5 ms·

I'm conservative (actually conservative) although not American and my point of view is the opposite of yours. Terms of service of big tech are written in partic

• nickthegreek 3y ago
  Please provide the ToS segments that are not allowing you to express your political opinions. Feel free to provide said political opinions as well. I am open to your opinion, but not without examples.
  • veave 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • manuelabeledo 3y ago
      What you are saying is that these TOS don’t allow you to behave like a horrible person towards other users of the platform, which is why these provisions are there in the first place.
      • veave 3y ago
        Precisely big tech's playbook is to move the goalposts as to brand conservative discourse "unreasonable" so it can be silenced.
        • manuelabeledo 3y ago
          Hate to break this to you, but society as a whole, and not "big tech", have "moved the goalposts" to consider hate speech frowned upon.
          • brightlancer 3y ago
            Who's defining "hate speech"? Do you want Viktor Orbán to define it? How about Tayyip Erdoğan? Or Donald Trump? Or how about the Christian church? They prefer to call it blasphemy, but they'll happily call it "hate speech" if they can censor people.
            • manuelabeledo 3y ago
              What you are saying is that morals should not have changed and evolved at all, ever, because societies aren't allowed to broadly define what "respect" means, only a handful of asshats. Also, your points very strongly suggest that the paradox of the intolerance would apply here.
              • brightlancer 3y ago
                > Also, your points very strongly suggest that the paradox of the intolerance would apply here. Your response suggests you don't understand my points at all. The "paradox of tolerance" could just as easily be invoked by Orbán, Erdoğan, Trump, the Christian churches, etc. I suspect Orbán and Erdoğan HAVE. Once we give "society" the ability to decide what is and is not "hate speech", you give people you oppose and fear the ability to decide what is and is not "hate speech". The answer to that isn't to craft a better definition of "hate speech", or create a permanent majority of your particular brand of ideology, it's to eliminate the idea that any group should oppress the other based upon what they believe. It's a tenet of liberalism.
                • manuelabeledo 3y ago
                  > Your response suggests you don't understand my points at all. I understand them pretty well: since moral relativism is absolute, there is no point in setting limits on speech. > ... it's to eliminate the idea that any group should oppress the other based upon what they believe. I have no issues with oppression against those wanting to oppress others. Again, paradox of tolerance.
          • tivert 3y ago
        • mindslight 3y ago
          The primary moving of the goalposts here is by this online neoreactionary movement based around reminiscing on an idyllic vision of simpler times when everyone walked uphill to school both ways and people "knew their place". Everyone else is basically content not dwelling too much on things like the heritability of intelligence, regardless of whether they're technically true in the statistical sense, because of the generally horrible outcomes from doing so.
      • brightlancer 3y ago
        > What you are saying is that these TOS don’t allow you to behave like a horrible person towards other users of the platform, which is why these provisions are there in the first place. Exactly. This is why no one should be allowed to deny the resurrection of Christ. To deny the resurrection of Christ is to invalidate who I am. It's hate speech.
        • manuelabeledo 3y ago
          > To deny the resurrection of Christ is to invalidate who I am. It's hate speech. If I were to personalize my opinions on Christians as derogatory comments, probably.
          • brightlancer 3y ago
            > > To deny the resurrection of Christ is to invalidate who I am. It's hate speech. > If I were to personalize my opinions on Christians as derogatory comments, probably. Wait, wut? NO! Did you not get the satire?
    • nick_ 3y ago
      Boring is always better than hateful.
    • FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      You want to discuss on-line how it is a fact that blacks have a lower IQ? Or, just debate if this is true, pretty sure there are a lot of studies showing this is not a fact. If women have hysterectomy's are they no longer women? Are you German? Asking for a friend looking for a eugenics meetup.
      • tivert 3y ago
        >> Saying that a mtf transexual is not a woman is hate speech according to these terms > If women have hysterectomy's are they no longer women? You know that's a pretty disingenuous misinterpretation, right? If someone says a "mtf transexual is not a woman," they're almost certainly using a classical definition of "woman" that was never so reductive as to classify a woman who's had a hysterectomy as a non-woman. Their actual definition is almost certainly something along the lines of: 1. Gender and sex are the same concept, which is assigned at or near birth based on physical inspection of genitalia according to traditional standards. 2. The identity is fixed throughout life, someone can't "transition" (because if injury, etc.). The only possible allowed exception is if point #1 was not done correctly. 3. Certain developmental and genetic problems that result in ambiguity are so rare and insignificant that they do not affect the definition of the categories.
