entirely offline by cutting off all services to them. I’ll wait. Civil War... The Civil War occurred at a time when actual physical war was the predominant way that societal differences were settled. That is no longer the case, except perhaps in the minds of some of the idiots that stormed the Capitol. But on an intellectual level, this event with Parler is akin to an act of modern civil war. When you endeavor to kill an organization, are you not in a sense declaring war on them? Further, was this action not designed to frighten others into getting in line with the ruling party, lest they suffer the same fate? While no guns were used, those seem very similar to the actions normally taken by those engaging in civil war.
- confidantlake 6y ago
  AWS deciding to no longer host Parler is not an act of civil war, modern or otherwise.
  - downandout 6y ago
    You’re right. But Apple, Google, and Amazon all colluding for the singular purpose of warning others that conservative speech will get their businesses instantly killed by the largest and most powerful companies on earth? That sure is.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  > Show me an instance where anything remotely close to this happened - right leaning businesses banding together to take a left-leaning business entirely offline by cutting off all services to them. An example is pirate sites or underground drug sites. Those are largely blacklisted -- and fit into a (far) left-leaning philosophy around a class of freedom. I'd argue most of those are less extreme than Parler. > When you endeavor to kill an organization, are you not in a sense declaring war on them? Isn't that what Trump wanted to do with the NFL after Kaep took a knee? > Further, was this action not designed to frighten others into getting in line with the ruling party, lest they suffer the same fate? Sure, in the same way that death penalty is meant to scare murderers. You're trying to make this out to be a site of critical thinkers espousing different views that are being trampled on, while most everyone else recognizes it more like a revenge porn site.
  - downandout 6y ago
    Sure, in the same way that death penalty is meant to scare murderers. You are comparing the exercise of freedom of speech to committing murder. Not quite the same thing in my opinion. An example is pirate sites or underground drug sites. Those are largely blacklisted -- and fit into a (far) left-leaning philosophy around a class of freedom. Those sites are offering illegal goods and services. That is why they are offline. Companies are generally ordered by law enforcement to take them down. Again...hardly comparable.
    - kenjackson 6y ago
      > You are comparing the exercise of freedom of speech to committing murder. Not quite the same thing in my opinion. The point is they weren't only exercising free speech. They were inciting a violent riot. > Those sites are offering illegal goods and services. That is why they are offline. Companies are generally ordered by law enforcement to take them down. Again...hardly comparable. Again, the calls to march into the Capitol, provocation of violence, etc... are also illegal. But you won't find our government ever willing to take that stand. The distinction is less clear than you suggest. Lets put it this way, no one is suggesting to blacklist the WSJ or the National Review. The Parler is the equivalent to an Antifa social media network for planning attacks on right wing establishments.

downandout 6y ago

Except in this specific case, where the right doesn't like it. Show me an instance where anything remotely close to this happened - right leaning businesses banding together to take a left-leaning business entirely offline by cutting off all services to them. I’ll wait. Civil War... The Civil War occurred at a time when actual physical war was the predominant way that societal differences were settled. That is no longer the case, except perhaps in the minds of some of the idiots that stormed the Capitol. But on an intellectual level, this event with Parler is akin to an act of modern civil war. When you endeavor to kill an organization, are you not in a sense declaring war on them? Further, was this action not designed to frighten others into getting in line with the ruling party, lest they suffer the same fate? While no guns were used, those seem very similar to the actions normally taken by those engaging in civil war.

confidantlake 6y ago
AWS deciding to no longer host Parler is not an act of civil war, modern or otherwise.
- downandout 6y ago
  You’re right. But Apple, Google, and Amazon all colluding for the singular purpose of warning others that conservative speech will get their businesses instantly killed by the largest and most powerful companies on earth? That sure is.
kenjackson 6y ago
> Show me an instance where anything remotely close to this happened - right leaning businesses banding together to take a left-leaning business entirely offline by cutting off all services to them. An example is pirate sites or underground drug sites. Those are largely blacklisted -- and fit into a (far) left-leaning philosophy around a class of freedom. I'd argue most of those are less extreme than Parler. > When you endeavor to kill an organization, are you not in a sense declaring war on them? Isn't that what Trump wanted to do with the NFL after Kaep took a knee? > Further, was this action not designed to frighten others into getting in line with the ruling party, lest they suffer the same fate? Sure, in the same way that death penalty is meant to scare murderers. You're trying to make this out to be a site of critical thinkers espousing different views that are being trampled on, while most everyone else recognizes it more like a revenge porn site.
- downandout 6y ago
  Sure, in the same way that death penalty is meant to scare murderers. You are comparing the exercise of freedom of speech to committing murder. Not quite the same thing in my opinion. An example is pirate sites or underground drug sites. Those are largely blacklisted -- and fit into a (far) left-leaning philosophy around a class of freedom. Those sites are offering illegal goods and services. That is why they are offline. Companies are generally ordered by law enforcement to take them down. Again...hardly comparable.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    > You are comparing the exercise of freedom of speech to committing murder. Not quite the same thing in my opinion. The point is they weren't only exercising free speech. They were inciting a violent riot. > Those sites are offering illegal goods and services. That is why they are offline. Companies are generally ordered by law enforcement to take them down. Again...hardly comparable. Again, the calls to march into the Capitol, provocation of violence, etc... are also illegal. But you won't find our government ever willing to take that stand. The distinction is less clear than you suggest. Lets put it this way, no one is suggesting to blacklist the WSJ or the National Review. The Parler is the equivalent to an Antifa social media network for planning attacks on right wing establishments.