5 ms·

The slippery slope of censorship. However I am anti-abortion. I used to be pro abortion, I was a hardcore liberal just a few years ago, before covid (still not

The slippery slope of censorship. However I am anti-abortion. I used to be pro abortion, I was a hardcore liberal just a few years ago, before covid (still not a Trump supporter, just rabidly apolitical now). And considering what the federal government has been doing censoring the right via tech platforms when it goes against their narratives.. aw shucks I can't get behind censorship. Sorry Texas.

nicodjimenez 4y ago
Censorship is inevitable to maintaining the power structure, the question is who controls the censorship and whether the approach taken to censorship makes the people strong or weak.
- baremetal 4y ago
  No I don't agree that censorship is inevitable. You are gonna need to back that argument up, nico. Sounds like you have drunk deeply of some authoritarian rhetoric
  - nicodjimenez 4y ago
    Not saying censorship is bad or good I’m just saying it’s inevitable.
krapp 4y ago
You can't be "rabidly apolitical" and be anti-abortion and claim the government has been "censoring the right via tech platforms when it goes against their narratives," both of which are explicitly right-wing political positions.
- baremetal 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - t-3 4y ago
    > And the fact that tech platforms censor the right is a fact, it may be a right wing talking point but that doesn't negate it being factual just because it displeases some people on the left when they hear it. You're not wrong, but the issue is way overblown. The far left is censored just as much or more as the far right, but have much less mainstream political support in the strongly anti-socialist US. Censorship and free speech are the issue far more than political persecution of one side or another. Allowing the debate to be turned into a neolib vs neocon political battle rather than a matter of fundamental rights and Constitutional law is a mistake.
    - kelipso 4y ago
      The difference is the "far-left" by your definition is a few edgy online people making up less than 1% of the population while the "far-right" by your definition have their own established political party and makes up some 30% of the population.
      - t-3 4y ago
        I didn't give a definition of either, so I don't know where you're getting any of that from, but you're wrong in any case. Not all, or even a majority, of republicans are far right. Endorsing conservative social policies, libertarianism, or being religious are not at all equivalent to being a fascist, a bigot, or a racial nationalist.
        kelipso 4y ago
        I'm getting the definitions from people who get banned on the big social media sites mapped to the left-right spectrum. Bans on left aligned people tend to be the edgy lefties while bans on right aligned people tend to be a lot of just to the right of center type people.
      - _heimdall 4y ago

nicodjimenez 4y ago

Censorship is inevitable to maintaining the power structure, the question is who controls the censorship and whether the approach taken to censorship makes the people strong or weak.

baremetal 4y ago
No I don't agree that censorship is inevitable. You are gonna need to back that argument up, nico. Sounds like you have drunk deeply of some authoritarian rhetoric
- nicodjimenez 4y ago
  Not saying censorship is bad or good I’m just saying it’s inevitable.

krapp 4y ago

You can't be "rabidly apolitical" and be anti-abortion and claim the government has been "censoring the right via tech platforms when it goes against their narratives," both of which are explicitly right-wing political positions.

baremetal 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- t-3 4y ago
  > And the fact that tech platforms censor the right is a fact, it may be a right wing talking point but that doesn't negate it being factual just because it displeases some people on the left when they hear it. You're not wrong, but the issue is way overblown. The far left is censored just as much or more as the far right, but have much less mainstream political support in the strongly anti-socialist US. Censorship and free speech are the issue far more than political persecution of one side or another. Allowing the debate to be turned into a neolib vs neocon political battle rather than a matter of fundamental rights and Constitutional law is a mistake.
  - kelipso 4y ago
    The difference is the "far-left" by your definition is a few edgy online people making up less than 1% of the population while the "far-right" by your definition have their own established political party and makes up some 30% of the population.
    - t-3 4y ago
      I didn't give a definition of either, so I don't know where you're getting any of that from, but you're wrong in any case. Not all, or even a majority, of republicans are far right. Endorsing conservative social policies, libertarianism, or being religious are not at all equivalent to being a fascist, a bigot, or a racial nationalist.
      - kelipso 4y ago
        I'm getting the definitions from people who get banned on the big social media sites mapped to the left-right spectrum. Bans on left aligned people tend to be the edgy lefties while bans on right aligned people tend to be a lot of just to the right of center type people.
    - _heimdall 4y ago