5 ms·

<< Are you advocating for eugenics? eugenics - the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable chara

<< Are you advocating for eugenics? eugenics - the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will. << Who's going into an existential crisis? You are. You chase people with 'wrong ideas' away. You cannot co-exist with an idea that somehow is not one that you believe in, which is why you equate existence of an idea next to you with your passive acceptance of that idea, which is ridiculous. Ideas exist regardless of whether you accept them or not. It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist. Hell. I am this close to arguing with you on behalf of flat earthers, because I am almost certain based on the conversation so far you are the type of person, who would have sent Gallileo to jail for heresy.

phailhaus 4y ago
> I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will. What are the "warning labels" on believing that the Earth is flat? > It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist. Not sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about. Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs. If you get offended by that and run away to form your own community, thats your problem. You can't force me to pretend as if Flat Earth is a reasonable idea. We're thousands of years past that point. I really don't understand your position. You are simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are being ignored, but also seem to think they should die.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  <<They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted. Your assertion is not valid. Your attempt at characterization and framing is misleading. They did not 'walk out'. They were either banned, shadow banned, or w/e current equivalent in a given community of removed is. As a result of said banning, they formed their own communities. Your entire premise is flawed from misrepresentation of that one key element. <<I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs. We are in agreement. Note that the same applies to others. Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere. << You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about. It is not a straw man. You saying 'flat earthers' just picked up their toys and went away is, however, a lie. I am just calling it out. << I really don't understand your position. I don't like misrepresentation of simple facts, but bold misstatements like those above require corrections. <<You are simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are being ignored, but also seem to think they should die. I will defend idiot's right to say stupid stuff. I have no problem with an idiot dying. It is not some sort of mystery.
  - phailhaus 4y ago
    > Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere. No they don't, full stop. You don't own Twitter, you don't own YouTube, you don't own any of these platforms. Flat Earthers can say whatever the hell they want, but they don't have the "right" to force YouTube to carry their speech. It is a simple fact that these bans are effective at preventing toxic behavior and fringe conspiracy theories from spreading.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      << No they don't, full stop. Hey now.. are you saying they got kicked out from <platforms>? Because that would put us halfway there. I would still disagree with you on a host of other issues, but at least you would admit your initial statement was not accurate ( paraphrased as 'they left to form their own communities'). Also, who made you the authority of who gets to be toxic and who is not? I find you toxic. Do I get to ban you? I don't like your fringe theory on 'fringe conspiracy theories spreading' spreading any further.. Do you see how ridiculous it gets and how fast this argument ends up in absurd situation we are currently in? Do I really need to spell out why it is a really, really bad idea to go down the rabbit hole you suggest? << You don't own Twitter, Musk does. Are you ok with with the toxic rules he imposes? Again, do you really want to go down this rabbit hole? late edit: << It is a simple fact that these bans are effective at preventing toxic behavior and fringe conspiracy theories from spreading. It is, at best, an assertion. You don't believe me? Look at Biden's laptop saga. The downright moronic attempts to shut it down in this panicky fashion only reinforced the belief that it must be true, because it was being clamped down so hard and NOW, partially, thanks to your asserted, proclaimed and clearly enforced wisdom, we get to see at least two year show of House hearings on it. Great Job! So yeah, so very effective.
      - phailhaus 4y ago
        > Do I really need to spell out why it is a really, really bad idea to go down the rabbit hole you suggest? You should! Where does the rabbit hole of "platforms get to choose what they ban" lead us? Are you suggesting that a YouTube channel is a human right now? > You don't believe me? Look at Biden's laptop saga Here's the problem: your thesis assumes that these groups are acting in good faith. They are not. The GOP has repeatedly stated that they will impeach the president over anything, regardless of if it's true or not. Remember Benghazi? Remember how Trump pressured Ukraine to open up any investigation into Biden? He didn't care if it was real, he needed the headlines and the political edge. There is no universe in which they go "oh nevermind, we were wrong about the laptop." It is in their interest to ignore facts. And here you are, suggesting that the solution is simply to make it more public as if it has any credence. Should we also widely disseminate QAnon literature and talking points, simply because they exist?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs. What I'm wondering is why you think that you're the host.

