3 ms·

This argument might be more appealing if we hadn't just come through a pandemic that an unnamed group of people were more than happy to describe as a hoax. The

by nannal 6y ago

This argument might be more appealing if we hadn't just come through a pandemic that an unnamed group of people were more than happy to describe as a hoax. There's the myth of election theft if you needed a second example. There really is a lot of 'misinformation' (outright lying) on social media.

macspoofing 6y ago
This is a great illustration of the point I'm making. Thank you for providing a crystal clear example of how we got here. >This argument might be more appealing if we hadn't just come through a pandemic that an unnamed group of people were more than happy to describe as a hoax. Yes. If you give people a platform they'll say all kinds of things, true, untrue, and, partly true. Regarding COVID, what's interesting is social media companies decided that anything that goes against WHO guidelines is a hoax, even if you have credible epidemiologists having a discussion. WHO is staffed by very good people who are experts in their fields, but WHO is a human organization that is susceptible to political influence and regular human faults. For example, I don't fully trust any conclusion the WHO reaches when it comes to COVID and China. I just don't. I'm glad WHO exists and they do a lot of good work, but I don't want WHO dictating (directly or by proxy) which opinions I am allowed to hear. The implicit argument you're also making is that if you just ban your political opponents promulgating views you think are false (and some many be false), those views will go away. That's not going to happen. All you did was increase mistrust and increase conspiracy thinking. >There's the myth of election theft if you needed a second example. By who exactly? Because up until this election, EVERY election that Democrats lost was because of election theft, through either Russian misinformation, or voter suppression, or gerrymandering, or voter id, or systemic racism or unicorns. EVERY.SINGLE.ONE. Trump's election was deemed as stolen by huge swaths of Democratic politicians (including Hillary) and voters. Oh but those are credible 'election theft' allegations because they come from YOUR political side. It's the other side that gets everything wrong. Your allegations against 'election theft' shouldn't be suppressed, but theirs should. Right? >There really is a lot of 'misinformation' (outright lying) on social media. And you're afraid that your reasoning abilities are so feeble that you don't trust yourself to see this misinformation lest you be affected by it? And therefore you need a low-paid, 20-something, intern-censor to tell you what you should and shouldn't see.... You may be OK with that, but I'm not.
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  Hillary conceded literally in day one. The democrats who said "not my president" shut up and stopped protesting after a month. You're trying so hard to make it seem like this is a both sides problem but we all know that it isn't. Political rehtoric is far different than actually taking the capital over. Plus - the democrat lost elections due to it being "stolen" narrative you claim is being fostered by the democrats is more likely being fostered by the democrats political enemies. I don't believe bernie sanders is begging his supporters to stay home because bernie got screwed on super delegates in 2016 or 2020. Most of the "not my president" crap might as well have been from russian bots with how effective it is for democrats. So, maybe you should celebrate democratic incompetence since you dislike them so much...
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >Hillary conceded literally in day one. She did ... and since that time has been going around claiming Trump is an illegitimate president and the election was stolen. Here's one source[1] but honestly, there are hundreds. >The democrats who said "not my president" shut up and stopped protesting after a month. No. That's a lie. Huge swaths of Democratic politicians, voters and media have made direct claims about the 2016 election being stolen (and any election they lost). >Plus - the democrat lost elections due to it being "stolen" narrative you claim is being fostered by the democrats is more likely being fostered by the democrats political enemies. No. That's a lie. Even now the new Georgia election law is being characterized by Democrats as a way to steal future elections. But these kinds of claims were being made after every election as far back as I can remember (I can remember the claim of presidency being 'stolen' in the 2000 election, certainly the 2004 election with voting machines being hacked, up until now). Stacy Abrams lost by 50 thousand votes and still claims that election was stolen. It's so normal for Democrats to make those claims nobody even bats an eye anymore. It's so accepted. You have a blind spot for your side. You can see everything the other guys are doing wrong, but you don't see your guys doing anything wrong. And that's the problem here. You don't want tech companies to censor everyone by the same standards. You want double-standards. You want them to censor by YOUR standards. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... "Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday."

