5 ms·

To be clear, the controversial political opinions you believe should be platformed by Twitch are: "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshi

To be clear, the controversial political opinions you believe should be platformed by Twitch are: "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." and "America Deserved 9/11"? Because those are the literal quotes from things that got people pulled from Twitch and you've labelled "controversial political opinions." I'm sorry, but suggesting that we unilaterally kill innocent people or that innocent people deserved to be killed by terrorists is absolutely beyond the pale and should result in consequences like losing partnerships or facing suspensions.

handoflixue 6y ago
I'm old enough to remember when "gay people are all pedophiles" was the mainstream position given by the New York Times. It was utterly unacceptable to endorse such perverts. I'm not so old to remember the arguments about how women are too emotional to be allowed to vote, or the ones about black people, but it was pretty unacceptable to come out in defense of either of those groups either. Why in the world would I believe censorship is only going to squash the sort of stuff you list, when there's such a long history of it being used to oppress anyone who thinks they deserve the same rights as the rest of us? Are we going to ban any pro-abortion discussions, because "suggesting we kill innocent people" is absolutely beyond the pale? Do you really think there aren't millions of people in the US drooling at that sort of censorship opportunity?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I think you are correct in that these tools will undoubtedly be used against progressive folks and minorities, as that's historically where they've been used. I believe that Twitch has too much power/authority, but also I believe that it's reasonable to moderate speech in communities and platforms. That said, I believe there's a material difference between examples and what was shared in the parent comment. I don't think one can generalize from "speech calling for violence should be removed from Twitch" to "all unpopular opinions will be suppressed". Yes, it was unpopular (and career limiting) to stand up for LGTBQ+ folks, and those voices rarely got mainstream airtime. Suppressing those voices was wrong, but totally different than prohibiting endorsements of mass violence. I believe we, culturally, can evaluate the difference between "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" and understand why we should be open to the former and cautious about the latter.
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    Both "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" are fundamentally statements about ethics, and neither is calling for violence.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Yes, that's very true. The second statement though, was a blatant call to violence (if white redneck militia dudes...), and the author did not get banned from twitch, instead they were simply limited in their monetization options. But "America deserved 9/11" was an ethical statement, you're right.
      - bopbeepboop 6y ago
        No, the second statement isn’t a call to violence. > "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." This is clearly not a call to violence: it’s an approval of people intervening in serial arson, even if that means using force against the arsonists and lamenting that the state has failed to stop the serial arson, so it may fall to a militia. You can tell that by “if [...], at this point they have my fucking blessing” rather than any call to action. Approving of militias using force to stop serial arsonists when the state has failed to keep the peace is an ethical statement — and one much tamer than “America deserved 9/11”. Most people believe that people have the right to protect themselves when the state fails to maintain peace. I suspect you’re being uncharitable because you personally support the arsonists’ crime spree. What specific violent act do you believe that quote calls for?
