6 ms·

I'd guess this has something to do with the constant use of force. Don't want to take the vaccine? We'll find a way to make you Disagree with me politically o

I'd guess this has something to do with the constant use of force. Don't want to take the vaccine? We'll find a way to make you Disagree with me politically on Twitter? We'll look for your employer and coerce him into firing you Stay two weeks at home, by the way stay in two more weeks and it's been two years. Some places even had curfews (but then if it's a BLM protest we'll ignore the existence of the virus) We follow the science! (Except if the scientist disagrees with you. Check the interview with Don lemon and Sanjay Gupta when he's about to make a point about Joe Rogan. Lemon cuts him off and wont let him finish)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
atlantas 5y ago
This. I was a lifelong Democrat, but no longer. I am still gobsmacked with how they abandoned free speech, the working class, bodily autonomy, and turned science into religion. They've been captured by the Twitter laptop class.
- weberer 5y ago
  Why is this comment being flagged?
  - the_only_law 5y ago
    It was [flagged] it was [dead] which sometimes happens on new accounts for reasons I don’t quite understand. I thought it was to discourage throwaways, but others have noted they’ve created throwaways without the “auto-dead” behavior.
lalaland1125 5y ago
> Disagree with me politically on Twitter? We'll look for your employer and coerce him into firing you It seems really weird to blame the Democratic party for this or Democrats as a whole since this is completely unrelated to the government or administration or elected Democrat officials. Electing Republicans won't "fix" this for you at all. > Don't want to take the vaccine? We'll find a way to make you For interest's sake, are you consistent in wanting to remove all vaccine requirements, including for things like the measles vaccine?
- whatthesmack 5y ago
  Except that nearly 100% of political donations from Twitter employees go to Democrats, so it is Democrat-aligned people making the decision about who get silenced and who gets high visibility on Twitter, which influences the extremists that try to get people fired. Heck, Democrat politicians have directly advocated this sort of activity, including physical violence. Electing Republicans might get Section 230 updated to require platforms to be platforms and not a mix of all the benefits of platforms and none of the downsides of being publishers that are not neutral in silencing certain perspectives.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    Section 230 has nothing to do with the whole "cancellation" stuff. You still haven't mentioned anything that would result in less "cancellation" if Republicans were in power. Also, I don't know why you are so eager to prevent platforms from performing moderation. Section 230 is quite simple, it means that social media companies can moderate without being responsible for their user's content. No free social media company can feasibly moderate all of their user's content, the math simply doesn't work out in terms of moderation effort per dollar in advertising revenue. Companies would have to stop moderating. The removal of 230 would lead to the total destruction of social media in the tech industry as consumers don't want to go on unmoderated platforms like 4chan. A lot of this anti-230 stuff feels like 4chan users angry that the general public doesn't like 4chan and are thus demanding that the government ban all of 4chan's competitors.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > A lot of this anti-230 stuff feels like 4chan users angry that the general public doesn't like 4chan and are thus demanding that the government ban all of 4chan's competitors. It doesn't just feel like it, Republicans passing state-level “lets try to work around 230” laws have had them enjoined on First Amendment grounds supported by their explicit statements of pretty much exactly the attitude you describe as the motivation for the laws.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
JaimeThompson 5y ago
Why do people pretend that what they call "cancel culture" is new and hasn't been pushed by lots of groups for decades? The religious right used it all the time after all.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  While "cancelling" as a phenomenon isn't new, the methods and scope of what constitutes modern "cancel culture" is much more vicious and far-reaching than mere ostracism or the oft-referenced "showing someone the door".
  - JaimeThompson 5y ago
    Projects like this have been going on for years https://www.professorwatchlist.org/ https://www.professorwatchlist.org/
- JadoJodo 5y ago
  As a conservative-leaning person, I've pondered this juxtaposition before and come to the following conclusion: The religious right says, "We don't like what Disney/Home Depot/Google/etc. are doing, and so we're telling all of our friends to boycott them if they also hold those values". "Cancel culture" says, "We don't like what you, Joe Schmoe, are doing. As a result, we're going to tell Disney/Amazon/Google/etc. to boycott you and make you unemployable."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    This doesn't seem accurate. For example, The Dixie Chick backlash involved listeners calling radio stations and telling them to blacklist their music[1]: > The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by thousands of country radio stations. On May 6, Colorado radio station KKCS suspended two DJs for playing their music. WTDR-FM in Talladega, Alabama, dropped the Dixie Chicks after more than 250 listeners called on a single day to complain about Maines's comments. That's not to mention the baying for blood that happened in the early 2000s when anyone came out against the Iraq War[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy [2] http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/july/19/silencing-war-criticism-the-iraq-invasion-of-2003/ http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2...
b0sk 5y ago
- chasd00 5y ago
  My employer sent me an email last November that said upload proof of vaccination or your employment will be terminated. That's what people have a problem with. I'm well aware there are professions like teaching that require vaccination status as part of getting hired but you know that ahead of time. I'm 45 and can't remember a time when the US government used private industry as a proxy to push their agenda when they knew full well it wouldn't pass through the normal law making process.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

atlantas 5y ago

This. I was a lifelong Democrat, but no longer. I am still gobsmacked with how they abandoned free speech, the working class, bodily autonomy, and turned science into religion. They've been captured by the Twitter laptop class.

