[General US Politics]

I think he's just supplementing yours to address the other guys point.

[General US Politics]

Tearing down statues isn't a result of riots. You can tear a statue down without there being a riot to do so.

[General US Politics]

1 hour ago, Rezzy said:

I think it's been repetition for the last page or so, but the tl;dr for me is I don't trust anybody to be making the ruling on what is and isn't acceptable to say on a monopolistic public square, unless it's inciting violence.

20 years ago, gay rights were controversial,and trans rights were unheard of.  If that debate was today, and the people in charge of Facebook, Twitter, etc decided that being gay was immoral and deplatformed anybody who advocated for those rights, it would have been well within their power.  What is hateful is highly subjective, and traditionals might decide me being married to my wife is hateful to the idea of traditional marriage, and people like me should be banned from Facebook and Twitter, because there are impressionable children on those sites.  As a matter of principle, I am against deplatforming of anybody.

Those things were deplatformed and it eventually became realized through other platforms willing to give it a platform that they should have rights. Eventually the logical argument won, free speech and free enterprise were kept, and eventually homophobes will be deplatformed for inviting hate on private platforms.

I don't see the inconsistencies in our arguments. They were given a different platform after being deplatformed, they protested, and they continued to win and win and win. Homophobia and transphobia have gone down over time because the -phobes have gradually been told to fuck off (because they don't care the absurdity of their viewpoints even when explained through a religious lens) and been told to fuck off by the public (which consists of private citizens and corporations). Because the more open minded parts of the public realize that their rhetoric incites hatred, violence, and discrimination, which are antithetical to democracy.

To treat social media companies as a monopoly or an oligarchy is really inaccurate considering the actions of Twitter and Facebook over the past month have been polar opposite. Especially since the latter is fine with all the hate speech.

But, I mean, the fact that reddit had allowed these communities to fester and eventually kill more than a couple people shows it as a public safety & health issue... Especially when mass killings are linked with media anxiety and hate.

Don't fall into the paradox of intolerance.

[General US Politics]

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

Doesn't work in reverse, since I'm older than you.  Nice try, though.

It doesn't work at all. You'll understand when you're older. Mentally at least, since a mod is intent on criticizing instead of trying to add anything of substance. Your arguments are generally weak and you're talking down to me because you prefer to talk down rather than engage. You've had a history of doing this and I've had a history of fighting back against the attitude.

You said to talk to racists, if you think I'm ignorant then you're not following your own philosophy. I had to argue with racists four years ago, all they did was leave because they couldn't handle it. If bigotry was rooted in logic then it would be easy to destroy.

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

Believe what you want.  But I'm not going to advocate silencing you because you're speaking from ignorance.

I'm arguing against your ignorance, too, but in a different place. Don't take shots at me like a 12 year old, though. I am in disbelief it took years to ban Life. The fact that it wasn't simple is an indictment on you guys and how little this forum actually cares about racism.

In fact, if you had dropped it (deplatform!) Instead of insisting on getting the last word, this discussion would be over and it would run out of oxygen. But you insist on arguing that someone who said that transpeople are no better than eunuchs deserved to continue to post for years.

EDIT: he said they were subhuman because they were eunuchs. Lol

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

You haven't seen a company's philosophy change with the leadership, ever?

No, your communication skills are genuinely awful so I don't know what point you're making. I thought your communication would improve with age but it seems to have regressed, so maybe you won't understand anything when you're older.

Or better yet, you'll understand if you're darker. 🙂

[General US Politics]

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Guess which religion is funding all the -isms you so hate?  That's what I mean by getting to the root of the problem.

I wouldn't blame it on religion. Republicans seized on it to unite people in hate. Next.

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

As for deplatforming the big guys, that's still a sticky issue.  I'm all for kicking Alex Jones since he was telling his followers to harass grieving parents (which IMO falls under inciting violence). 

Many have, and many have advocated for dog whistle hate. Again, what's the issue?

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I'm also for keeping Trump's tweets around and corrected, because he's a goddamn embarrassment, and we need to learn from it.

I never disagreed here. Twitter itself isn't removing him because he's president. Once he's no longer president he's gone from it while his tweets are preserved. Leader of the free world needs transparency, and his transparency leaves him mocked.