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        "Mowing down" doesn't mean anything except mass murder, generally using fully automatic firearms. We both know this. This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it. Whether it is tamer or not than "America deserved 9/11" is a matter of opinion, I won't pronounce myself on it but I totally understand that opinion. It is categorically true that while "America deserved 9/11" is a statement of ethics, saying that you personally bless mass murder to prevent property destruction is incitement of violence.
- chc 6y ago
  These sorts of arguments always fall a bit flat with me for one simple reason: They assume a false causality. Our forbearance doesn't force others to reciprocate. If we try to stop people from encouraging the mass murder of protesters, sure, some people will look for ways to censor other ideas that I support. But if we don't oppose pro-murder propaganda, those people will still look for ways to censor ideas I support. When homophobia was the mainstream opinion, gay perspectives were commonly censored (in the sense we're talking about here of "powerful private parties not wanting to associate with them"). It seems pretty unrealistic to expect reciprocal generosity from someone who thinks protesters should be killed in the street, so I don't see how an argument based on ideas of "What if they did it to you?" could be persuasive.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    By the same argument, you'd cheat and steal from literally anyone you could get away with cheating and stealing from. Because not doing it to them doesn't stop them from doing it to you. But this isn't really how it works. Forebearance actually does have value because it changes society as a whole, shifts expectations at a broad scale, and creates moral authority to demand better from others which is persuasive and powerful. At the end of the day, what kind of society do you want to live in? Will you contribute to making that society, or not?
    - chc 6y ago
      I think you have drastically misunderstood my argument. To use your analogy, let's say Bob is constantly stealing from you. You urgently need some essentials, and you say, "I know, I can steal them from Bob." But somebody stops you and says, "Wait, you don't want to do that! If you steal from Bob, he'll steal from you!" You would probably not find this persuasive, because you know Bob will steal from you regardless. There probably are good arguments you can make against stealing from Bob, but that particular one doesn't jibe with reality.
      - jlawson 6y ago
        Let's say your spouse is constantly criticizing you. You feel frustrated, so you criticize them as well. Someone stops you and says, "Wait, you should criticize them less. Then they'll feel less frustrated and might also criticize you less." And you can, and do, and with some decent faith on both sides you can de-escalate. This is basically marriage counseling. This is how relationships improve. You're framing this as a simple prisoner's dilemma problem with sharp-edged binary choices - but it's much more fluid than that in real life. The fluidity non-binaryness of this is even more apparent given it's millions of people we're talking about, over time lasting generations. If life really was a prisoner dilemma cooperation would be impossible.
thiskeyboard 6y ago
The full quote from Destiny—a liberal anti-racist, mind you—is: The rioting needs to fucking stop. If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing. Holy shit, this shit needs to stop. It needed to stop a long time ago. To the rest of us, he is expressing exacerbation that law enforcement is allowing chaos from one particular political faction. If you do believe in good faith that Destiny is actually "suggesting that we unilaterally kill innocent people", then do you believe that bluechecks on Twitter who freely speak in similar terms about White people are actually advocating for the slaughter/genocide of Whites?
- gentleman11 6y ago
  Wait, destiny is banned?
  - lrae 6y ago
    No, iirc then he didn't get banned/temporary suspended for that comment. Twitch only decided to not do any direct business (partnership) with him anymore, so they unpartnered him. That means people can't subscribe to him anymore for a monthly fee and he can also not be tipped with Twitch's virtual tip currency. He also doesn't get any ad revenue split anymore. (And I think twitch is currently not running any ads on unaffiliated/unpartnered streams, not 100% sure about that.) He can still be tipped through third party services though. (Like streamlabs and streamelements) He's still allowed to stream, and now without contract, not exclusive anymore so that he also streams on Youtube and Facebook now I think. I think that is also something they should do with people who just got arrested. Distance yourself from them, but don't ban them. If it's severe enough then they won't be able to go live anymore anyway.
