6 ms·

How about addressing the merits of my points instead of slinging mud and calling on a horde of lemmings to silence me? Your gay cake dog whistle says a lot abou

How about addressing the merits of my points instead of slinging mud and calling on a horde of lemmings to silence me? Your gay cake dog whistle says a lot about you. Do you want LGBT bakers to be forced to bake obscene cakes for Muslims who hate them? People should have some discretion in choosing the work they do. A special order item at a bakery is not the same kind of issue as getting service off a menu in a restaurant open to the public. There is ample evidence of media lying to suit "liberals" (who really aren't). Social media was censored largely (though not entirely) by Democrats as exposed by Matt Taibbi. This isn't any conspiracy theory, it's documented fact. Elon Musk spent $44 billion just to give us the proof and open things back up again. If you actually care about free speech like a true liberal then you should be singing his praises.

consteval 2y ago
> Your gay cake dog whistle says a lot about you That's not the correct usage of dog whistle. > People should have some discretion in choosing the work they do Oh, so you are now magically in favor of 230? If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with? Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists? > Elon Musk spent $44 billion just to give us the proof and open things back up again Using X as an example is a poor choice. Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule. I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >That's not the correct usage of dog whistle. Close enough. >Oh, so you are now magically in favor of 230? I'm saying you can't not be an editor yet do editorial things at the same time. >If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with? There are multiple problems with this. For one, the government has been asking "private" companies to take stuff down. The act of asking alone is a form of intimidation. Secondly, even private companies can be public commons. The sheer scale of social media and the way that different sites seemingly coordinate to ban people they don't like (often in tandem with the government) is a threat to free speech. >Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists? Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company? There's no conspiracy among bakers to deprive these people of cake, after all. This is a prime example of fishing for lawsuits. It's not about the cake, it's about deliberately disrespecting and offending one guy to the point where he would risk losing money in a lawsuit to fight them off. Just as your employer cannot compel speech just because they pay you, the customer of a baker should not be able to compel speech from him either. In both cases, the employed person should be able to refuse work. Here's another example: Should a printer be able to refuse to print some booklets he disagrees with? I'm sure he does not have to. The cake thing is very much like that. >Using X as an example is a poor choice. I didn't say it was an example of shining free speech. I said it was an example of government censorship exposed to the world. I know X is not perfect but it is freer than practically any other social media right now. >Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule. First of all, X is much freer than it has been in a long time. I know it isn't perfect but you won't find anything on that scale that is remotely as permissive for free speech. I don't think Musk is excessively promoting conservatives, despite sponsoring them in politics. Liberals simply forgot that many conservatives even existed because they were all strategically purged from the old Twitter, an action which goes against Western liberal values of free speech. Conservatives generally aren't racist, but that is the trope that the leftists have put forward about them. If you look for it you will find many instances of racism against every race online. Racist comments against white people (and sometimes against Asian people) are allowed on Twitter and every other social media platform. In most cases women are given carte blanche to defame and demonize men in general and in particular. The only thing that has changed with X now is people aren't being banned for most legal speech. As I said, X isn't a perfect fountain of free speech but it is at least much better than it was. >I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do. I don't especially enjoy seeing scummy posts either. But threats are legally actionable speech and do get taken down off of X. As for offensive things, I'm sure we all have opinions that offend someone. Free speech with all the mistakes and friction that it entails is what led our civilization to where it is. In a marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win. But if you put your thumb on the scales and gaslight everyone, eventually that will lead to huge problems. It may come as a shock to you but the N-word was not always this absurdly charged third rail. People used to say it all the time regardless of their race. Everyone went from thinking it was slightly profane to so awful that any black person in earshot has the license to kill the speaker if they happen to be white. I am only slightly exaggerating. People are now getting in trouble for talking about the word itself. One professor got fired for simply pointing out that there was a Chinese word that sounded almost the same. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of filtering mode, like a "safe search" or "parental filter" that can easily be turned off, just to satisfy people like yourself. I'm not a kid or a thin-skinned adult so I want it off. People died fighting to create a system that gives us the right to say what's on our mind. Don't take that for granted.
  - consteval 2y ago
    > Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company? Free speech doesn't work like this, money counts as free speech. Your idealism about democracy is irrelevant - courts have ruled MANY times that speech is more much than just words. > Conservatives generally aren't racist, but that is the trope that the leftists have put forward about them Incorrect, conservatives don't realize that even if they say reasonable things but then follow it up with a slur then they just undid what they said. It's hard to take conservatives seriously on anything because they seem unable to speak above the level of an average middle school boy. People "censor" conservative opinions because conservatives don't know how to say their opinion in a pleasant way. Talk like Trump at work. Go ahead and try. He talks about women like they're dogs, he treats minorities like scum. You WILL be fired. Not because you would be conservative. > I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of filtering mode, like a "safe search" or "parental filter" that can easily be turned off This would disproportionately censor conservatives, for the reasons above. Trump sure as hell isn't making it past "safe search".