Quote

What I'm not for is silencing individuals solely for their views - let them be a pain in the ass first, then kick them for ToS violations. 

I literally said this. You're not reading my points. That's not deplatforming. A platform is something that raises a voice above another, hence a platform and not a voice. Those people don't have a platform, they're another user.

Quote

Furthermore, it doesn't take into account stuff like leadership changes - so if one president is a homophobic ass and another isn't, deplatforming the ass means that the new one may not be able to turn the brand around.

I can't parse this.

Quote

As for various mod decisions, you're speaking with no context.  I have more of it, and know why things panned out the way they did, plus a bunch of other shit that I'm not going to make public.  There are some things that happened in back that would make your hair stand on end.

All I'm hearing is that you guys sat on your hands allowing a virulent racist to spew his garbage. I'm a mod for two larger communities, there's no context to excuse the inaction, I just got behind the firing of a racist ass admin in a bigger community than this, as one of the other admins, and I'm not shying away from my faults or the lack of inaction in the scenario. it's insulting since this forum has the appearance of refusing to do the bare fucking minimum to stand up for anti-racism causes. When Logan Paul has become more enlightened on racism and acknowledging past racism and privilege than this forum, you've got a problem.

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Lastly, when I tell you that you'll understand when you're older, I mean it.  Think of how much your views have changed over time.  Think of how much more they'll change as you live your life.

I'm sure you'll understand why I'm going off about all this when you're older. Trust me.

[General US Politics]

36 minutes ago, eclipse said:

The fact that you take it as mockery is insanity.  Because it wasn't meant to be.  It was pointing out the flaw in the deplatforming logic, which IMO is one that you still haven't addressed.  Instead, you're the one making it about race, and why it's A Good Thing, without addressing how it can be used against your views (maybe not now, but twenty years down the line).  It's dangerous to like something just because it happens to fit your agenda, and I think that's the point that you're pushing.

I talked about this.

I talked about how it's different.

I talked about all of this and talked about it within a moral framework.

Being anti-racism isn't an agenda. Stop calling it an agenda. Are you in favor of Facebook deplatforming large voices who deny COVID? If so, why? If not, then why are you against deplatforming racists then, since racism is just as big an issue as COVID and is heavily intertwined with it?

Bigotry is a public safety issue. It's not an opinion. Black people are getting lynched, transpeople are getting hated and sexually assault, and racism/transphobia is played upon for bad parties to seize power.

36 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Meanwhile, I think fighting racism doesn't mean that merely shutting them up will help.  It's treating a symptom, not the cause.  I'm more interested in getting rid of it entirely, which means that you'll have to give people room to fuck up, then grow - and telling them that they aren't allowed to speak their mind isn't how to change minds for the better.

No, it's a factor and a thing that is proven to work. It's not the only thing.

Deplatforming racists is not deplatforming someone who says racist shit. It's preventing public figures and companies who make racist comments from having an elevated platform so we don't have president Trump. It's a public safety issue, not a fucking opinion.

But let's be honest, you guys didn't ban Life when he advocated genocide, and you all knew how much of an obstinate asshole he was and how little room he had to grow. I'm not advocating to punch racists, I'm not advocating to ban someone from Facebook for innocuous racism, I'm saying to hold public figures accountable by deplatforming them.

36 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I think you'd be rightfully pissed if I silenced people just because I disagreed with them.

You already try to by telling me to get older, not addressing arguments, not directly answering questions, not allowing discussion to happen and trying to distract. You can do better, but you're dealing with someone who is willing to get deep into the pit and not some average user. You should be aware of this by now. I don't appreciate a comment like this 

58 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I assume the other person I'm arguing with will stop and ask, rather than run his mouth.

Labeling my opinion and actually addressing arguments as running my mouth. If you don't view this as mocking someone or as a bad faith comment, then you shouldn't reply to me. I'm not going to hold back when I've seen hundreds of subreddits and Twitter do a better job addressing the protests than Serenes forest.

Seriously, a guy didn't get perma banned for advocating genocide and for being openly transphobic 4-5 years back, you just let him come back and call out political correctness like PC is relevant to tolerance.

I'm also being stuck with a tolerance of intolerance fallacy by a lot of people in this thread, and I assume none of you care to read that argument either.