    - singron 6y ago
      He also runs independent subscriptions and chat on destiny.gg, his custom open-source website. I think his subs might have predated (2013) the general launch of twitch subscriptions (can't find the year), although some partners like day9 had subs on justin.tv as early as 2011. I'd guess it's one of the reasons he manages to stay afloat despite his regular controversies.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nitrogen 6y ago
Your second quote should be no more or less controversial than saying that any of the countries the US invaded afterward also deserved those invasions. 9/11 was, in part, blowback from previous American foreign policy. Interpreting that as saying that people deserve to be killed by terrorists is 1. confusing a country as a whole with its citizens as individuals and 2. an unrealistically literal interpretation of clear hyperbole. Interpreting common hyperbole literally is just as problematic as taking hyperbole to excess.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I think discussions about invasions and attacks, even if they are uncomfortable, is totally reasonable. I'll happily talk with you about why American Imperialism is bad until I'm blue in the face. I will say, when someone says we should attack civilians because of their government's foreign policy, I will say that crosses a line. It's unacceptable in my view. There's a huge gap between, "We should have uncomfortable discussions" and "those civilians deserved to die". And on the internet, it's really challenging to say what is hyperbole. Even if it was intended to be hyperbole, which is plausible, maybe it's a charged enough topic that one should choose a different (or more obviously) hyperbolic take.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    It's unacceptable in my view. Mine too, but it's standard rhetoric among a very, very large part (possibly a near-majority) of the US population. Tech companies are fueling that fire by showing that (from that perspective), yes, they really are the paternalistic coastal elites that the other half of the country suspected they were. Leaving aside the many ways in which this weapon of platform banning can be abused by future shifts in power -- Google, Twitter, AWS, and now Twitch are not helping the causes they claim to be helping with prominent bans, they are just building taller walls around the various echo chambers.
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    By that logic "the use of atomic bombs in WWII was justified" should also be an unacceptable statement. ... I mean, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be unacceptable. Attacking civilians is pretty horrible and uncivilized. But is also is a common thread throughout most notable wars in the last 100 years or so.
mdoms 6y ago
Well, yes, these are controversial opinions. If they make you feel uncomfortable, that's fine - controversy does that. If you think anything that makes you feel uncomfortable should be illegal to say, then maybe you just don't care about free speech.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  > If you think anything that makes you feel uncomfortable should be illegal to say... No one said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. > yes, these are controversial opinions That's a bit like calling a ghost pepper a "a bit spicy" and then when someone dislikes eating a whole one raw saying, "maybe you don't care for food with flavor?"
- echelon 6y ago
  A vocal subset of the people that are uncomfortable are jumping to censorship as a means to solve problems. Both the political left and right do it. They don't want to hear opposing ideas, and they're increasingly trying to tune it out, ban, and delete it. This is not healthy for a functioning democracy or individual liberty and freedom. Freedom of speech needs to remain absolute. Encroachments upon our rights endanger us all. (Honestly, we need freedom of privacy too. I wish we could roll back the clock and install amendments to enshrine these too.)

