3 ms·

1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, b

1. The big reveal in that article is "No we're not ready to do that yet". Legally yes it may be a freedom of speech issue because it's at a public university, but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. 2. Sorry can't view due to paywall, couldn't find an archive 3. You can be arrested in many liberal towns for public indecency. I don't support evangelicals argument against pornography using obscenity but it's not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent. 4. Same point as above. Note that the main difference of these events are the severity and scale. It's many national level Democrats coordinating to censor political speech on a private platform by creating a fake "whistleblower" vs some kneeling at a basketball game or porn laws. I agree that those few Republicans are wrong, but their suggestions aren't the majority in the party and they won't get far. Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign.

shadowgovt 5y ago
> Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign. Can you support the claim that Frances Haugen is a "fake whistleblower" created as part of a Democrat party censorship campaign with evidence?
- hunterb123 5y ago
  They would provide no evidence, sorry, I can only offer you common sense. She's a long time liberal activist and the Democrats had this whole shit show ready to go at the same time she came out. There is evidence that they are doing a censorship campaign, by their calls for censorship.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    I don't think that's enough signal to disambiguate "coordinate use of a 'fake whistleblower' against Facebook" from simple fortune. Some members of the Democratic party want to rein in Facebook and other big-tech companies; of that I have no doubt. But "big tech" in general has been shedding whistle-blowers for years now as individuals find their consciences no longer let them play the game... My 'common sense' tells me if it weren't Frances Haugen, it'd have been someone else.
zenithd 5y ago
> but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. "No one wants to hear the things that the people I disagree with say, so laws preventing them from saying those things aren't really censorship." > not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent. "The things my opponents say aren't as important as the things I want to say, so censoring me is worse than censoring them." > but their suggestions aren't the majority in the party and they won't get far. Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign. "My side always loses and the other side is evil and always gets their way, so even if there are dark instincts on my side we should be worried more about the other side."
- hunterb123 5y ago
  > "No one wants to hear the things that the people I disagree with say, so laws preventing them from saying those things aren't really censorship." There's a difference between protesting at a town square and kneeling at a paid game. Again I don't really support what these state senators are doing (though they said they WEREN'T going to btw, so what are we talking about?) > "The things my opponents say aren't as important as the things I want to say, so censoring me is worse than censoring them." Being able to jack off to a certain site online vs shutting down political dissenters can be compared and I can find one more important than the other. That being said, I don't support porn laws and it represents a minority in the party. Evangelicals have a lot less power these days. > "My side always loses and the other side is evil and always gets their way, so even if there are dark instincts on my side we should be worried more about the other side." That's not what I said. I said they aren't the majority, EVEN IN THEIR OWN PARTY. Yes some evangelical R's do cross the line with the puritan crap, that doesn't represent the majority nor can it be COMPARED TO SHUTTING DOWN POLITICAL DISSENT.

shadowgovt 5y ago

> Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign. Can you support the claim that Frances Haugen is a "fake whistleblower" created as part of a Democrat party censorship campaign with evidence?

hunterb123 5y ago
They would provide no evidence, sorry, I can only offer you common sense. She's a long time liberal activist and the Democrats had this whole shit show ready to go at the same time she came out. There is evidence that they are doing a censorship campaign, by their calls for censorship.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I don't think that's enough signal to disambiguate "coordinate use of a 'fake whistleblower' against Facebook" from simple fortune. Some members of the Democratic party want to rein in Facebook and other big-tech companies; of that I have no doubt. But "big tech" in general has been shedding whistle-blowers for years now as individuals find their consciences no longer let them play the game... My 'common sense' tells me if it weren't Frances Haugen, it'd have been someone else.

zenithd 5y ago

> but who wants political stunts at a game. The audience doesn't, no real debate is happening. Not the same scale as political dissent censorship. "No one wants to hear the things that the people I disagree with say, so laws preventing them from saying those things aren't really censorship." > not exactly a great comparison against the censorship of political dissent. "The things my opponents say aren't as important as the things I want to say, so censoring me is worse than censoring them." > but their suggestions aren't the majority in the party and they won't get far. Conversely, the Democrat party as a whole is currently and successfully crafting a censorship campaign. "My side always loses and the other side is evil and always gets their way, so even if there are dark instincts on my side we should be worried more about the other side."

hunterb123 5y ago
> "No one wants to hear the things that the people I disagree with say, so laws preventing them from saying those things aren't really censorship." There's a difference between protesting at a town square and kneeling at a paid game. Again I don't really support what these state senators are doing (though they said they WEREN'T going to btw, so what are we talking about?) > "The things my opponents say aren't as important as the things I want to say, so censoring me is worse than censoring them." Being able to jack off to a certain site online vs shutting down political dissenters can be compared and I can find one more important than the other. That being said, I don't support porn laws and it represents a minority in the party. Evangelicals have a lot less power these days. > "My side always loses and the other side is evil and always gets their way, so even if there are dark instincts on my side we should be worried more about the other side." That's not what I said. I said they aren't the majority, EVEN IN THEIR OWN PARTY. Yes some evangelical R's do cross the line with the puritan crap, that doesn't represent the majority nor can it be COMPARED TO SHUTTING DOWN POLITICAL DISSENT.