8 ms·

It is values not censorship to say that you value protecting people from harmful speech in a private company.

by locopati 3y ago

tracker1 3y ago
[flagged]
- SR2Z 3y ago
  Because one side of the aisle proposed solutions for COVID like ivermectin, or "inject bleach," and said things like "it'll blow over by March" and "if we stop measuring the numbers will go down." Both sides might have said incorrect things about COVID, but only one was responsible for politicizing it to death, and it's the side that tried to pretend it didn't exist while it was massacring Americans.
  - dpatru 3y ago
    The side that uses government power to censor its opponents should automatically be suspect.
  - merpnderp 3y ago
    I mean your statement right there is full of misinformation. No one said to inject bleach and no one massacred Americans, unless you mean by housing the infected in old folks homes, which killed far more than any right wing shenanigans like ivermectin.
  - vuln 3y ago
    No one ever said “inject bleach” please stop. It was only Harvard that inserted bleach into the conversation via tweet. “I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute,” Trump said. “One minute! And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So, that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.” Please don’t inject bleach or drink disinfectant. Bleach injections cause hemolysis (where your red blood cells that carry OXYGEN break apart) and cause liver damage, and many disinfectants can cause dangerous burns or bleeding in your stomach. This tweet IS medical advice — Harvard Toxicology (@Harvard_Tox) April 24, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfectant-bleach-coronavirus-claims-reaction https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/24/trump-disinf...
  - tracker1 3y ago
    It turns out, Ivermectin was helpful.. and nobody legitimately suggested bleach other than in jest. As for massacres, it's Democrat governors that thought it was a good idea to house infected with the most at risk (seniors) and killed countless people.
  - dude187 3y ago
    Stop spreading misinformation
bdcravens 3y ago
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
alienicecream 3y ago
When did everyone become so afraid of what other people might say? Or maybe it's when did it become so fashionable to be afraid of what other people might say?
- locopati 3y ago
  When people realized that violent speech can be considered violent action as random people took the fearmongering and attacked other people or threatened to bomb hospitals and libraries in stochastic terrorist attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    Violence is the use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. Writing and speech does none of those things. It may inspire people to take those actions, but that does not make it violence in and of itself. We can discuss the morality of speech and writing that stimulates others to violent action without the coercive construction of attempting to convince people they are the same thing.
    - locopati 3y ago
      If it creates a pervasive atmosphere of fear that results in physical violence or calls people to violence directly or indirectly, then I'd say speech can be violent. I disagree with free-speech absolutism that pretends speech is simultaneously capable of moving the world and also either not an action or an action that cannot be violent.
      - slowmovintarget 3y ago
        There are ways to accomplish allocation of responsibility (or blame) that don't include muddying the waters by declaring equivalence. Alice tells Bob to kill Charlie. Bob murders Charlie with a knife. Bob is a moral agent and is the one who committed the violence. Alice instigated it. The questions that must be answered as to how much or how little Alice is to blame are: 1. Does Alice have authority or coercive power over Bob, making her urging carry more weight? (Was it a command that Bob had some degree of need to carry out?) 2. Is Bob's moral reasoning (will) impaired, and does Alice know this? 3. Did Alice know that her urging would result in Charlie's death? 4. Did Alice intend for Charlie to be harmed? The answers to these questions attach guilt of varying levels to Alice. They also weigh on the punishment. If Alice is a commander ordering troops to commit war crimes, she's absolutely culpable. She has not been violent, but she is responsible. If however, Alice is a stranger on the ground who shouts at Bob to push Charlie off a ledge at random, Bob bears the majority of the responsibility. Alice is still to blame, but Bob made the decision to act and should bear the brunt of the punishment. This has nothing to do with free speech absolutism. It has everything to do with clarity. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not violence, but it is morally wrong, and punishable by law. Speech can cause violence, but that doesn't mean that it is violence, nor does it have to be seen as violence in order to attach blame and consequences.