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >>Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company? >Free speech doesn't work like this, money counts as free speech. Your idealism about democracy is irrelevant - courts have ruled MANY times that speech is more much than just words. Let me put it another way. If you want to pay someone to say something for you, your free speech rights don't have precedence over their right to free speech. Your desire to want to pay someone to do work does not surpass their religious convictions to not do it. My "idealism" is really pragmatism. >Incorrect, conservatives don't realize that even if they say reasonable things but then follow it up with a slur then they just undid what they said. Have you read anything that liberals put out? It's some of the most profane stuff out there. They overused profanity to the point that it doesn't have any punch anymore, while *choosing* to get butthurt about all kinds of other harmless words so they can get clout. >People "censor" conservative opinions because conservatives don't know how to say their opinion in a pleasant way. That is definitely not true. I've seen so much censorship of even the most mundane things, you can't sell me this story. Twitter was plenty unpleasant before Elon bought it. It was just leftist-leaning to an extreme and the only people who got to talk were in agreement with whatever unpleasantness was allowed there. Now that they can see a tiny bit of the real spectrum of popular opinion, they're crying about it. >It's hard to take conservatives seriously on anything because they seem unable to speak above the level of an average middle school boy. As with any crowd, there are smart ones and dumb ones. Don't get me started on the dumb liberals. The smart conservatives are speaking on a level exactly the same as their liberal counterparts. >Talk like Trump at work. Go ahead and try. If I was a billionaire like him and all my friends turned on me, I might do just that. He is actually a very nice guy and was popular in all circles before he ran for President. What changed about him? Absolutely nothing. >He talks about women like they're dogs, he treats minorities like scum. He talks about some women like they're dogs, because they stabbed him in the back. All of the outrage about Trump was way overblown. A celebrity known for a sharp sense of humor insulted someone he doesn't like, that must mean he's irredeemably against their demographic group! Meanwhile half the world has been calling him a Nazi or a Russian infiltrator for years with zero evidence, even after he got shot. Many minorities are conservatives and love Trump's policies and sense of humor. He was on Oprah and she asked him if he would consider running for president. Whoopi Goldberg used to be friends with him, and Hillary said he couldn't be bought (although that is contested, she was definitely a friend of his). He did a lot for criminal justice reform and supported HBCUs during his first term. He had a black girlfriend before his current wife and she (like Stormy Daniels) said nothing negative about him until she was pressured into lying. You're not going to convince me he's a deranged racist because I know better than that. He is not against any minority, but he's not accepting lies about his own race either. This is a bit old but it's a list of 17 black celebrities that supported Trump in 2020: https://www.essence.com/celebrity/black-donald-trump-supporters/#79383 https://www.essence.com/celebrity/black-donald-trump-support... >This would disproportionately censor conservatives, for the reasons above. Trump sure as hell isn't making it past "safe search". You're wrong about this, although I don't know what kind of Puritan-grade filter you're thinking of. Liberals swear just as much as conservatives. I'm probably done with this conversation because it's too much work to convince one person they're wrong. You're just going to have to look into things on your own. I don't expect that you will, but you'll feel a lot better if you do seek out some real context. It's not easy because the media has been smearing him for years now, but I am hopeful that the facts will become apparent soon to all the mentally ill who are freaking out about him.
jjulius 2y ago
>Social media was censored largely (though not entirely) by Democrats as exposed by Matt Taibbi. This isn't any conspiracy theory, it's documented fact. You mean the "smoking gun" that turned out to be a wet blanket of nothing topped with a heaping serving of hyperbole and self-aggrandizing?
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jjulius 2y ago
    >The fact you would say such a thing tells me you are either ignorant of what was revealed, or you agree with censorship of people you don't like. Or it says that I read them and found them boring, hardly representative of the censorship Taibbi and Musk tried to paint them as, and ultimately not worth outrage. Simple as that. Go get some fresh air lol.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - jjulius 2y ago
        >... you're a moron or you're complicit. Stay classy.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        >Stay classy. I normally have more patience with people but I've about had it with the gaslighting and deliberate ignorance. Many of the same people blowing off the Twitter Files were freaking out when Trump suggested he might want to do the same kind of stuff. As a matter of fact, his camp did do some of the same censorship in 2020. However, the Democrats did far more of it and had more favor within the social media companies, and escalated the campaign of censorship to a whole new level during Biden's term. They tried to make a Ministry of Truth with that horrible woman who sang about it on TikTok. I should be able to just relax about all of this, but I can't let these issues go unnoticed.