weberer 5y ago
Why is this comment being flagged?
- the_only_law 5y ago
  It was [flagged] it was [dead] which sometimes happens on new accounts for reasons I don’t quite understand. I thought it was to discourage throwaways, but others have noted they’ve created throwaways without the “auto-dead” behavior.

lalaland1125 5y ago

> Disagree with me politically on Twitter? We'll look for your employer and coerce him into firing you It seems really weird to blame the Democratic party for this or Democrats as a whole since this is completely unrelated to the government or administration or elected Democrat officials. Electing Republicans won't "fix" this for you at all. > Don't want to take the vaccine? We'll find a way to make you For interest's sake, are you consistent in wanting to remove all vaccine requirements, including for things like the measles vaccine?

whatthesmack 5y ago
Except that nearly 100% of political donations from Twitter employees go to Democrats, so it is Democrat-aligned people making the decision about who get silenced and who gets high visibility on Twitter, which influences the extremists that try to get people fired. Heck, Democrat politicians have directly advocated this sort of activity, including physical violence. Electing Republicans might get Section 230 updated to require platforms to be platforms and not a mix of all the benefits of platforms and none of the downsides of being publishers that are not neutral in silencing certain perspectives.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  Section 230 has nothing to do with the whole "cancellation" stuff. You still haven't mentioned anything that would result in less "cancellation" if Republicans were in power. Also, I don't know why you are so eager to prevent platforms from performing moderation. Section 230 is quite simple, it means that social media companies can moderate without being responsible for their user's content. No free social media company can feasibly moderate all of their user's content, the math simply doesn't work out in terms of moderation effort per dollar in advertising revenue. Companies would have to stop moderating. The removal of 230 would lead to the total destruction of social media in the tech industry as consumers don't want to go on unmoderated platforms like 4chan. A lot of this anti-230 stuff feels like 4chan users angry that the general public doesn't like 4chan and are thus demanding that the government ban all of 4chan's competitors.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > A lot of this anti-230 stuff feels like 4chan users angry that the general public doesn't like 4chan and are thus demanding that the government ban all of 4chan's competitors. It doesn't just feel like it, Republicans passing state-level “lets try to work around 230” laws have had them enjoined on First Amendment grounds supported by their explicit statements of pretty much exactly the attitude you describe as the motivation for the laws.
- dragonwriter 5y ago

JaimeThompson 5y ago

Why do people pretend that what they call "cancel culture" is new and hasn't been pushed by lots of groups for decades? The religious right used it all the time after all.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
While "cancelling" as a phenomenon isn't new, the methods and scope of what constitutes modern "cancel culture" is much more vicious and far-reaching than mere ostracism or the oft-referenced "showing someone the door".
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  Projects like this have been going on for years https://www.professorwatchlist.org/ https://www.professorwatchlist.org/
JadoJodo 5y ago
As a conservative-leaning person, I've pondered this juxtaposition before and come to the following conclusion: The religious right says, "We don't like what Disney/Home Depot/Google/etc. are doing, and so we're telling all of our friends to boycott them if they also hold those values". "Cancel culture" says, "We don't like what you, Joe Schmoe, are doing. As a result, we're going to tell Disney/Amazon/Google/etc. to boycott you and make you unemployable."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  This doesn't seem accurate. For example, The Dixie Chick backlash involved listeners calling radio stations and telling them to blacklist their music[1]: > The Dixie Chicks were blacklisted by thousands of country radio stations. On May 6, Colorado radio station KKCS suspended two DJs for playing their music. WTDR-FM in Talladega, Alabama, dropped the Dixie Chicks after more than 250 listeners called on a single day to complain about Maines's comments. That's not to mention the baying for blood that happened in the early 2000s when anyone came out against the Iraq War[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy [2] http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/july/19/silencing-war-criticism-the-iraq-invasion-of-2003/ http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2...

b0sk 5y ago

chasd00 5y ago
My employer sent me an email last November that said upload proof of vaccination or your employment will be terminated. That's what people have a problem with. I'm well aware there are professions like teaching that require vaccination status as part of getting hired but you know that ahead of time. I'm 45 and can't remember a time when the US government used private industry as a proxy to push their agenda when they knew full well it wouldn't pass through the normal law making process.