by nannal 6y ago

macspoofing 6y ago

This is a great illustration of the point I'm making. Thank you for providing a crystal clear example of how we got here. >This argument might be more appealing if we hadn't just come through a pandemic that an unnamed group of people were more than happy to describe as a hoax. Yes. If you give people a platform they'll say all kinds of things, true, untrue, and, partly true. Regarding COVID, what's interesting is social media companies decided that anything that goes against WHO guidelines is a hoax, even if you have credible epidemiologists having a discussion. WHO is staffed by very good people who are experts in their fields, but WHO is a human organization that is susceptible to political influence and regular human faults. For example, I don't fully trust any conclusion the WHO reaches when it comes to COVID and China. I just don't. I'm glad WHO exists and they do a lot of good work, but I don't want WHO dictating (directly or by proxy) which opinions I am allowed to hear. The implicit argument you're also making is that if you just ban your political opponents promulgating views you think are false (and some many be false), those views will go away. That's not going to happen. All you did was increase mistrust and increase conspiracy thinking. >There's the myth of election theft if you needed a second example. By who exactly? Because up until this election, EVERY election that Democrats lost was because of election theft, through either Russian misinformation, or voter suppression, or gerrymandering, or voter id, or systemic racism or unicorns. EVERY.SINGLE.ONE. Trump's election was deemed as stolen by huge swaths of Democratic politicians (including Hillary) and voters. Oh but those are credible 'election theft' allegations because they come from YOUR political side. It's the other side that gets everything wrong. Your allegations against 'election theft' shouldn't be suppressed, but theirs should. Right? >There really is a lot of 'misinformation' (outright lying) on social media. And you're afraid that your reasoning abilities are so feeble that you don't trust yourself to see this misinformation lest you be affected by it? And therefore you need a low-paid, 20-something, intern-censor to tell you what you should and shouldn't see.... You may be OK with that, but I'm not.

Der_Einzige 6y ago
Hillary conceded literally in day one. The democrats who said "not my president" shut up and stopped protesting after a month. You're trying so hard to make it seem like this is a both sides problem but we all know that it isn't. Political rehtoric is far different than actually taking the capital over. Plus - the democrat lost elections due to it being "stolen" narrative you claim is being fostered by the democrats is more likely being fostered by the democrats political enemies. I don't believe bernie sanders is begging his supporters to stay home because bernie got screwed on super delegates in 2016 or 2020. Most of the "not my president" crap might as well have been from russian bots with how effective it is for democrats. So, maybe you should celebrate democratic incompetence since you dislike them so much...
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Hillary conceded literally in day one. She did ... and since that time has been going around claiming Trump is an illegitimate president and the election was stolen. Here's one source[1] but honestly, there are hundreds. >The democrats who said "not my president" shut up and stopped protesting after a month. No. That's a lie. Huge swaths of Democratic politicians, voters and media have made direct claims about the 2016 election being stolen (and any election they lost). >Plus - the democrat lost elections due to it being "stolen" narrative you claim is being fostered by the democrats is more likely being fostered by the democrats political enemies. No. That's a lie. Even now the new Georgia election law is being characterized by Democrats as a way to steal future elections. But these kinds of claims were being made after every election as far back as I can remember (I can remember the claim of presidency being 'stolen' in the 2000 election, certainly the 2004 election with voting machines being hacked, up until now). Stacy Abrams lost by 50 thousand votes and still claims that election was stolen. It's so normal for Democrats to make those claims nobody even bats an eye anymore. It's so accepted. You have a blind spot for your side. You can see everything the other guys are doing wrong, but you don't see your guys doing anything wrong. And that's the problem here. You don't want tech companies to censor everyone by the same standards. You want double-standards. You want them to censor by YOUR standards. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... "Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday."