6 ms·

Eh, it’s usually the rhetoric that’s appalling, then traced back to the right, not the other way around. If you could give an example of rhetoric that is suppr

Eh, it’s usually the rhetoric that’s appalling, then traced back to the right, not the other way around. If you could give an example of rhetoric that is suppressed because it’s “right wing”, that would be helpful.

account42 4y ago
If you see a problem with some rethoric itself then surely you can argue against it direcly, no? Then what's the point of calling something a "right-wing rhetoric" other than to label the speaker as part of the out group and thus not worth listening to.
minsc_and_boo 4y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted - you're right. It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. It's people telling their viewers to harass Sandyhook parents, or participate in a violent insurrection, or something similar that gets censored. Playing the victim card without acknowledging TOS violations is intentionally misleading.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  Right, nobody (AFAIK) has been banned from Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. for espousing Laissez-faire economic policies.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. When cancel culture was running amok, people were getting fired/reprimanded/harassed for advocating nonviolent protests over riots, for using Chinese words that sound vaguely like an English racial slur, for interviewing Black Americans whose opinions differ slightly from the official narrative about what a Black American ought to think, for throwing a geisha-themed party for your young daughter, for wearing a prom dress inspired by a traditional Chinese aesthetic, etc. None of these are remotely right-wing offenses. This is the whole problem--the left harms people whose actions/opinions are well within the Overton Window and upon criticism, they retreat to some variation of "we're just opposing objectively horrible people!". This whole game hurts left-wing credibility and it easier for far-right viewpoints to enter the mainstream (is so-and-so an actual Nazi or are they just failing to completely toe the left-wing party line?). It's also just shitty behavior that makes people angry and pushes them rightward, and it does nothing to help left-wing causes.
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    When people say reprehensible things, they receive an amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is reasonable). The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up. If your expectation is that 50% of backlash would be left leaning and 50% would be right leaning, I don't think that's reasonable, but if you think the backlash is because someone is conservative generally, you'd be mistaken. There are a great many conservatives who can make their ideological arguments comfortably without being offensive. Conservative ideology isn't inherently offensive, but specific human beings say specific things that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > When people say reprehensible things, they receive an amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is reasonable). And also when people say not reprehensible things. > The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up. Then it's strange that it's been intimately connected with looming war against Russia and China, so many intelligence agencies have so many employees that spend 100% of their time on it, and so many congresspeople are making direct requests for censorship on political lines.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      > When people say reprehensible things, they receive an amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is reasonable). Sure, but we aren't talking about reprehensible things, we're talking about "advocating against political violence" and cultural appreciation. > The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up Because it's clearly about punishing deviation from a partisan line. > If your expectation is that 50% of backlash would be left leaning and 50% would be right leaning, I don't think that's reasonable, but if you think the backlash is because someone is conservative generally, you'd be mistaken. That's not my expectation, my expectation is that we don't persecute people for moderate beliefs (and no, caricaturing those beliefs to make them sound extreme doesn't count), nor do we tolerate said behavior. > There are a great many conservatives who can make their ideological arguments comfortably without being offensive. Conservative ideology isn't inherently offensive, but specific human beings say specific things that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out. As previously discussed, a lot of people are "calling out" others for utterly innocuous transgressions. For example, my state subreddit is presently arguing that families who homeschool their kids are closet Nazis (that's the very popular opinion on that particular subreddit).
- overrun11 4y ago
  You can be banned for stating a verifiable fact if it's too inconvenient: https://twitter.com/steve_sailer/status/1607733672635158528 https://twitter.com/steve_sailer/status/1607733672635158528
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    How is that a ban when they are tweeting about it? It looks more like an algorithmic hiccup that was corrected than a ban for violating TOS. Not the same at all.
    - overrun11 4y ago
      He appealed and it was affirmed by an actual moderator that it was against the TOS. He was allowed back on the platform after deleting the tweet as the linked thread explains. So yes, he was banned for violating the TOS.
      - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
        What does any of this have to do with conservative views being censored?
throwaway894345 4y ago
I gave a couple of examples in my sibling comment. One example began as "right wing rhetoric" (if you consider moderate conservatives to be 'right wing'; I'm not sure exactly how they fit into official taxonomies) and the other began as moderate liberal rhetoric that was adopted by right-wing groups after the fact. I think lazy, out-of-hand dismissal of both kinds is common, but I think the left has cried "right-wing", "Nazi", "white supremacist", etc so often (and over such obviously innocuous stuff) over the last decade that this sort of rhetoric has lost much of its effect (on the other hand, the right is working as hard as ever to make 'right wing' something honest people want to distance themselves from).
