4 ms·

But even if, as you argue, calling for violence against people is part of right wing ideology or culture, it still seems reasonable to prohibit that. We do have

But even if, as you argue, calling for violence against people is part of right wing ideology or culture, it still seems reasonable to prohibit that. We do have to draw a line somewhere even against things that may be ingrained in a particular culture and which may have a disproportionate effect on that culture. But we should examine these choices in a principled way. Still, prohibiting calls for violence doesn’t seem like a gray area…

zo1 2y ago
I will not use calls for violence as an example for this argument I'm making. I specifically left it vague so we could all apply our own minds on it. But if i had to pick one it would be the Trans issue. Misgendering and having some rather "blunt" debates on this topic meant the platforms usually sided with the trans or left-wing party. As for calls of violence: there are many examples where anti-white and anti-right calls for violence and extermination go unpunished and swept under the rug to be memory holed. Let's start by making this a bad thing across the board.
- acdha 2y ago
  > Misgendering and having some rather "blunt" debates on this topic meant the platforms usually sided with the trans or left-wing party. Do you have an examples?
  - zo1 2y ago
    It's written in their own documents/policies: https://web.archive.org/web/20230407140923/https:/help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://web.archive.org/web/20230407140923/https:/help.twitt... The entire doc has an "aura" of being fair, and "protecting" the weak. But it ends up stifling debate and genuine discussion because report-brigades and coordinated attacks by left-wing institutions and left-wing activists (with way too much time on their hands because they are full-time activists) end up targeting right-wing individuals for benign and not-harassing behaviour. I've seen my fair share of anti-white and anti-republican hateful comments and calls for violence, that I don't know why you even need to see examples. Look for them everywhere, even on HN. Look, this is a very diffuse topic. You're not going to get a clear example and we don't know what was happening behind the scenes at Twitter. But it's very telling that most tech companies are predominantly left-wing donors and have left-wing ideologies. Even if they act to be as impartial as they can, their bias will show because they have anti-republican discriminatory hiring practices.
    - acdha 2y ago
      So, to be clear, you’re saying that conservatism is synonymous with directly attacking “other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”? I couldn’t agree with such a broad claim about millions of people.
      - zo1 2y ago
        I'm not saying that at all.
        acdha 2y ago
        That was the only example you provided, and it contradicts your point.
        zo1 2y ago
        "Misgendering and having some rather "blunt" debates" was my example, and that doc absolutely targets it even though arguably misgendering and having blunt debates on the trans issue is not "directly attacking “other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” according to your accusation.
      - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
        Surely you can agree that, if the rule is no "misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals", a conservative who is arguing that personal pronouns are silly is either compelled to bow to their opposition or violate the rules. Or that, in an argument about illegal immigration, a conservative forbidden from "asserting that members of a protected category are more likely to take part in dangerous or illegal activities" will find it impossible to convey their belief that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime. I don't personally agree with either position, but those rules clearly give conservatives an explicit disadvantage. And the implicit advantage was more clear- I don't have a twitter account, but whenever I followed a link there, there were piles of recommended tweets about how white people are all racist, or complaining about toxic masculinity / mansplaining / manspreading, or how christians are evil and hate women, or how much boomers suck- all of this clearly in violation of the rules, none of it censored. Well, maybe some of it was censored, I wouldn't know. But they certainly left quite a lot untouched.

zo1 2y ago

I will not use calls for violence as an example for this argument I'm making. I specifically left it vague so we could all apply our own minds on it. But if i had to pick one it would be the Trans issue. Misgendering and having some rather "blunt" debates on this topic meant the platforms usually sided with the trans or left-wing party. As for calls of violence: there are many examples where anti-white and anti-right calls for violence and extermination go unpunished and swept under the rug to be memory holed. Let's start by making this a bad thing across the board.

acdha 2y ago
> Misgendering and having some rather "blunt" debates on this topic meant the platforms usually sided with the trans or left-wing party. Do you have an examples?
- zo1 2y ago
  It's written in their own documents/policies: https://web.archive.org/web/20230407140923/https:/help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://web.archive.org/web/20230407140923/https:/help.twitt... The entire doc has an "aura" of being fair, and "protecting" the weak. But it ends up stifling debate and genuine discussion because report-brigades and coordinated attacks by left-wing institutions and left-wing activists (with way too much time on their hands because they are full-time activists) end up targeting right-wing individuals for benign and not-harassing behaviour. I've seen my fair share of anti-white and anti-republican hateful comments and calls for violence, that I don't know why you even need to see examples. Look for them everywhere, even on HN. Look, this is a very diffuse topic. You're not going to get a clear example and we don't know what was happening behind the scenes at Twitter. But it's very telling that most tech companies are predominantly left-wing donors and have left-wing ideologies. Even if they act to be as impartial as they can, their bias will show because they have anti-republican discriminatory hiring practices.
  - acdha 2y ago
    So, to be clear, you’re saying that conservatism is synonymous with directly attacking “other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”? I couldn’t agree with such a broad claim about millions of people.
    - zo1 2y ago
      I'm not saying that at all.
      - acdha 2y ago
        That was the only example you provided, and it contradicts your point.
        zo1 2y ago
        "Misgendering and having some rather "blunt" debates" was my example, and that doc absolutely targets it even though arguably misgendering and having blunt debates on the trans issue is not "directly attacking “other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” according to your accusation.
    - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
      Surely you can agree that, if the rule is no "misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals", a conservative who is arguing that personal pronouns are silly is either compelled to bow to their opposition or violate the rules. Or that, in an argument about illegal immigration, a conservative forbidden from "asserting that members of a protected category are more likely to take part in dangerous or illegal activities" will find it impossible to convey their belief that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime. I don't personally agree with either position, but those rules clearly give conservatives an explicit disadvantage. And the implicit advantage was more clear- I don't have a twitter account, but whenever I followed a link there, there were piles of recommended tweets about how white people are all racist, or complaining about toxic masculinity / mansplaining / manspreading, or how christians are evil and hate women, or how much boomers suck- all of this clearly in violation of the rules, none of it censored. Well, maybe some of it was censored, I wouldn't know. But they certainly left quite a lot untouched.