        • FrustratedMonky 3y ago
          How can I assume what this person is using as criteria? I have definitely heard anti-trans activist state that if 'you can't have a baby, you aren't a woman'. Now I have to figure out what segment of anti-trans beliefs this one has? Point 3: If anti-trans activist do realize this, then why not include that in the laws? Why further victimize the few cases with genetic disorders by not recognizing them?
          • tivert 3y ago
            > How can I assume what this person is using as criteria? The same way you can can communicate with anyone and understand I'm not using "communicate" to mean "hit with a pickle." That is: having an understanding of what things conventionally mean and the kinds of ideas people conventionally have, so you won't get thrown off by one-offs or people who are not communicating clearly or seriously. > I have definitely heard anti-trans activist state that if 'you can't have a baby, you aren't a woman'. Communicate means "hit with a pickle." I picked up a pickle and communicated with my computer. > Now I have to figure out what segment of anti-trans beliefs this one has? Now that you've encountered someone who has stated that "communicate means 'hit with a pickle,'" will you have any trouble figuring out what someone means when they say "communicate"? > Point 3: If anti-trans activist do realize this, then why not include that in the laws? Because point 3 is so obvious that it goes unstated and is not typically consciously articulated by those who hold the way I did. But it's there if the only two sex/gender categories are male/man and female/woman.
    • hotpotamus 3y ago
      I would have thought "actual conservatism" is more concerned about size of the government or balanced budgets than about peoples' skin color or their genitalia, but apparently that's a mistake I keep making.
      • tivert 3y ago
        > I would have thought "actual conservatism" is more concerned about size of the government or balanced budgets than about peoples' skin color or their genitalia, but apparently that's a mistake I keep making. Yes, it's a pretty ignorant mistake to understand "actual conservatism" solely as fiscal conservatism. I mean, it's only one of the axes on those dumb 2-dimensional political charts that get passed around all the time. Social conservatism exists, and it's the difference between libertarians and the people who are usually called conservative.
        • hotpotamus 3y ago
          It's perhaps that I've never really understood why "conservatism" means austere, balanced budgets and "conservatism" means bathroom police. I don't really get the underlying connection I suppose. I guess I've always seen "true conservatives" as the wealthy elite who pair their fiscal policy with whatever social issues they don't care about (basically any of them) that will drive votes for them. The quintessential example would be Mitt Romney - his position on abortion evolved through the years, but his position on tax cuts for the rich has never waivered.
          • tivert 3y ago
            > It's perhaps that I've never really understood why "conservatism" means austere, balanced budgets and "conservatism" means bathroom police. I don't really get the underlying connection I suppose. "Conservative" has the same root as "conserve," and I think that goes a long way towards explaining the latter "bathroom police" (e.g. conserve the traditional understanding an social convention). IMHO, the former "austere, balanced budgets" is harder to explain, but (in the American context, at least), I suspect that started as "conserving" the policies from before the New Deal, when taxes were less and the government was much smaller (relative to the rest of the country). But at a certain point, it just means what it's used to mean, and there's no sense trying too hard to derive it from first principles.
    • brightlancer 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • feoren 3y ago
        More like: Him: "Facebook's ToS classifies totally cool, normal opinions as hate speech" Them: "Give us examples!" Him: <literal hate speech> Them: DOWNVOTE
        • brightlancer 3y ago
          [flagged]
          • hoten 3y ago
            The IQ thing is hardly the same as how the OP framed it.
            • brightlancer 3y ago
              > The IQ thing is hardly the same as how the OP framed it. It's _exactly_ how they framed it: "Saying that blacks have a lower average IQ than other races, (although this is not a political opinion but a fact, still)." We need to stop jumping up and crying Racism! anytime someone writes an objective fact that doesn't include the caveat "but maybe white supremacy".
