5 ms·
Galileo wasn't really under house arrest. All he had to do was recant. The comparison seems apt because while the magnitude of the punishment is out of proport
by ohCh6zos 4y ago
Galileo wasn't really under house arrest. All he had to do was recant.
The comparison seems apt because while the magnitude of the punishment is out of proportion the refusal to yield to orthodoxy by taking the simple way out is similar.
- socialismisok 4y agoBabylon Bee isn't under house arrest. This analogy is absurd. They weren't allowed to target hate towards a specific, named individual on their Twitter account. Everything else they were saying was more or less ok. And they still had plenty of other outlets, including their very successful website. This is like a single book publisher telling Galileo, "we won't print this one page, but the rest of the book is ok".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- readthenotes1 4y agoIf I recall correctly, they were suspended for saying that that specific named individual one man of the Year award. That doesn't seem very hateful, although it may seem derisive. There is a difference. Did it go beyond that?
- socialismisok 4y agoIt's hateful in the sense that it's very derisive in the culture of the target and Babylon Bee has a large enough audience that the individual is likely to receive targeted threats as a result. Reach and influence are important, because they impact the magnitude of what a derisive comment can do to a target. You saying, "lol, man!" In your living room has no reach, it won't cause harm. The Bee saying it has huge reach, and when aimed at a specific minority individual can lead to serious harm.
- chudmeister 4y agoNone of these authoritarian excuses matter. They can say what they want about who they want now.
- socialismisok 4y agoModeration is not authoritarianism.
- xigoi 4y agoIf you use moderation as a tool to push your ideology, sure it is.
- socialismisok 4y agoIf your ideology is printed in the rules before you enter, and you agree to respect those rules before entering, and the rules are things like "don't target individuals with racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc" it's really not authoritarianism. I can't yell in a library, the librarians aren't authoritarian. I know going in that libraries aren't the place for that.
- xigoi 4y agoExcept Twitter does allow racism against whites. So its rules are not “don't target individuals with racism”, but “don't target non-white people with racism”, which sends a clear ideological message. Same with other demographics.
- caeril 4y ago> derisive in the culture of the target > the individual is likely to receive targeted threats as a result. Obvious and simple solution here: 1. Allow people to say whatever offensive jokes they want. 2. Keep banning the actual problem: those who make the targeted threats. The entire concept of "incitement" is ridiculous. We have agency. Nobody can force me to go threaten someone. Go after the ones who commit actual harm, not the ones who make jokes.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nemo44x 4y agoThey targeted a public person who exists at the upper echelons of power and privilege. For a group of people so obsessed with comedy only “punching up” it’s ironic to see the justification.
- space_fountain 4y agoDid they target her or did they target the idea of being trans? > where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman > We have still chosen to give the award as his self-identification has no bearing on the truth If you attack a successful member of a minority group based on their minority you still aren't punching up, sorry.
- fknorangesite 4y ago> Did they target him Her.
- space_fountain 4y agoGah, but thanks
- space_fountain 4y agoThey didn’t have to say their tweet was wrong right? Just that it violated their rules, which it did