consteval 2y ago

> Your gay cake dog whistle says a lot about you That's not the correct usage of dog whistle. > People should have some discretion in choosing the work they do Oh, so you are now magically in favor of 230? If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with? Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists? > Elon Musk spent $44 billion just to give us the proof and open things back up again Using X as an example is a poor choice. Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule. I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do.

wakawaka28 2y ago
>That's not the correct usage of dog whistle. Close enough. >Oh, so you are now magically in favor of 230? I'm saying you can't not be an editor yet do editorial things at the same time. >If people should have some discretion, then why should I, a private social media company, be forced to provide bandwidth and data for speech I don't agree with? There are multiple problems with this. For one, the government has been asking "private" companies to take stuff down. The act of asking alone is a form of intimidation. Secondly, even private companies can be public commons. The sheer scale of social media and the way that different sites seemingly coordinate to ban people they don't like (often in tandem with the government) is a threat to free speech. >Why is it fine that I can withhold icing from homosexuals, but I can't withhold database rows from racists? Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company? There's no conspiracy among bakers to deprive these people of cake, after all. This is a prime example of fishing for lawsuits. It's not about the cake, it's about deliberately disrespecting and offending one guy to the point where he would risk losing money in a lawsuit to fight them off. Just as your employer cannot compel speech just because they pay you, the customer of a baker should not be able to compel speech from him either. In both cases, the employed person should be able to refuse work. Here's another example: Should a printer be able to refuse to print some booklets he disagrees with? I'm sure he does not have to. The cake thing is very much like that. >Using X as an example is a poor choice. I didn't say it was an example of shining free speech. I said it was an example of government censorship exposed to the world. I know X is not perfect but it is freer than practically any other social media right now. >Elon Musk is not a champion of free speech, and he regularly amplifies conservative voices. Also, the incidence on of the n-word on Twitter went up, like, an order of magnitude under his rule. First of all, X is much freer than it has been in a long time. I know it isn't perfect but you won't find anything on that scale that is remotely as permissive for free speech. I don't think Musk is excessively promoting conservatives, despite sponsoring them in politics. Liberals simply forgot that many conservatives even existed because they were all strategically purged from the old Twitter, an action which goes against Western liberal values of free speech. Conservatives generally aren't racist, but that is the trope that the leftists have put forward about them. If you look for it you will find many instances of racism against every race online. Racist comments against white people (and sometimes against Asian people) are allowed on Twitter and every other social media platform. In most cases women are given carte blanche to defame and demonize men in general and in particular. The only thing that has changed with X now is people aren't being banned for most legal speech. As I said, X isn't a perfect fountain of free speech but it is at least much better than it was. >I don't want to see the n-word on Twitter. I don't want to see tweets of scummy men threatening to rape women. Do you? Probably not. X then is an example of what NOT to do. I don't especially enjoy seeing scummy posts either. But threats are legally actionable speech and do get taken down off of X. As for offensive things, I'm sure we all have opinions that offend someone. Free speech with all the mistakes and friction that it entails is what led our civilization to where it is. In a marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win. But if you put your thumb on the scales and gaslight everyone, eventually that will lead to huge problems. It may come as a shock to you but the N-word was not always this absurdly charged third rail. People used to say it all the time regardless of their race. Everyone went from thinking it was slightly profane to so awful that any black person in earshot has the license to kill the speaker if they happen to be white. I am only slightly exaggerating. People are now getting in trouble for talking about the word itself. One professor got fired for simply pointing out that there was a Chinese word that sounded almost the same. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of filtering mode, like a "safe search" or "parental filter" that can easily be turned off, just to satisfy people like yourself. I'm not a kid or a thin-skinned adult so I want it off. People died fighting to create a system that gives us the right to say what's on our mind. Don't take that for granted.
- consteval 2y ago
  > Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company? Free speech doesn't work like this, money counts as free speech. Your idealism about democracy is irrelevant - courts have ruled MANY times that speech is more much than just words. > Conservatives generally aren't racist, but that is the trope that the leftists have put forward about them Incorrect, conservatives don't realize that even if they say reasonable things but then follow it up with a slur then they just undid what they said. It's hard to take conservatives seriously on anything because they seem unable to speak above the level of an average middle school boy. People "censor" conservative opinions because conservatives don't know how to say their opinion in a pleasant way. Talk like Trump at work. Go ahead and try. He talks about women like they're dogs, he treats minorities like scum. You WILL be fired. Not because you would be conservative. > I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of filtering mode, like a "safe search" or "parental filter" that can easily be turned off This would disproportionately censor conservatives, for the reasons above. Trump sure as hell isn't making it past "safe search".