It is values not censorship to say that you value protecting people from harmful speech in a private company.

tracker1 3y ago

[flagged]

SR2Z 3y ago
Because one side of the aisle proposed solutions for COVID like ivermectin, or "inject bleach," and said things like "it'll blow over by March" and "if we stop measuring the numbers will go down." Both sides might have said incorrect things about COVID, but only one was responsible for politicizing it to death, and it's the side that tried to pretend it didn't exist while it was massacring Americans.
- dpatru 3y ago
  The side that uses government power to censor its opponents should automatically be suspect.
- merpnderp 3y ago
  I mean your statement right there is full of misinformation. No one said to inject bleach and no one massacred Americans, unless you mean by housing the infected in old folks homes, which killed far more than any right wing shenanigans like ivermectin.
- vuln 3y ago
  No one ever said “inject bleach” please stop. It was only Harvard that inserted bleach into the conversation via tweet. “I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute,” Trump said. “One minute! And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So, that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.” Please don’t inject bleach or drink disinfectant. Bleach injections cause hemolysis (where your red blood cells that carry OXYGEN break apart) and cause liver damage, and many disinfectants can cause dangerous burns or bleeding in your stomach. This tweet IS medical advice — Harvard Toxicology (@Harvard_Tox) April 24, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfectant-bleach-coronavirus-claims-reaction https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/24/trump-disinf...
- tracker1 3y ago
  It turns out, Ivermectin was helpful.. and nobody legitimately suggested bleach other than in jest. As for massacres, it's Democrat governors that thought it was a good idea to house infected with the most at risk (seniors) and killed countless people.
- dude187 3y ago
  Stop spreading misinformation

bdcravens 3y ago

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

alienicecream 3y ago

When did everyone become so afraid of what other people might say? Or maybe it's when did it become so fashionable to be afraid of what other people might say?

locopati 3y ago
When people realized that violent speech can be considered violent action as random people took the fearmongering and attacked other people or threatened to bomb hospitals and libraries in stochastic terrorist attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  Violence is the use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. Writing and speech does none of those things. It may inspire people to take those actions, but that does not make it violence in and of itself. We can discuss the morality of speech and writing that stimulates others to violent action without the coercive construction of attempting to convince people they are the same thing.
  - locopati 3y ago
    If it creates a pervasive atmosphere of fear that results in physical violence or calls people to violence directly or indirectly, then I'd say speech can be violent. I disagree with free-speech absolutism that pretends speech is simultaneously capable of moving the world and also either not an action or an action that cannot be violent.
    - slowmovintarget 3y ago
      There are ways to accomplish allocation of responsibility (or blame) that don't include muddying the waters by declaring equivalence. Alice tells Bob to kill Charlie. Bob murders Charlie with a knife. Bob is a moral agent and is the one who committed the violence. Alice instigated it. The questions that must be answered as to how much or how little Alice is to blame are: 1. Does Alice have authority or coercive power over Bob, making her urging carry more weight? (Was it a command that Bob had some degree of need to carry out?) 2. Is Bob's moral reasoning (will) impaired, and does Alice know this? 3. Did Alice know that her urging would result in Charlie's death? 4. Did Alice intend for Charlie to be harmed? The answers to these questions attach guilt of varying levels to Alice. They also weigh on the punishment. If Alice is a commander ordering troops to commit war crimes, she's absolutely culpable. She has not been violent, but she is responsible. If however, Alice is a stranger on the ground who shouts at Bob to push Charlie off a ledge at random, Bob bears the majority of the responsibility. Alice is still to blame, but Bob made the decision to act and should bear the brunt of the punishment. This has nothing to do with free speech absolutism. It has everything to do with clarity. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not violence, but it is morally wrong, and punishable by law. Speech can cause violence, but that doesn't mean that it is violence, nor does it have to be seen as violence in order to attach blame and consequences.