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  I don't think any honest defense of CRT said any of the things you claimed here, where have you heard those arguments? Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but those ideas aren't bad because they're conservative, they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory. Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem, regardless of their political leanings.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > I don't think any honest defense of CRT said any of the things you claimed here, where have you heard those arguments? I've heard them all over for many years (including on this forum for a good while a few years ago), but I agree they aren't "honest" (and the dishonesty is precisely the problem). > Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but those ideas aren't bad because they're conservative, they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory. I agree. But the problem is that moderate ideas are being caricatured and labeled as "Nazi" or "white supremacist" so that they enjoy the same social censure that we would give to bonafide hateful ideas. > Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem, regardless of their political leanings. Yes, but we're not talking about "espousing Nazi ideology", we're talking about people who are espousing moderate ideas that get treated like they're hateful. Consider for example James Damore's "Google Memo" and how it was framed as a hateful, "anti-diversity screed" by virtually the entirety of the media despite that the full text was readily available. His arguments were squarely liberal in nature even if he made some factual errors. Consider Lee Fang or David Shor (both committed progressives).
mellosouls 4y ago
If you read the article you will see examples of imbalanced moderation that conservatives have pointed out for ages with unfortunate dismissals (like yours? am I reading you correctly?) in response. This article is useful as it places them in a relatively neutral investigative context. It is obviously right that racist, sexist, etc bias is pointed out, but that case is not at all helped by complacency in response to political bias towards liberal mores when also clearly present.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    That's my point; it's not clear there's any political bias taking place here. What are you talking about?? Reread the article: OpenAI content moderation system is more permissive of hateful comments being made about conservatives than the same comments being made about liberals.
    - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
      The argument conservatives provide is the idea that they're overly censored on platforms; how permissively they're spoken of (hatefully or otherwise) is unrelated. If anything, it's in alignment to their ideology, not against it. But let's say what you're claiming is true for a moment. Political ideology shouldn't have been included with race, gender, and religion anyway; it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation, as it's 100% a choice, where as disability, race, gender, and religion are not.
      - mellosouls 4y ago
        I'd dispute religion not being a choice and that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate as you suggest, but, regardless, this seems like semantic cartwheels to avoid the clear, evidenced point that bias is present. Whether you or I approve of or align with that bias is irrelevant.
pessimizer 4y ago
No, it's the argument by association that's appalling, because it's dishonest. The rhetoric is usually just wrong. Being wrong is superior to being dishonest. Wrong people can be corrected.
thrownawaydad 4y ago
Not OP, but consider illegal immigration. It is apparently leading to a surge in child sex trafficking, among other ills. But, being against illegal immigration is currently considered "right wing", and in a lot of contexts will get you fired, vilified, and perhaps beaten. There's your example. (I'm a child of immigrants, and don't particularly have an opinion of how much immigration is good. I do, though, believe this amount should be determined by legislative process and then tightly enforced.)
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  You're mixing up terms here. Being against legal immigration and implementing policies to make it more difficult to become legal (as the right has done) has lead to the enslavement of immigrant women and other sex trafficking. Being against sane and fair immigration policies is what people react to. Everyone is against illegal immigration and child sex trafficking, but vary vastly on the solutions.
  - thrownawaydad 4y ago
    Re "Everyone is against illegal immigration", I don't think that that is close to true at present. You will search in vain to find a left-leaning Congressional Representative that will pronounce that they are against illegal immigration. A dirty secret of many Republicans is that they're pretty okay with illegal immigration as it's been in the 80s and 90s. Pseudo slave labor, deport as needed, etc. Needless to say, this seems unethical (even if the immigrants in question might be okay with it). We have no better solution than to let our legislature fight this out. But, whatever laws they come up with need to be followed and strictly enforced. Failure to do so has led to abject misery, and it will only get worse. You might not agree with the law, but the alternative is leading to far worse suffering. Ironically, the fentanyl crisis will probably turn the tide, rather than pedestrian ethical concerns. (I'm quite old, so don't really have a dog in this fight, aside from a general well wish for the young. Beyond that, I was a "far-left" Green for most of my years. I've not changed much, but the world sure has.)
    - 4y ago

account42 4y ago

If you see a problem with some rethoric itself then surely you can argue against it direcly, no? Then what's the point of calling something a "right-wing rhetoric" other than to label the speaker as part of the out group and thus not worth listening to.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago

I don't know why you're being downvoted - you're right. It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. It's people telling their viewers to harass Sandyhook parents, or participate in a violent insurrection, or something similar that gets censored. Playing the victim card without acknowledging TOS violations is intentionally misleading.

