4 ms·

>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/censor

>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.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        Not sure you read what I wrote, or if you did you specifically ignored it to try and split hairs here to argue some point I never made. I originally said Musk’s purchase of Twitter was causing some prominent dems and progressives to defend censorship and speak against the value of free speech. DeSantis taking on Disney is doing the same sort of thing, causing some prominent dems to start defending sweetheart tax deals for large corps. These were once sacred values to the democrats. No need for whataboutism on this…I frankly don’t care about the GOP. Because those two ideals are damned important, I find it disturbing that the democrats are so quick to drop their values just to be contrarian. Leads me to believe that the values never meant much to them in the first place.
  - kcplate 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. I pointed out that the optics of the Reedy Creek repeal and some other recent events was causing some democrats to take public positions contrary to their platform history. I made no claim that the GOP was right or wrong here. Evaluating purely from a political tactic, if you can make your base happy and cause your opponents to disregard their long held beliefs to counter you, that is clever politics.

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.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      Not sure you read what I wrote, or if you did you specifically ignored it to try and split hairs here to argue some point I never made. I originally said Musk’s purchase of Twitter was causing some prominent dems and progressives to defend censorship and speak against the value of free speech. DeSantis taking on Disney is doing the same sort of thing, causing some prominent dems to start defending sweetheart tax deals for large corps. These were once sacred values to the democrats. No need for whataboutism on this…I frankly don’t care about the GOP. Because those two ideals are damned important, I find it disturbing that the democrats are so quick to drop their values just to be contrarian. Leads me to believe that the values never meant much to them in the first place.
- kcplate 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. I pointed out that the optics of the Reedy Creek repeal and some other recent events was causing some democrats to take public positions contrary to their platform history. I made no claim that the GOP was right or wrong here. Evaluating purely from a political tactic, if you can make your base happy and cause your opponents to disregard their long held beliefs to counter you, that is clever politics.