3 ms·

> All of the liberals celebrating Disney's imminent "victory" are completely missing this bigger picture. The optics of this…and things like the Musk/Twitter h

> All of the liberals celebrating Disney's imminent "victory" are completely missing this bigger picture. The optics of this…and things like the Musk/Twitter hand wringing serves a single purpose: It’s forcing the Democratic Party to start making 180 degree public shifts of some of their classic positions on things like large corporate sweetheart deals and limits on free speech/censorship. Right now, the progressive left and the Democratic Party seems to more closely resemble the moral majority right of the ‘80s and ‘90s than the Democratic Party of the last 50 years at least in adherence to a specific dogma with very little if any tolerance for contrary opinion. I think its sad. Its driving liberals out of the Democratic Party because this new breed of progressive leftist is definitely not liberal.

lisper 5y ago
I probably shouldn't be responding to this because it's skating dangerously close to the HN prohibition on political discussion (if we haven't already crossed that line) but I have to say that from where I sit most of the intolerance for dissent in the Democratic party seems to me to be coming from the left and not the center.
- kcplate 5y ago
  If I wasn’t clear…that was my point as well.
LordDragonfang 5y ago
>It’s forcing the Democratic Party to start making 180 degree public shifts of some of their classic positions on things like [...] limits on free speech/censorship. [...] Its driving liberals out of the Democratic Party I'm unclear on what you're trying to express here. "Free speech" is a liberal value, and the topic at hand is an anti-free-speech, pro-censorship bill by the opposing party. It seems one of these two things don't match.
- kcplate 5y ago
  I was referring to the numerous stories I have seen in the media by left leaning pundits since Musk’s offer arguing censorship as a “good thing”.
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    I'm pointing out that it's weird to act as if it's a "Democrat" thing in a thread about literal, state mandated censorship on the other side. This is a personal bugbear of mine, but almost everyone actually agrees that "censorship" is a good thing, they just call it "moderation" when they happen to agree with what is being censored. The two terms are fundamentally synonyms with different connotations, and there's no agreed upon line as to which is which. Even free speech "absolutists" generally agree that some types of speech that should not be allowed (spam, child porn, and "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" being the three most common examples). The culture war isn't over whether limitations on speech are good, it's an argument over what should be censored, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      >spam, child porn, and "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" being the three most common examples. Two of your three are not free speech issues—-spam is completely legal in the US. Child porn is not, but not because speech limitations but because it victimizes and is violence against children. One (yelling fire in a crowded theater) is brought out pretty regularly as a legal limit on free speech…but technically it isn’t against the law. It’s an emotional reasoning why you might consider limiting free speech, but if I walked into a theater and yelled fire, I would not be prosecuted for what I said.
      - LordDragonfang 5y ago
        GP specifically brought up twitter, so it's clear we're not talking about the US legal concept of free speech, but rather the more poorly defined, nebulous "free speech" that (let's face it) most internet discussions are about. Talking about what you will and will not get arrested for isn't relevant in a discussion that is ultimately about moderation policies on twitter.

lisper 5y ago

I probably shouldn't be responding to this because it's skating dangerously close to the HN prohibition on political discussion (if we haven't already crossed that line) but I have to say that from where I sit most of the intolerance for dissent in the Democratic party seems to me to be coming from the left and not the center.

kcplate 5y ago
If I wasn’t clear…that was my point as well.

LordDragonfang 5y ago

>It’s forcing the Democratic Party to start making 180 degree public shifts of some of their classic positions on things like [...] limits on free speech/censorship. [...] Its driving liberals out of the Democratic Party I'm unclear on what you're trying to express here. "Free speech" is a liberal value, and the topic at hand is an anti-free-speech, pro-censorship bill by the opposing party. It seems one of these two things don't match.

kcplate 5y ago
I was referring to the numerous stories I have seen in the media by left leaning pundits since Musk’s offer arguing censorship as a “good thing”.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  I'm pointing out that it's weird to act as if it's a "Democrat" thing in a thread about literal, state mandated censorship on the other side. This is a personal bugbear of mine, but almost everyone actually agrees that "censorship" is a good thing, they just call it "moderation" when they happen to agree with what is being censored. The two terms are fundamentally synonyms with different connotations, and there's no agreed upon line as to which is which. Even free speech "absolutists" generally agree that some types of speech that should not be allowed (spam, child porn, and "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" being the three most common examples). The culture war isn't over whether limitations on speech are good, it's an argument over what should be censored, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    >spam, child porn, and "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" being the three most common examples. Two of your three are not free speech issues—-spam is completely legal in the US. Child porn is not, but not because speech limitations but because it victimizes and is violence against children. One (yelling fire in a crowded theater) is brought out pretty regularly as a legal limit on free speech…but technically it isn’t against the law. It’s an emotional reasoning why you might consider limiting free speech, but if I walked into a theater and yelled fire, I would not be prosecuted for what I said.
    - LordDragonfang 5y ago
      GP specifically brought up twitter, so it's clear we're not talking about the US legal concept of free speech, but rather the more poorly defined, nebulous "free speech" that (let's face it) most internet discussions are about. Talking about what you will and will not get arrested for isn't relevant in a discussion that is ultimately about moderation policies on twitter.