 

EDIT: and ultimately, it's their business what they do or don't wanna give a platform. They're a private company. They silenced previous protests and viewpoints, Facebook continues to do it themselves, so I continuously call Zuckerberg a pedophile on Facebook until they disallow me. To call them an ally is a stretch, but to call anti-racism a basic moral obligation is not.

Deplatforming is free speech, as is platforming. I really don't get what you're arguing. I'm going to argue it's immoral if they do deplatform a Muslim person solely for being Muslim, and I will argue against intolerance. Social media companies need to atone for the tolerance of hate speech that has allowed racism to spread, and I've linked an article that shows that it's working!

Try hard mentioned movements that were deplatformed..... That managed to come back with a vengeance to pressure these companies with protests. It's part of our moral obligation as citizens too, not just companies. You guys are exceedingly simplifying my argument instead of speaking in good faith.

[General US Politics]

Just now, eclipse said:

That was specifically for the COVID situation.  Believe it or not, knowing when your opinion is fit for public discourse is a Good Thing, and should be encouraged.  See, if the racists you so hate would do the same, the companies wouldn't have to do it for them.

You didn't state your viewpoint when I asked, but you're telling me I should stop and ask instead of running my mouth.

Now, I'm a huge proponent of taking what you dish. You keep criticizing my viewpoint without stating any of your own. I defend my viewpoint and you attack my character (I assume this is why I'm not suspended, because you know you're attacking my character and being dismissive instead of addressing arguments). But the fact that you're unable to word your viewpoint for public consumption is not an indictment on me, because it's very clear I've stopped and asked.

I don't appreciate the swipes and I don't appreciate the fact that the staff isn't acknowledging the fact that they allowed a literal genocide advocate on the forum for four years. Or literal segregationists.

Having that said, have you seen the country you're living in? Racists not shutting the fuck up is the issue and being vindicated within their own echo chambers is making it far worse.

The fact that I brought up proof and continue to be mocked by you is insanity. I think both of us, INCLUDING YOU eclipse, need to step away and reflect. There's no fucking reason I should be the only one reflecting here when you're unwilling to entertain deplatforming, and you're projecting when you say I'm running my mouth. You just reply and say whatever you want and make it sound like an argument when it's not, it's just discussion stifling.

[General US Politics]

Just now, eclipse said:

I assume the other person I'm arguing with will stop and ask, rather than run his mouth.

I did ask. Here's the response I got.

32 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I know exactly what I want out of this, but it's not enforceable, nor do I think my opinion on the matter is fit for a public forum.

As for racism, I want to attack the root of it, not bury it and hope that it goes away.

This didn't address a single argument I brought up, this didn't answer a single question I asked. I even asked you what you think I'm arguing, and you said nothing.

Don't give me that crap.

[General US Politics]

6 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Really? You said at one point you were pretty much a socialist. Even more left than me. What happened?

Yeah, over four years ago. I can change, I'm a capitalist who believes in social safety nets and equity for all, as well as being highly pro-Union and allowing people to have a massive and representative say in their workplace (think Warren's 40% plan). In either case, I don't really give a shit about labels or the identity politics of politics. I refuse to call myself a leftist, right leaning, liberal, conservative, anything. Specifically so I don't get pigeonholed.

I'm also fully in favor of evidence based policy, which being a socialist is antithetical to.

6 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Companies also like to ban people for being "too far-left". They do the wrong thing more than the right thing. It's not going to be reliable. Notice what they said at the end of that article you linked.

“Alex Jones is not the only person being deplatformed or who has been deranked,” Caplan said. “We need to puncture this myth that it’s only affecting far-right people. Trans rights activists, Black Lives Matter organizers, LGBTQI people have been demonetized or deranked. The reason we’re talking about far-right people is that they have coverage on Fox News and representatives in Congress holding hearings. They already have political power.”

And they took responsibility. What's the issue? I'm telling a private company what they should do, well in line with my argument that we need to place pressured on private institutions and citizens.

Deplatforming still works, and advertisers pulling out and Alex Jones being banned has limited his viewership.

6 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

I don't think any of the mods are transphobic.

One is, or was. I've been talking about him. He knows who he is.