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
Right, nobody (AFAIK) has been banned from Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. for espousing Laissez-faire economic policies.
throwaway894345 4y ago
> It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. When cancel culture was running amok, people were getting fired/reprimanded/harassed for advocating nonviolent protests over riots, for using Chinese words that sound vaguely like an English racial slur, for interviewing Black Americans whose opinions differ slightly from the official narrative about what a Black American ought to think, for throwing a geisha-themed party for your young daughter, for wearing a prom dress inspired by a traditional Chinese aesthetic, etc. None of these are remotely right-wing offenses. This is the whole problem--the left harms people whose actions/opinions are well within the Overton Window and upon criticism, they retreat to some variation of "we're just opposing objectively horrible people!". This whole game hurts left-wing credibility and it easier for far-right viewpoints to enter the mainstream (is so-and-so an actual Nazi or are they just failing to completely toe the left-wing party line?). It's also just shitty behavior that makes people angry and pushes them rightward, and it does nothing to help left-wing causes.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  When people say reprehensible things, they receive an amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is reasonable). The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up. If your expectation is that 50% of backlash would be left leaning and 50% would be right leaning, I don't think that's reasonable, but if you think the backlash is because someone is conservative generally, you'd be mistaken. There are a great many conservatives who can make their ideological arguments comfortably without being offensive. Conservative ideology isn't inherently offensive, but specific human beings say specific things that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > When people say reprehensible things, they receive an amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is reasonable). And also when people say not reprehensible things. > The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up. Then it's strange that it's been intimately connected with looming war against Russia and China, so many intelligence agencies have so many employees that spend 100% of their time on it, and so many congresspeople are making direct requests for censorship on political lines.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > When people say reprehensible things, they receive an amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is reasonable). Sure, but we aren't talking about reprehensible things, we're talking about "advocating against political violence" and cultural appreciation. > The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up Because it's clearly about punishing deviation from a partisan line. > If your expectation is that 50% of backlash would be left leaning and 50% would be right leaning, I don't think that's reasonable, but if you think the backlash is because someone is conservative generally, you'd be mistaken. That's not my expectation, my expectation is that we don't persecute people for moderate beliefs (and no, caricaturing those beliefs to make them sound extreme doesn't count), nor do we tolerate said behavior. > There are a great many conservatives who can make their ideological arguments comfortably without being offensive. Conservative ideology isn't inherently offensive, but specific human beings say specific things that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out. As previously discussed, a lot of people are "calling out" others for utterly innocuous transgressions. For example, my state subreddit is presently arguing that families who homeschool their kids are closet Nazis (that's the very popular opinion on that particular subreddit).
overrun11 4y ago
You can be banned for stating a verifiable fact if it's too inconvenient: https://twitter.com/steve_sailer/status/1607733672635158528 https://twitter.com/steve_sailer/status/1607733672635158528
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  How is that a ban when they are tweeting about it? It looks more like an algorithmic hiccup that was corrected than a ban for violating TOS. Not the same at all.
  - overrun11 4y ago
    He appealed and it was affirmed by an actual moderator that it was against the TOS. He was allowed back on the platform after deleting the tweet as the linked thread explains. So yes, he was banned for violating the TOS.
    - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
      What does any of this have to do with conservative views being censored?

throwaway894345 4y ago

I gave a couple of examples in my sibling comment. One example began as "right wing rhetoric" (if you consider moderate conservatives to be 'right wing'; I'm not sure exactly how they fit into official taxonomies) and the other began as moderate liberal rhetoric that was adopted by right-wing groups after the fact. I think lazy, out-of-hand dismissal of both kinds is common, but I think the left has cried "right-wing", "Nazi", "white supremacist", etc so often (and over such obviously innocuous stuff) over the last decade that this sort of rhetoric has lost much of its effect (on the other hand, the right is working as hard as ever to make 'right wing' something honest people want to distance themselves from).

