8 ms·

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 p

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.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    The examples cited in my original comment were all specific examples. Some names include Lee Fang, Daniel Shor, James Damore.
    - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
      James Damore was fired for violating his employee agreement with Google, because he said the reason you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable. Even James confirmed as much. Trotting him out as an example is more to my point of how playing the victim card without acknowledging agreement violations is intentionally misleading. And before someone asks, "DiD u rEaD tHe MeMo?" it's right here: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        Of course, those are two completely different statements, as I'm sure you know: > you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable. > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. And having read the full document (or even just the bits I quoted in my comment above), you surely also know that he was very explicitly not imputing population-level averages onto individuals. Damore's critics have been very openly lying about the contents of the document; there's no charitable way to interpret their claims. To be quite clear, I don't think Damore is a hero (his politics are more conservative than mine and I don't think he handled the fallout particularly well), but he was clearly fired for claims he very explicitly didn't make[^1], and his critics are just doubling-down on what can't be described as anything other than trivially-verifiable lies. [^1]: Even Google's legal team knew that they couldn't get him on those bases and instead they argued that criticizing Google's hiring practices implied that some of his coworkers weren't the best candidates for the job thus creating a hostile workplace. Of course, criticizing Google's hiring practices was absolutely pedestrian at Google at the time, although the argument was that Google's hiring practices were biased toward whites, men, etc. This is pretty obviously just pretense to fire him for ideological transgressions.

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.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  The examples cited in my original comment were all specific examples. Some names include Lee Fang, Daniel Shor, James Damore.
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    James Damore was fired for violating his employee agreement with Google, because he said the reason you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable. Even James confirmed as much. Trotting him out as an example is more to my point of how playing the victim card without acknowledging agreement violations is intentionally misleading. And before someone asks, "DiD u rEaD tHe MeMo?" it's right here: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Of course, those are two completely different statements, as I'm sure you know: > you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable. > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. And having read the full document (or even just the bits I quoted in my comment above), you surely also know that he was very explicitly not imputing population-level averages onto individuals. Damore's critics have been very openly lying about the contents of the document; there's no charitable way to interpret their claims. To be quite clear, I don't think Damore is a hero (his politics are more conservative than mine and I don't think he handled the fallout particularly well), but he was clearly fired for claims he very explicitly didn't make[^1], and his critics are just doubling-down on what can't be described as anything other than trivially-verifiable lies. [^1]: Even Google's legal team knew that they couldn't get him on those bases and instead they argued that criticizing Google's hiring practices implied that some of his coworkers weren't the best candidates for the job thus creating a hostile workplace. Of course, criticizing Google's hiring practices was absolutely pedestrian at Google at the time, although the argument was that Google's hiring practices were biased toward whites, men, etc. This is pretty obviously just pretense to fire him for ideological transgressions.