Twitter silencing conservatives again - Woman who posted Trigglypuff shadowbanned

[Graeham]

hopefully twitter will die if its going to side with such disgraceful people

I think sites such as Twitter and Facebook have grown overconfident. Politics are very much like a pendulum - we're in a situation where it is very much leaning to the furthest side of the 'Left' in recent years. Naturally the 'Far Left' isn't a particularly good place for any society to be, thus momentum is slowly pushing it towards the 'Right'.

Unfortunately the 'Far Right' isn't a good place to be either but given the very nature of politics we typically end up with extremes by their very nature. Very few politicians - or their supporters - seek to compromise. Thus we are unlikely to see anything 'moderate' or balanced.

Ironically Twitter and Facebook are shameless opportunists. If there is a shift towards the 'Far Right' then you can bet that they will support such an endeavor because they want to make money and exploit public support. They're learning that shunning the 'Right' isn't a smart move when there's a lot of people out there who adhere to the 'Right' itself.

...and I am in the middle myself. I loathe the obsession with the 'Left' and the 'Right' due to liking policies on both sides depending on the individual subject. Though finding a balance is, unfortunately, very difficult.

[Deleted]

You should see reddit also. These idiots ban and censor every news and comments regarding migrants, and when you create your own subreddit and get big, they ban that one entirely.
Im a well balanced nationalist but when i see shit like this, makes me want to vote with the most cultish and the most brutal far right there is.

You do have to wonder, whats the agenda?
Everyone can see their neighbourhoods go to shit. What good will censoring shit do?

[Deleted]

A drag indeed.. when it is the government. Otherwise, one should not care.

Ah yes, Its only bad if the state violates basic liberal values.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, Twitter has no actual obligation to allow any user to express whatever they want.

I can think things, and hold people to standards beyond, 'Legality' -

Dislike it? use another platform. They are a company, for profit. Not the government.

One is basically a customer of Twitter. They can deny you service whenever and for whatever they feel it- without having to check with you or anyone else for that matter.

Lets reparse this and see if you change your mind:

Dislike it? use another Bakery. They are a company, for profit. Not the government.
One is basically a customer of the bakery. They can deny you service whenever and for whatever they feel it- without having to check with you or anyone else for that matter.

Yes, this libertarian stance is clearly consistent with other values you hold.

- - - Updated - - -

Some people have this really weird sense of entitlement to a privately-owned platform that they're provided access to for free.

Some people, understand that free speech is one of the most important values in the western liberal tradition - Other people should go visit North Korea.

- - - Updated - - -

Culture is in part a war of ideas. Get more effective than the other guy at spreading yours- that is the sum total of the societal game from interpersonal relationships to government to the aforementioned culture.

There is no special nobility of mankind.

And this is the problem.
We want the best ideas, not the ideas that are best at killing the other people.

[dd614]

As a conservative it frustrates me to see this happening, but it also pisses me off that conservatives whine about this. If you have any nuts, you'd get the fuck off these social media networks and boycott them. Start your own media platforms. Social media is bullshit anyways.

[Deleted]

Sexual orientation is a protected class, political orientation is not, basically.

Yeah, which totally negates the logical inconsistency.

[Endus]

Some people, understand that free speech is one of the most important values in the western liberal tradition - Other people should go visit North Korea.

Your rights and freedoms end where other people's begin. That's the most fundamental principle when discussing the concept of individual freedoms.

The freedom to speak does not grant you any entitlement to run roughshod over other people's freedoms. That argument is not based on liberty for all, but on restricting the freedoms of some for the advantage of others.

[primalmatter]

Your rights and freedoms end where other people's begin. That's the most fundamental principle when discussing the concept of individual freedoms.

The freedom to speak does not grant you any entitlement to run roughshod over other people's freedoms. That argument is not based on liberty for all, but on restricting the freedoms of some for the advantage of others.

Supports bans on politics he doesn't like because its their business they can refuse to serve who they don't want.

Supports suing bakeries for not making cakes for gay weddings because they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate....

-_-

[Endus]

Supports bans on politics he doesn't like because its their business they can refuse to serve who they don't want.

Supports suing bakeries for not making cakes for gay weddings because they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate....