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
I don't think any honest defense of CRT said any of the things you claimed here, where have you heard those arguments? Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but those ideas aren't bad because they're conservative, they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory. Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem, regardless of their political leanings.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > I don't think any honest defense of CRT said any of the things you claimed here, where have you heard those arguments? I've heard them all over for many years (including on this forum for a good while a few years ago), but I agree they aren't "honest" (and the dishonesty is precisely the problem). > Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but those ideas aren't bad because they're conservative, they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory. I agree. But the problem is that moderate ideas are being caricatured and labeled as "Nazi" or "white supremacist" so that they enjoy the same social censure that we would give to bonafide hateful ideas. > Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem, regardless of their political leanings. Yes, but we're not talking about "espousing Nazi ideology", we're talking about people who are espousing moderate ideas that get treated like they're hateful. Consider for example James Damore's "Google Memo" and how it was framed as a hateful, "anti-diversity screed" by virtually the entirety of the media despite that the full text was readily available. His arguments were squarely liberal in nature even if he made some factual errors. Consider Lee Fang or David Shor (both committed progressives).

mellosouls 4y ago

If you read the article you will see examples of imbalanced moderation that conservatives have pointed out for ages with unfortunate dismissals (like yours? am I reading you correctly?) in response. This article is useful as it places them in a relatively neutral investigative context. It is obviously right that racist, sexist, etc bias is pointed out, but that case is not at all helped by complacency in response to political bias towards liberal mores when also clearly present.

SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
[flagged]
- mellosouls 4y ago
  That's my point; it's not clear there's any political bias taking place here. What are you talking about?? Reread the article: OpenAI content moderation system is more permissive of hateful comments being made about conservatives than the same comments being made about liberals.
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    The argument conservatives provide is the idea that they're overly censored on platforms; how permissively they're spoken of (hatefully or otherwise) is unrelated. If anything, it's in alignment to their ideology, not against it. But let's say what you're claiming is true for a moment. Political ideology shouldn't have been included with race, gender, and religion anyway; it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation, as it's 100% a choice, where as disability, race, gender, and religion are not.
    - mellosouls 4y ago
      I'd dispute religion not being a choice and that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate as you suggest, but, regardless, this seems like semantic cartwheels to avoid the clear, evidenced point that bias is present. Whether you or I approve of or align with that bias is irrelevant.

pessimizer 4y ago

No, it's the argument by association that's appalling, because it's dishonest. The rhetoric is usually just wrong. Being wrong is superior to being dishonest. Wrong people can be corrected.

thrownawaydad 4y ago

Not OP, but consider illegal immigration. It is apparently leading to a surge in child sex trafficking, among other ills. But, being against illegal immigration is currently considered "right wing", and in a lot of contexts will get you fired, vilified, and perhaps beaten. There's your example. (I'm a child of immigrants, and don't particularly have an opinion of how much immigration is good. I do, though, believe this amount should be determined by legislative process and then tightly enforced.)

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
You're mixing up terms here. Being against legal immigration and implementing policies to make it more difficult to become legal (as the right has done) has lead to the enslavement of immigrant women and other sex trafficking. Being against sane and fair immigration policies is what people react to. Everyone is against illegal immigration and child sex trafficking, but vary vastly on the solutions.
- thrownawaydad 4y ago
  Re "Everyone is against illegal immigration", I don't think that that is close to true at present. You will search in vain to find a left-leaning Congressional Representative that will pronounce that they are against illegal immigration. A dirty secret of many Republicans is that they're pretty okay with illegal immigration as it's been in the 80s and 90s. Pseudo slave labor, deport as needed, etc. Needless to say, this seems unethical (even if the immigrants in question might be okay with it). We have no better solution than to let our legislature fight this out. But, whatever laws they come up with need to be followed and strictly enforced. Failure to do so has led to abject misery, and it will only get worse. You might not agree with the law, but the alternative is leading to far worse suffering. Ironically, the fentanyl crisis will probably turn the tide, rather than pedestrian ethical concerns. (I'm quite old, so don't really have a dog in this fight, aside from a general well wish for the young. Beyond that, I was a "far-left" Green for most of my years. I've not changed much, but the world sure has.)
  - 4y ago