          • feoren 3y ago
            > MTF "transwomen" are not women. That's not an opinion, it's biological fact ... they never had a uterus or other female sex organs and almost zero had a XX chromosome A favorite technique of bad-faith arguers and spreaders of disinformation is to take a very narrow definition a word (often overly narrow), derive some conclusion about it, and then apply that conclusion to a much broader definition of that word. You've started by picking a definition of "biological women" that sounds somewhat reasonable (but certainly not completely agreed upon, especially regarding "other female sex organs"), and then used that to justify the statement "MTF 'transwomen' are not women.". But that 2nd use of the word "women" is very different. Nobody who posts that on Twitter really means "MTF trans women do not have uteruses and most do not have XX chromosomes". Nobody is confused on this point. They mean "MTF trans women are not 'real women', and therefore it's OK to mistreat them." I think you know this. > the _group_ of folks who select "Black" or similar has a lower median on IQ tests I will accept this statement exactly as stated as being true, but that's not how you're using it. This statement does not come unburdened with a ton of other (false) assumptions behind it. The most obvious one is that you seem to think this statement justifies the claim "blacks have a lower average IQ than other races" -- No! That is a completely different claim. Note the word "race" here. That statement is talking about "blacks as a race", really meaning "genetic, innate features of humans belonging to the race 'black'." Even the existence of such a race is reasonable to dispute, but the biggest problem is going from a correlation between IQ scores and specific group of people to a causation about why that group of people has low IQ scores (i.e. because of their race). That is not true, and has been basically totally debunked. But look at how many more words it took me to address the statements, compared to making them in the first place. It was an extremely subtle change from "group that checks 'black'" to "race", yet the latter very clearly implies innate features while the former does not. It's a one-sided fight, and censorship is a perfectly reasonable tool to even the odds. There are very subtle ways that such "facts" can be completely misused, misattributed, and misinterpreted to support hatred. That (often intentional) misuse, misattribution, and misinterpretation is hate speech.
    • feoren 3y ago
      And like always, we see again that "express my conservative political opinions" is code for "spew unsubstantiated hate speech". It's the standard meme: "I have been censored for my conservative views!" - OMG, you were censored for wanting lower taxes? - "LOL no, not those views" - Oh, so ... limited government regulation? - "Haha no not those views either" - Then which views, exactly? - "Oh, you know the ones." > Saying that blacks have a lower average IQ than other races, (although this is not a political opinion but a fact, still) It is neither political opinion, nor fact. It is debunked, racist, unadulterated hate speech. My political opinion is that veave never wipes his ass after a bowel movement and picks his nose and eats it. (Actually not an opinion, but a 100% true fact.) This is protected speech and if you disagree with me or try to stop me from saying it then you are censoring and oppressing me.
      • veave 3y ago
        You are confusing fiscal conservatism with social conservatism. Regarding your other comment I support your right to say whatever you want.
        • hoten 3y ago
          How do you square that view (you support anyone's right to say anything) with disagreeing that a company should be able to dictate the rules on their own platform? In my view, even the latter is a form of expression.
          • veave 3y ago
            I don't disagree that they should be able to dictate the rules! I'm just saying they're biased from my point of view.
    • ggghi 3y ago
      > Saying that a mtf transexual is not a woman is hate speech according to these terms. More importantly, a prohibition on stating this silences feminist women who need to speak up on issues of female-only spaces and services, and the necessity for all males to be excluded from such. So the definers of "hate speech" in this instance have managed to bake misogyny directly into their definition. And they think this is progress.
  • LexiMax 3y ago
    Thank you for doing this, and I hope others follow your example. It's really easy to be agreeable with platitudes. The real world is a complicated and messy place, and asking for specifics helps to ground the conversation in reality.
    • plagiarist 3y ago
      Seriously. I absolutely did not expect someone on this website to lead with "I cannot say black [people] are mentally inferior" as an example of how they are being censored. Usually they reserve that for more private channels, like after they've gotten someone to move to Telegram.
      • LexiMax 3y ago
        The idea is not for people with undesirable opinions to "out" themselves, it's more for the onlookers to realize that platitudes are merely nice-sounding soundbites. The real world is complicated, and necessitates nuance, caveats and exceptions, and there's really no better example than watching a conversation unfold about said specifics.
• wredue 3y ago
  Bigotry is not a “political position” no matter how much you try to say that it is.