handoflixue 6y ago

I'm old enough to remember when "gay people are all pedophiles" was the mainstream position given by the New York Times. It was utterly unacceptable to endorse such perverts. I'm not so old to remember the arguments about how women are too emotional to be allowed to vote, or the ones about black people, but it was pretty unacceptable to come out in defense of either of those groups either. Why in the world would I believe censorship is only going to squash the sort of stuff you list, when there's such a long history of it being used to oppress anyone who thinks they deserve the same rights as the rest of us? Are we going to ban any pro-abortion discussions, because "suggesting we kill innocent people" is absolutely beyond the pale? Do you really think there aren't millions of people in the US drooling at that sort of censorship opportunity?

Pfhreak 6y ago
I think you are correct in that these tools will undoubtedly be used against progressive folks and minorities, as that's historically where they've been used. I believe that Twitch has too much power/authority, but also I believe that it's reasonable to moderate speech in communities and platforms. That said, I believe there's a material difference between examples and what was shared in the parent comment. I don't think one can generalize from "speech calling for violence should be removed from Twitch" to "all unpopular opinions will be suppressed". Yes, it was unpopular (and career limiting) to stand up for LGTBQ+ folks, and those voices rarely got mainstream airtime. Suppressing those voices was wrong, but totally different than prohibiting endorsements of mass violence. I believe we, culturally, can evaluate the difference between "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" and understand why we should be open to the former and cautious about the latter.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Both "I think gay folks should have equal rights" and "America deserved 9/11" are fundamentally statements about ethics, and neither is calling for violence.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Yes, that's very true. The second statement though, was a blatant call to violence (if white redneck militia dudes...), and the author did not get banned from twitch, instead they were simply limited in their monetization options. But "America deserved 9/11" was an ethical statement, you're right.
    - bopbeepboop 6y ago
      No, the second statement isn’t a call to violence. > "If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing." This is clearly not a call to violence: it’s an approval of people intervening in serial arson, even if that means using force against the arsonists and lamenting that the state has failed to stop the serial arson, so it may fall to a militia. You can tell that by “if [...], at this point they have my fucking blessing” rather than any call to action. Approving of militias using force to stop serial arsonists when the state has failed to keep the peace is an ethical statement — and one much tamer than “America deserved 9/11”. Most people believe that people have the right to protect themselves when the state fails to maintain peace. I suspect you’re being uncharitable because you personally support the arsonists’ crime spree. What specific violent act do you believe that quote calls for?
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        "Mowing down" doesn't mean anything except mass murder, generally using fully automatic firearms. We both know this. This is Destiny saying that if it takes someone committing mass murder to stop property damage, it is justified. There's no two ways about it. Whether it is tamer or not than "America deserved 9/11" is a matter of opinion, I won't pronounce myself on it but I totally understand that opinion. It is categorically true that while "America deserved 9/11" is a statement of ethics, saying that you personally bless mass murder to prevent property destruction is incitement of violence.
chc 6y ago
These sorts of arguments always fall a bit flat with me for one simple reason: They assume a false causality. Our forbearance doesn't force others to reciprocate. If we try to stop people from encouraging the mass murder of protesters, sure, some people will look for ways to censor other ideas that I support. But if we don't oppose pro-murder propaganda, those people will still look for ways to censor ideas I support. When homophobia was the mainstream opinion, gay perspectives were commonly censored (in the sense we're talking about here of "powerful private parties not wanting to associate with them"). It seems pretty unrealistic to expect reciprocal generosity from someone who thinks protesters should be killed in the street, so I don't see how an argument based on ideas of "What if they did it to you?" could be persuasive.
- jlawson 6y ago
  By the same argument, you'd cheat and steal from literally anyone you could get away with cheating and stealing from. Because not doing it to them doesn't stop them from doing it to you. But this isn't really how it works. Forebearance actually does have value because it changes society as a whole, shifts expectations at a broad scale, and creates moral authority to demand better from others which is persuasive and powerful. At the end of the day, what kind of society do you want to live in? Will you contribute to making that society, or not?
  - chc 6y ago
    I think you have drastically misunderstood my argument. To use your analogy, let's say Bob is constantly stealing from you. You urgently need some essentials, and you say, "I know, I can steal them from Bob." But somebody stops you and says, "Wait, you don't want to do that! If you steal from Bob, he'll steal from you!" You would probably not find this persuasive, because you know Bob will steal from you regardless. There probably are good arguments you can make against stealing from Bob, but that particular one doesn't jibe with reality.
    - jlawson 6y ago
      Let's say your spouse is constantly criticizing you. You feel frustrated, so you criticize them as well. Someone stops you and says, "Wait, you should criticize them less. Then they'll feel less frustrated and might also criticize you less." And you can, and do, and with some decent faith on both sides you can de-escalate. This is basically marriage counseling. This is how relationships improve. You're framing this as a simple prisoner's dilemma problem with sharp-edged binary choices - but it's much more fluid than that in real life. The fluidity non-binaryness of this is even more apparent given it's millions of people we're talking about, over time lasting generations. If life really was a prisoner dilemma cooperation would be impossible.

thiskeyboard 6y ago

The full quote from Destiny—a liberal anti-racist, mind you—is: The rioting needs to fucking stop. If that means white redneck militia dudes mowing down dipshit protesters that think they can torch buildings at 10 PM, at this point they have my fucking blessing. Holy shit, this shit needs to stop. It needed to stop a long time ago. To the rest of us, he is expressing exacerbation that law enforcement is allowing chaos from one particular political faction. If you do believe in good faith that Destiny is actually "suggesting that we unilaterally kill innocent people", then do you believe that bluechecks on Twitter who freely speak in similar terms about White people are actually advocating for the slaughter/genocide of Whites?