-_-

You're really struggling to understand what "protected classes" are, aren't you?

[Deleted]

Your rights and freedoms end where other people's begin.

Free speech is one of the most important VALUES in the western liberal tradition - Not right.
Its truly fucking amazing this has to be pointed out to you again and again.

- - - Updated - - -

You're really struggling to understand what "protected classes" are, aren't you?

And you really struggle with the fact that that is not an argument.
Imagine that 'conservative' was a protected class and Gay was not, Would your argumentation change in any way?
Because see what is or what is not a protected class is arbitrary nonsense.
You either think business owners should be able to discriminate, or not.
Supporting it in some cases, but not in others, is not defended by pointing to your rule about 'protected classes' - See that's circular reasoning, Its not wrong, because its not wrong.
And its wrong, because its wrong, respectively.

[Endus]

Free speech is one of the most important VALUES in the western liberal tradition - Not right.
Its truly fucking amazing this has to be pointed out to you again and again.

There's a reason I said "and freedoms".

No such freedom or value is without limits, and the existence of other people is one of the clearest of those limits. Respecting your freedoms does not mean you get to run roughshod over the freedoms of other people.

[Strangebrew]

I'll just quote Mark.

these companies have MASSIVE impact on public perception and discourse. Imperative they stay out of filtering

Not at all surprised to see the same usual suspects defend companies doing whatever the fuck they want as long it's shutting down opinions they don't like though.

[Endus]

And you really struggle with the fact that that is not an argument.
Imagine that 'conservative' was a protected class and Gay was not, Would your argumentation change in any way?
Because see what is or what is not a protected class is arbitrary nonsense.

No, protected classes are about people's identity, not ideological choices like political viewpoints.

You either think business owners should be able to discriminate, or not.

You're using "discriminate" in a deliberately misleading manner.

Business owners should, of course, be able to "discriminate" in the sense of making informed decisions about their customers and so forth. Kicking people out for not wearing shoes, for instance, is "discriminating" against the barefoot, but since they can just go put on shoes, and there's a valid reason (health codes) to require it, it's not "bad".

It isn't the same as what we label "discrimination" when applied to discriminating against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Conflating the two is willfully dishonest.


And this really has nothing to do with this thread, since there isn't any "discrimination" against conservatives that's even been demonstrated, here. Just some few people acting like asshats who claim that they're being persecuted for their political views, rather than because they acted like asshats.

[Deleted]

There's a reason I said "and freedoms".

Not sure what you mean here, but i will pretend you mean principle, not right.

No such freedom or value is without limits,

Okay - What limits? Arbitrary, partisan ones or Objective ones?

and the existence of other people is one of the clearest of those limits.

How the hell does other people existing relate to this?

Respecting your freedoms does not mean you get to run roughshod over the freedoms of other people.

What freedoms are you talking about?
Because, hate to brake it to you, there is no 'freedom from mean words'

[Pangean]

As a conservative it frustrates me to see this happening, but it also pisses me off that conservatives whine about this. If you have any nuts, you'd get the fuck off these social media networks and boycott them. Start your own media platforms. Social media is bullshit anyways.

If they truly think these things are going on why don't they actually do that? Two possible reasons. One it's not really happening and it's another whine o'rama. Or two, its happening but actually doing something meaningful about it is haaaard... Neither one of those reasons speaks well of these folks.

[Edge-]

Okay - What limits? Arbitrary, partisan ones or Objective ones?

There are no real "objective" limitations on freedom. They're all subjective to some degree, and you'll always find people who agree and disagree with them.

How the hell does other people existing relate to this?

Because you now need to operate and interact with those around you. So your freedom to shoot guns wildly in every direction were you alone, might very well be limited in a society with other people around. Because, you know, you're probably going to shoot one of them at some point.

What freedoms are you talking about?
Because, hate to brake it to you, there is no 'freedom from mean words'

Actually, there is to a certain extent. That's why freedom of speech does have limits, and why incitement to violence is against the law. Same goes for verbal threats/harassment (assault, sexual harassment, abuse etc.)

[Deleted]

No, protected classes are about people's identity, not ideological choices like political viewpoints.

This is still not an argument - You are closing in though - And if you hinge your argument about this upon the innate nature of gay people, as compared to a self chosen identity, I will bring religion into the mix, because that is also an 'ideological' choice.

