5 ms·

Is it too much to ask that we don't add to that set?

by jakear 4y ago

tayo42 4y ago
[flagged]
- jakear 4y ago
  Were an individual legitimately trying to make a point, they would come up with an example not already in the set.
  - tayo42 4y ago
    We've decided that speech that is harmful is not allowed. Encouraging people to not get a vaccine we decided is harmful speech. Like telling you to kill your self, or the yelling fire in a theater. Are you not OK with that example of speech though? Dangerous speech seems to make you uncomfortable no?
    - goatlover 4y ago
      Wouldn't it depend on the demographic? Covid was not equally deadly among all ages and groups. Is it wrong to point out that the risk is significantly lower for the young and healthy? And what if it's experts questioning policies such as keeping lower income students home? Or the effectiveness of masking mandates beyond a certain point or situations of low risk like being outdoors?
      - tayo42 4y ago
        Your missing the point. The people posting on Twitter are just riling up, a virtual riot. You want to discuss it, do it calmy and write soemthing well thought out with sources.
        jakear 4y ago
        Like here, where someone posting a literal screenshot of the CDC's own data was deemed "misleading" and prohibited from being interacted with? https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F444fffb7-6da9-4fba-af5e-4eb3c347cdbd_970x1600.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
        tayo42 4y ago
        Like you said to me, make a clear point. This is a screen shot without any context. How am I supposed to respond?
        jakear 4y ago
        The context is in the article, which that image is pulled from. The image itself directly contradicts your claim: "The people posting on Twitter are just riling up, a virtual riot. You want to discuss it, do it calmy and write soemthing well thought out with sources", as an example of a well thought out, sourced, discussion that was nonetheless prohibited for not aligning with Central Authority's directives. My argument, as it has been this entire thread, is that the Government should not be pressuring companies to prohibit such discussions. Since you asked, I recommend you respond with a counterargument supporting the Governments prohibition of the linked content. That said, this is already too much beating of a dead thread for me. I don't expect to be able to convince you that the Government shouldn't be in control of how people are allowed to talk, and you certainly wont convince me of the opposite. Good day.
        tayo42 4y ago
        Where was the government involved? > Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet, Which then was reviewed by some support staff. This is actually all in the article What you read is misinformation designed to muddy the water and get you riled up by making this look partisan. You and others are falling for it. This article is intentially being emotional like this.
    - jakear 4y ago
      > Encouraging people to not get a vaccine we decided is harmful speech. Who is "we"? I sure as hell haven't decided that. The supreme court hasn't either, unlike in the examples you mention. And my only discomfort with your example sprung from its severe lack of adroitness. My prior response could be roughly translated to "try harder".
      - tayo42 4y ago
        Why do you think you get to decide what is harmful. What is your credential? Are you an elected policy maker, publish anything about vaccines or virus? Just another shit talker on a message board?
        jakear 4y ago
        Why do you think you get to decide? Based on the content the Government has allowed you to see. My statement is in line with what a Harvard professor of epidemiology stated^, so that's something. Of course, you wouldn't know about that if you only looked at what the Government said you're allowed to. ^ https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcdec26eb-9d2f-47c5-a5f4-f647c4758da9_1378x1600.jpeg https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
        tayo42 4y ago
        I haven't decided anything. Idk where you got that idea from. Why did you pick that specific guy from Harvard and not others? Because its inline with your own bias? How come you aren't listening to others? How come you aren't listening to all of them? Idk why you all have this idea that policy is being made on twitter. How many local politicians did you talk to?
        Zpalmtree 4y ago
        just trust the experts bro
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Please stay within the rules as outlined by the guidelines. Thanks!

Is it too much to ask that we don't add to that set?

by jakear 4y ago

Is it too much to ask that we don't add to that set?

tayo42 4y ago

[flagged]

jakear 4y ago
Were an individual legitimately trying to make a point, they would come up with an example not already in the set.
- tayo42 4y ago
  We've decided that speech that is harmful is not allowed. Encouraging people to not get a vaccine we decided is harmful speech. Like telling you to kill your self, or the yelling fire in a theater. Are you not OK with that example of speech though? Dangerous speech seems to make you uncomfortable no?
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Wouldn't it depend on the demographic? Covid was not equally deadly among all ages and groups. Is it wrong to point out that the risk is significantly lower for the young and healthy? And what if it's experts questioning policies such as keeping lower income students home? Or the effectiveness of masking mandates beyond a certain point or situations of low risk like being outdoors?
    - tayo42 4y ago
      Your missing the point. The people posting on Twitter are just riling up, a virtual riot. You want to discuss it, do it calmy and write soemthing well thought out with sources.
      - jakear 4y ago
        Like here, where someone posting a literal screenshot of the CDC's own data was deemed "misleading" and prohibited from being interacted with? https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F444fffb7-6da9-4fba-af5e-4eb3c347cdbd_970x1600.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
        tayo42 4y ago
        Like you said to me, make a clear point. This is a screen shot without any context. How am I supposed to respond?
        jakear 4y ago
        The context is in the article, which that image is pulled from. The image itself directly contradicts your claim: "The people posting on Twitter are just riling up, a virtual riot. You want to discuss it, do it calmy and write soemthing well thought out with sources", as an example of a well thought out, sourced, discussion that was nonetheless prohibited for not aligning with Central Authority's directives. My argument, as it has been this entire thread, is that the Government should not be pressuring companies to prohibit such discussions. Since you asked, I recommend you respond with a counterargument supporting the Governments prohibition of the linked content. That said, this is already too much beating of a dead thread for me. I don't expect to be able to convince you that the Government shouldn't be in control of how people are allowed to talk, and you certainly wont convince me of the opposite. Good day.
        tayo42 4y ago
        Where was the government involved? > Internal records showed that a bot had flagged the tweet, Which then was reviewed by some support staff. This is actually all in the article What you read is misinformation designed to muddy the water and get you riled up by making this look partisan. You and others are falling for it. This article is intentially being emotional like this.
  - jakear 4y ago
    > Encouraging people to not get a vaccine we decided is harmful speech. Who is "we"? I sure as hell haven't decided that. The supreme court hasn't either, unlike in the examples you mention. And my only discomfort with your example sprung from its severe lack of adroitness. My prior response could be roughly translated to "try harder".
    - tayo42 4y ago
      Why do you think you get to decide what is harmful. What is your credential? Are you an elected policy maker, publish anything about vaccines or virus? Just another shit talker on a message board?
      - jakear 4y ago
        Why do you think you get to decide? Based on the content the Government has allowed you to see. My statement is in line with what a Harvard professor of epidemiology stated^, so that's something. Of course, you wouldn't know about that if you only looked at what the Government said you're allowed to. ^ https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcdec26eb-9d2f-47c5-a5f4-f647c4758da9_1378x1600.jpeg https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...
        tayo42 4y ago
        I haven't decided anything. Idk where you got that idea from. Why did you pick that specific guy from Harvard and not others? Because its inline with your own bias? How come you aren't listening to others? How come you aren't listening to all of them? Idk why you all have this idea that policy is being made on twitter. How many local politicians did you talk to?
      - Zpalmtree 4y ago
        just trust the experts bro
jacquesm 4y ago
Please stay within the rules as outlined by the guidelines. Thanks!