gentleman11 6y ago
Wait, destiny is banned?
- lrae 6y ago
  No, iirc then he didn't get banned/temporary suspended for that comment. Twitch only decided to not do any direct business (partnership) with him anymore, so they unpartnered him. That means people can't subscribe to him anymore for a monthly fee and he can also not be tipped with Twitch's virtual tip currency. He also doesn't get any ad revenue split anymore. (And I think twitch is currently not running any ads on unaffiliated/unpartnered streams, not 100% sure about that.) He can still be tipped through third party services though. (Like streamlabs and streamelements) He's still allowed to stream, and now without contract, not exclusive anymore so that he also streams on Youtube and Facebook now I think. I think that is also something they should do with people who just got arrested. Distance yourself from them, but don't ban them. If it's severe enough then they won't be able to go live anymore anyway.
  - singron 6y ago
    He also runs independent subscriptions and chat on destiny.gg, his custom open-source website. I think his subs might have predated (2013) the general launch of twitch subscriptions (can't find the year), although some partners like day9 had subs on justin.tv as early as 2011. I'd guess it's one of the reasons he manages to stay afloat despite his regular controversies.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nitrogen 6y ago

Your second quote should be no more or less controversial than saying that any of the countries the US invaded afterward also deserved those invasions. 9/11 was, in part, blowback from previous American foreign policy. Interpreting that as saying that people deserve to be killed by terrorists is 1. confusing a country as a whole with its citizens as individuals and 2. an unrealistically literal interpretation of clear hyperbole. Interpreting common hyperbole literally is just as problematic as taking hyperbole to excess.

Pfhreak 6y ago
I think discussions about invasions and attacks, even if they are uncomfortable, is totally reasonable. I'll happily talk with you about why American Imperialism is bad until I'm blue in the face. I will say, when someone says we should attack civilians because of their government's foreign policy, I will say that crosses a line. It's unacceptable in my view. There's a huge gap between, "We should have uncomfortable discussions" and "those civilians deserved to die". And on the internet, it's really challenging to say what is hyperbole. Even if it was intended to be hyperbole, which is plausible, maybe it's a charged enough topic that one should choose a different (or more obviously) hyperbolic take.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  It's unacceptable in my view. Mine too, but it's standard rhetoric among a very, very large part (possibly a near-majority) of the US population. Tech companies are fueling that fire by showing that (from that perspective), yes, they really are the paternalistic coastal elites that the other half of the country suspected they were. Leaving aside the many ways in which this weapon of platform banning can be abused by future shifts in power -- Google, Twitter, AWS, and now Twitch are not helping the causes they claim to be helping with prominent bans, they are just building taller walls around the various echo chambers.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  By that logic "the use of atomic bombs in WWII was justified" should also be an unacceptable statement. ... I mean, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be unacceptable. Attacking civilians is pretty horrible and uncivilized. But is also is a common thread throughout most notable wars in the last 100 years or so.

mdoms 6y ago

Well, yes, these are controversial opinions. If they make you feel uncomfortable, that's fine - controversy does that. If you think anything that makes you feel uncomfortable should be illegal to say, then maybe you just don't care about free speech.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Pfhreak 6y ago
> If you think anything that makes you feel uncomfortable should be illegal to say... No one said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. > yes, these are controversial opinions That's a bit like calling a ghost pepper a "a bit spicy" and then when someone dislikes eating a whole one raw saying, "maybe you don't care for food with flavor?"
echelon 6y ago
A vocal subset of the people that are uncomfortable are jumping to censorship as a means to solve problems. Both the political left and right do it. They don't want to hear opposing ideas, and they're increasingly trying to tune it out, ban, and delete it. This is not healthy for a functioning democracy or individual liberty and freedom. Freedom of speech needs to remain absolute. Encroachments upon our rights endanger us all. (Honestly, we need freedom of privacy too. I wish we could roll back the clock and install amendments to enshrine these too.)