You're using "discriminate" in a deliberately misleading manner.

No, i'm not.

Business owners should, of course, be able to "discriminate" in the sense of making informed decisions about their customers and so forth. Kicking people out for not wearing shoes, for instance, is "discriminating" against the barefoot, but since they can just go put on shoes, and there's a valid reason (health codes) to require it, it's not "bad".

Can they discriminate against women who refuse to wear a scarf?

It isn't the same as what we label "discrimination" when applied to discriminating against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Conflating the two is willfully dishonest.

No, see because its the same word for the same action - You just have special feelings for gay people that you don't extend to people who don't wear shoes.

And this really has nothing to do with this thread, since there isn't any "discrimination" against conservatives that's even been demonstrated, here. Just some few people acting like asshats who claim that they're being persecuted for their political views, rather than because they acted like asshats.

Nope - You, and others, made the argument that whether or not they have done it, is immaterial, since they are free to do so.
Which brings us to our counterargument, why do you think that its okay for a business to discriminate against some for arbitrary personal reasons, but not against others for arbitrary personal reasons?
And saying one group has an arbitrary characteristic like 'protected class' is not an argument.

[Ahovv]

No, protected classes are about people's identity, not ideological choices like political viewpoints.


You're using "discriminate" in a deliberately misleading manner.

Business owners should, of course, be able to "discriminate" in the sense of making informed decisions about their customers and so forth. Kicking people out for not wearing shoes, for instance, is "discriminating" against the barefoot, but since they can just go put on shoes, and there's a valid reason (health codes) to require it, it's not "bad".

It isn't the same as what we label "discrimination" when applied to discriminating against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Conflating the two is willfully dishonest.


And this really has nothing to do with this thread, since there isn't any "discrimination" against conservatives that's even been demonstrated, here. Just some few people acting like asshats who claim that they're being persecuted for their political views, rather than because they acted like asshats.

I think it is dishonest to pretend there is a major moral difference in discrimination of one act vs another. Protected classes are an absurd concept.

As the issue has been raised recently by libertarian candidates, should a Jewish baker be forced to make a Nazi's wedding cake? Even if the Nazi has performed no harmful acts within the store? My answer is no.

[Deleted]

There are no real "objective" limitations on freedom. They're all subjective to some degree, and you'll always find people who agree and disagree with them.

Of course there is.
Threats of violence is an objective standard.
Some person holding a contrary political viewpoint, is not objective.

Because you now need to operate and interact with those around you. So your freedom to shoot guns wildly in every direction were you alone, might very well be limited in a society with other people around. Because, you know, you're probably going to shoot one of them at some point.

But you don't have a freedom to shoot bullets wildly around you - There is no 'freedom to fire' -

Actually, there is to a certain extent. That's why freedom of speech does have limits, and why incitement to violence is against the law. Same goes for verbal threats/harassment (assault, sexual harassment, abuse etc.)

There is two arguments here one, 'mean words' is not hate speech - And even to the degree hate speech is recognised (I don't think it should be) Its still not a freedom, its the opposite of a freedom, its a law.

[Endus]

Can they discriminate against women who refuse to wear a scarf?

This happens all the time. Was it "discrimination" when I had to wear long pants to visit St. Peter's Basilica?

No, see because its the same word for the same action - You just have special feelings for gay people that you don't extend to people who don't wear shoes.

Yes, because there's a pretty glaringly obvious difference between the two, and refusing to acknowledge it is not an argument.

I think it is dishonest to pretend there is a major moral difference in discrimination of one act vs another. Protected classes are an absurd concept.

One which is shared by pretty much the entire developed world. Pretty clearly not as "absurd" as you'd like it to be.

As the issue has been raised recently by libertarian candidates, should a Jewish baker be forced to make a Nazi's wedding cake? Even if the Nazi has performed no harmful acts within the store? My answer is no.

Nazis aren't a protected class, which makes the entire argument there nonsensical.

[Tico]

Censorship is not a nice thing. Doesnt matter who made it or who it is against. Liberals or conservatives, it doesnt matter.
Against very brutal far-sided or extreme posts, any side, censorship may be justified though.