6 ms·

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 peo

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).
    - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
      I guess I'm not familiar with people who are falling into this category you're suggesting. Could you cite some specific examples? I'm thinking of Kanye, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, etc. These people expressed reprehensible viewpoints and were subsequently removed from various platforms as a result. That's not politics; what they said was reprehensible regardless of political ideology. You can find people who expressed similar political thoughts without the hate, but the people I named can't figure out how to do that and therefore have been removed (to some degree or another) from the communal discourse.
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?

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).
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    I guess I'm not familiar with people who are falling into this category you're suggesting. Could you cite some specific examples? I'm thinking of Kanye, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, etc. These people expressed reprehensible viewpoints and were subsequently removed from various platforms as a result. That's not politics; what they said was reprehensible regardless of political ideology. You can find people who expressed similar political thoughts without the hate, but the people I named can't figure out how to do that and therefore have been removed (to some degree or another) from the communal discourse.

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?