9 ms·
Obviously. "Bothsidesism" posits that the two sides are broadly similar. The last few years have debunked that concept pretty conclusively.
by ceejayoz 6mo ago
Obviously.
"Bothsidesism" posits that the two sides are broadly similar. The last few years have debunked that concept pretty conclusively.
- icapybara 6mo agoYes but OP made a good point (model censorship going too far in the name of "woke"ness) and you shut them down.
- ceejayoz 6mo agoYes, because it's disingenuous bullshit. As it was with "campus protests violate free speech!" from the folks who immediately turned around and banned voluntary diversity programs at universities. As it was with "Twitter bans violate free speech" from the folks who bought it and banned @elonjet and the word cisgender.
- icapybara 6mo agoAre people not allowed to suggest models may be too censored? Is that idea censored?
- ceejayoz 6mo agoAm I not allowed to suggest it's disingenuous bullshit to pull the "both sides" thing?
- icapybara 6mo agoThat's right. It was uncalled for. I see no evidence OP was making a bad faith argument, but you assumed that right away.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- AlecSchueler 6mo agoBecause it's incredibly frustrating to see the government remove women and men of colour from government websites, deleting climate data, and sending out violent mobs to round people up while people sit around saying their main worry is that regulatory bodies will move to make things "too woke." There's no "woke" equivalent to the insanity being acted out by the US administration.
- staticautomatic 6mo agoIt also posits that there are only two sides.
- ceejayoz 6mo agoIn the US, that is functionally the case, and likely to remain that way.