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >>Because democracy and critical individual rights do not rely on being able to get cake from a particular person or company? >Free speech doesn't work like this, money counts as free speech. Your idealism about democracy is irrelevant - courts have ruled MANY times that speech is more much than just words. Let me put it another way. If you want to pay someone to say something for you, your free speech rights don't have precedence over their right to free speech. Your desire to want to pay someone to do work does not surpass their religious convictions to not do it. My "idealism" is really pragmatism. >Incorrect, conservatives don't realize that even if they say reasonable things but then follow it up with a slur then they just undid what they said. Have you read anything that liberals put out? It's some of the most profane stuff out there. They overused profanity to the point that it doesn't have any punch anymore, while *choosing* to get butthurt about all kinds of other harmless words so they can get clout. >People "censor" conservative opinions because conservatives don't know how to say their opinion in a pleasant way. That is definitely not true. I've seen so much censorship of even the most mundane things, you can't sell me this story. Twitter was plenty unpleasant before Elon bought it. It was just leftist-leaning to an extreme and the only people who got to talk were in agreement with whatever unpleasantness was allowed there. Now that they can see a tiny bit of the real spectrum of popular opinion, they're crying about it. >It's hard to take conservatives seriously on anything because they seem unable to speak above the level of an average middle school boy. As with any crowd, there are smart ones and dumb ones. Don't get me started on the dumb liberals. The smart conservatives are speaking on a level exactly the same as their liberal counterparts. >Talk like Trump at work. Go ahead and try. If I was a billionaire like him and all my friends turned on me, I might do just that. He is actually a very nice guy and was popular in all circles before he ran for President. What changed about him? Absolutely nothing. >He talks about women like they're dogs, he treats minorities like scum. He talks about some women like they're dogs, because they stabbed him in the back. All of the outrage about Trump was way overblown. A celebrity known for a sharp sense of humor insulted someone he doesn't like, that must mean he's irredeemably against their demographic group! Meanwhile half the world has been calling him a Nazi or a Russian infiltrator for years with zero evidence, even after he got shot. Many minorities are conservatives and love Trump's policies and sense of humor. He was on Oprah and she asked him if he would consider running for president. Whoopi Goldberg used to be friends with him, and Hillary said he couldn't be bought (although that is contested, she was definitely a friend of his). He did a lot for criminal justice reform and supported HBCUs during his first term. He had a black girlfriend before his current wife and she (like Stormy Daniels) said nothing negative about him until she was pressured into lying. You're not going to convince me he's a deranged racist because I know better than that. He is not against any minority, but he's not accepting lies about his own race either. This is a bit old but it's a list of 17 black celebrities that supported Trump in 2020: https://www.essence.com/celebrity/black-donald-trump-supporters/#79383 https://www.essence.com/celebrity/black-donald-trump-support... >This would disproportionately censor conservatives, for the reasons above. Trump sure as hell isn't making it past "safe search". You're wrong about this, although I don't know what kind of Puritan-grade filter you're thinking of. Liberals swear just as much as conservatives. I'm probably done with this conversation because it's too much work to convince one person they're wrong. You're just going to have to look into things on your own. I don't expect that you will, but you'll feel a lot better if you do seek out some real context. It's not easy because the media has been smearing him for years now, but I am hopeful that the facts will become apparent soon to all the mentally ill who are freaking out about him.

jjulius 2y ago

>Social media was censored largely (though not entirely) by Democrats as exposed by Matt Taibbi. This isn't any conspiracy theory, it's documented fact. You mean the "smoking gun" that turned out to be a wet blanket of nothing topped with a heaping serving of hyperbole and self-aggrandizing?

wakawaka28 2y ago
[flagged]
- jjulius 2y ago
  >The fact you would say such a thing tells me you are either ignorant of what was revealed, or you agree with censorship of people you don't like. Or it says that I read them and found them boring, hardly representative of the censorship Taibbi and Musk tried to paint them as, and ultimately not worth outrage. Simple as that. Go get some fresh air lol.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jjulius 2y ago
      >... you're a moron or you're complicit. Stay classy.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        >Stay classy. I normally have more patience with people but I've about had it with the gaslighting and deliberate ignorance. Many of the same people blowing off the Twitter Files were freaking out when Trump suggested he might want to do the same kind of stuff. As a matter of fact, his camp did do some of the same censorship in 2020. However, the Democrats did far more of it and had more favor within the social media companies, and escalated the campaign of censorship to a whole new level during Biden's term. They tried to make a Ministry of Truth with that horrible woman who sang about it on TikTok. I should be able to just relax about all of this, but I can't let these issues go unnoticed.