phailhaus 4y ago

> I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will. What are the "warning labels" on believing that the Earth is flat? > It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist. Not sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about. Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs. If you get offended by that and run away to form your own community, thats your problem. You can't force me to pretend as if Flat Earth is a reasonable idea. We're thousands of years past that point. I really don't understand your position. You are simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are being ignored, but also seem to think they should die.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<<They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted. Your assertion is not valid. Your attempt at characterization and framing is misleading. They did not 'walk out'. They were either banned, shadow banned, or w/e current equivalent in a given community of removed is. As a result of said banning, they formed their own communities. Your entire premise is flawed from misrepresentation of that one key element. <<I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs. We are in agreement. Note that the same applies to others. Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere. << You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about. It is not a straw man. You saying 'flat earthers' just picked up their toys and went away is, however, a lie. I am just calling it out. << I really don't understand your position. I don't like misrepresentation of simple facts, but bold misstatements like those above require corrections. <<You are simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are being ignored, but also seem to think they should die. I will defend idiot's right to say stupid stuff. I have no problem with an idiot dying. It is not some sort of mystery.
- phailhaus 4y ago
  > Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere. No they don't, full stop. You don't own Twitter, you don't own YouTube, you don't own any of these platforms. Flat Earthers can say whatever the hell they want, but they don't have the "right" to force YouTube to carry their speech. It is a simple fact that these bans are effective at preventing toxic behavior and fringe conspiracy theories from spreading.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    << No they don't, full stop. Hey now.. are you saying they got kicked out from <platforms>? Because that would put us halfway there. I would still disagree with you on a host of other issues, but at least you would admit your initial statement was not accurate ( paraphrased as 'they left to form their own communities'). Also, who made you the authority of who gets to be toxic and who is not? I find you toxic. Do I get to ban you? I don't like your fringe theory on 'fringe conspiracy theories spreading' spreading any further.. Do you see how ridiculous it gets and how fast this argument ends up in absurd situation we are currently in? Do I really need to spell out why it is a really, really bad idea to go down the rabbit hole you suggest? << You don't own Twitter, Musk does. Are you ok with with the toxic rules he imposes? Again, do you really want to go down this rabbit hole? late edit: << It is a simple fact that these bans are effective at preventing toxic behavior and fringe conspiracy theories from spreading. It is, at best, an assertion. You don't believe me? Look at Biden's laptop saga. The downright moronic attempts to shut it down in this panicky fashion only reinforced the belief that it must be true, because it was being clamped down so hard and NOW, partially, thanks to your asserted, proclaimed and clearly enforced wisdom, we get to see at least two year show of House hearings on it. Great Job! So yeah, so very effective.
    - phailhaus 4y ago
      > Do I really need to spell out why it is a really, really bad idea to go down the rabbit hole you suggest? You should! Where does the rabbit hole of "platforms get to choose what they ban" lead us? Are you suggesting that a YouTube channel is a human right now? > You don't believe me? Look at Biden's laptop saga Here's the problem: your thesis assumes that these groups are acting in good faith. They are not. The GOP has repeatedly stated that they will impeach the president over anything, regardless of if it's true or not. Remember Benghazi? Remember how Trump pressured Ukraine to open up any investigation into Biden? He didn't care if it was real, he needed the headlines and the political edge. There is no universe in which they go "oh nevermind, we were wrong about the laptop." It is in their interest to ignore facts. And here you are, suggesting that the solution is simply to make it more public as if it has any credence. Should we also widely disseminate QAnon literature and talking points, simply because they exist?
pessimizer 4y ago
> Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs. What I'm wondering is why you think that you're the host.