3 ms·

What about the moderation strategy indicates that?

by pfraze 9mo ago

frumplestlatz 9mo ago
Try participating in discussions with a politically disapproved position and see how fast you're shadow-banned. And no, I'm not talking about "1939 Germany" views.
- pfraze 9mo ago
  Did that happen to you, or to anybody you can point to?
  - slater 9mo ago
    I think we're just, once again, speed-running the "which opinions, mfer" goose meme.
    - elsonrodriguez 9mo ago
      I wanted to play devil's advocate here, but unfortunately did find an example of a "politically disapproved position" in frumple's post history: "The deportations will continue regardless of the tantrums of the hysterical and mentally ill." Which ironically is similar to some "1939 Germany" views.
      - philipallstar 9mo ago
        1939 Germany wanted to do the invading, not combat it.
        elsonrodriguez 9mo ago
        Are you trying to imply that Germany didn't deport anybody in 1939?
        deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
      - frumplestlatz 9mo ago
        Are you claiming that enforcing existing 2026 U.S. immigration law -- developed through decades of bipartisan agreement and consistent with policies in other liberal democracies -- is in any way comparable to 1939 Germany and their systematic murder of millions? That comparison is precisely the problem: it distorts history, inflates moral claims, and shuts down serious discussion. This is also largely the standard level of rhetoric on Bluesky, which is fine -- but manufactured consensus on a heavily moderated platform is not the same thing as factual or moral authority.
        elsonrodriguez 9mo ago
        Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it. Fortunately the Republicans, specifically Tom Homan and Stephen Miller, can be shown to have a record of dehumanizing people to the point of cruelty. As far as anyone could tell they were behind the effort to separate children from their families, and the decision to intentionally destroy records, and prevent the recording of data, which ultimately left over a thousand children orphaned to this very day. I know someone in CBP who volunteered to try help sort that situation out, ready to get on a plane, paying out of pocket, and they were told to stand down by leadership. The republican-led executive branch wanted to inflict pain despite the law, and despite "policy". And now those same people (Homan and Miller) are behind the door-to-door raids, asking people for their papers, building detention centers(even though we're supposed to be sending them back home...), and targeting political enemies. Obama managed to deport 3 million people without this excess use of cruelty, civil rights violations, manpower, or money. This is something else. This level of hatred towards the other is the type of seed that may or may not grow into a holocaust. It's understandable if some people want to kill it before it sprouts by drawing obvious parallels.
        frumplestlatz 9mo ago
        This is a category error. Immigration enforcement -- even when abusive or unlawful, which is not a concession I make -- is not genocide. Invoking 1939 Germany collapses distinctions that matter. Holocaust analogies based on unsupported anecdote and asserted intent aren’t analysis; they’re unfalsifiable rhetorical escalations designed to end debate. If every disliked policy is treated as a "seed" of genocide, as is now common, the term loses meaning and becomes an empty rhetorical weapon. Argue specific actions with evidence and standards, or don’t -- but stop inflating unfalsifiable moral claims to the point where serious critique is impossible. > Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it. We haven’t passed a comprehensive immigration law since 1986, and the enforcement framework in use today arises from bipartisan legislation passed in 1986, major subsequent revisions in 1996, and layers of later executive discretion exercised by administrations of both parties. We had four years of functionally non-existent enforcement, and while I cannot ascribe motive, the natural outcome was to make later enforcement incredibly difficult -- a consequence that is now plainly visible. If you think those laws are unjust, argue that -- but don’t pretend this is some novel or uniquely partisan creation.
  - frumplestlatz 9mo ago
    Yes. I realize I’m speaking with a Bluesky employee, and to be clear, you’re not really the audience to which I’m appealing. I don’t expect anyone working at the platform to disagree with the ideological framework under which it operates -- or even to recognize it -- and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend it’s neutral or balanced.

What about the moderation strategy indicates that?

by pfraze 9mo ago

What about the moderation strategy indicates that?

Try participating in discussions with a politically disapproved position and see how fast you're shadow-banned. And no, I'm not talking about "1939 Germany" views.

pfraze 9mo ago
Did that happen to you, or to anybody you can point to?
- slater 9mo ago
  I think we're just, once again, speed-running the "which opinions, mfer" goose meme.
  - elsonrodriguez 9mo ago
    I wanted to play devil's advocate here, but unfortunately did find an example of a "politically disapproved position" in frumple's post history: "The deportations will continue regardless of the tantrums of the hysterical and mentally ill." Which ironically is similar to some "1939 Germany" views.
    - philipallstar 9mo ago
      1939 Germany wanted to do the invading, not combat it.
      - elsonrodriguez 9mo ago
        Are you trying to imply that Germany didn't deport anybody in 1939?
        deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
    - frumplestlatz 9mo ago
      Are you claiming that enforcing existing 2026 U.S. immigration law -- developed through decades of bipartisan agreement and consistent with policies in other liberal democracies -- is in any way comparable to 1939 Germany and their systematic murder of millions? That comparison is precisely the problem: it distorts history, inflates moral claims, and shuts down serious discussion. This is also largely the standard level of rhetoric on Bluesky, which is fine -- but manufactured consensus on a heavily moderated platform is not the same thing as factual or moral authority.
      - elsonrodriguez 9mo ago
        Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it. Fortunately the Republicans, specifically Tom Homan and Stephen Miller, can be shown to have a record of dehumanizing people to the point of cruelty. As far as anyone could tell they were behind the effort to separate children from their families, and the decision to intentionally destroy records, and prevent the recording of data, which ultimately left over a thousand children orphaned to this very day. I know someone in CBP who volunteered to try help sort that situation out, ready to get on a plane, paying out of pocket, and they were told to stand down by leadership. The republican-led executive branch wanted to inflict pain despite the law, and despite "policy". And now those same people (Homan and Miller) are behind the door-to-door raids, asking people for their papers, building detention centers(even though we're supposed to be sending them back home...), and targeting political enemies. Obama managed to deport 3 million people without this excess use of cruelty, civil rights violations, manpower, or money. This is something else. This level of hatred towards the other is the type of seed that may or may not grow into a holocaust. It's understandable if some people want to kill it before it sprouts by drawing obvious parallels.
        frumplestlatz 9mo ago
        This is a category error. Immigration enforcement -- even when abusive or unlawful, which is not a concession I make -- is not genocide. Invoking 1939 Germany collapses distinctions that matter. Holocaust analogies based on unsupported anecdote and asserted intent aren’t analysis; they’re unfalsifiable rhetorical escalations designed to end debate. If every disliked policy is treated as a "seed" of genocide, as is now common, the term loses meaning and becomes an empty rhetorical weapon. Argue specific actions with evidence and standards, or don’t -- but stop inflating unfalsifiable moral claims to the point where serious critique is impossible. > Even if the current state of immigration policy was forged in a bipartisan agreement(it wasn't), it would be inhumane and I would condemn it. We haven’t passed a comprehensive immigration law since 1986, and the enforcement framework in use today arises from bipartisan legislation passed in 1986, major subsequent revisions in 1996, and layers of later executive discretion exercised by administrations of both parties. We had four years of functionally non-existent enforcement, and while I cannot ascribe motive, the natural outcome was to make later enforcement incredibly difficult -- a consequence that is now plainly visible. If you think those laws are unjust, argue that -- but don’t pretend this is some novel or uniquely partisan creation.
- frumplestlatz 9mo ago
  Yes. I realize I’m speaking with a Bluesky employee, and to be clear, you’re not really the audience to which I’m appealing. I don’t expect anyone working at the platform to disagree with the ideological framework under which it operates -- or even to recognize it -- and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend it’s neutral or balanced.