Quote

Then let this be a lesson to you: the minute someone starts pointing out the flaws in your logic, stop and ask why.  Both at yourself and the other person.  I'd rather people learn and grow.

Easy for someone to say who's never had a stance. Let this be a lesson to you; if your logic is crappy, I'll counter it passionately, and press you to have a stance and address other arguments repeatedly since you're clearly ignoring and sidestepping an argument to preach condescending crap like this.

[General US Politics]

4 minutes ago, eclipse said:

That means I trust corporations to do that. . .which I don't.  I'd rather disruptive behavior be punished. . .and coincidentally, those calling for restrictions on someone based on race JUST so happen to be really disruptive.  A coincidence, really.

As for COVID. . .I have my thoughts, and I'm keeping them to myself.  I know what I want and why, but it's also very easy to misinterpret.

It's fucking annoying that you criticize everyone's viewpoint without posting your own. You can't take the heat or directly address a question.

And you keep arguing crap that's pretty orthogonal to my point, as do the rest of you.

I trust you to moderate this forum less than you trust Twitter to moderate racism, because you refuse to communicate properly and in a straightforward manner. You're poorly keeping within the spirit of the subforum you're trying to moderate.

You'd rather disruptive behavior be punished? The hell does that mean? I'm not re-reading everything you've ever posted because you never give a straight answer, all you do is criticize criticize criticize and you guys didn't even ban someone for advocating a fucking genocide.

[General US Politics]

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

If anything I want the racists to be loud, and stick their real names next to their sentiments.  That way, I know who to avoid.

That's why I said the government shouldn't prosecute, so they have every ability to be out and proud. Or they can just keep to themselves and learn through osmosis.

People don't learn by even seeing a debate. They learn through experience and exposure to other races. Exposure to white nationalists is what we want companies to limit.

I also thought you were referring to COVID stuff. Which I'm not sure anyone answered.

[General US Politics]

5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I know exactly what I want out of this, but it's not enforceable, nor do I think my opinion on the matter is fit for a public forum.

As for racism, I want to attack the root of it, not bury it and hope that it goes away.

Then say it. You're not contributing by saying any of this. Seriously, how are you a mod? You're not even following the spirit of the sticky by not stating your opinion, all you do is preach to avoid addressing arguments, especially since I'm calling out this forum for being complicit in not giving a shit about the islamophobia from four years ago nor did they give a shit when Life Admiral repeatedly advocated genocide. Did you ban him for tax evasion or something?

4 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

If so, we are relying on social media corporations in order to regulate.

Frankly, I don't want to rely on them. There have been many instances of anti-Israel, communist, marxist accounts getting banned by Twitter and Facebook.

Just because they state, 'we need to deal with "the other extreme" '.

These companies are not the lefts friends and will never be reliable.

Deplatforming works. You're just saying "I don't want this" in the face of proof, at this point.

I'm not a leftist, and I don't make friends with companies. I pressure companies to do the right thing.

[General US Politics]

Do you guys think widespread COVID19 denial deserves a platform? If not, then why does racism deserve one?

It's not a matter of opinion, both are national crises. And that's not an opinion. Black people are still getting lynched.

[General US Politics]

6 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

I'm not sure deplatforming will actually do much. All that will fuel is their persecution complex, which sadly at least some people seem to take as if they are being shunned, they are talking truths.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work

Quote

“We’ve been running a research project over last year, and when someone relatively famous gets no platformed by Facebook or Twitter or YouTube, there's an initial flashpoint, where some of their audience will move with them” Joan Donovan, Data and Society’s platform accountability research lead, told me on the phone, “but generally the falloff is pretty significant and they don’t gain the same amplification power they had prior to the moment they were taken off these bigger platforms.”

Preliminary research on reddit has shown this as well. I'm going with the research here, and the fact that Germany has literally done it for 75 years without a measurable Nazi movement.

6 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

You are never actually trying to convince Richard Spencer. You already know that he is inconvertable. You are there to show everyone else watching that Richard Spencer is a fucking idiot. This does not take a lot of brainpower to do.

Richard Spencer is literally the kind of person to deplatform on social media. Arguing with someone who is entrenched is a waste, because the people surrounding will often be entrenched already. But these places don't do their damage because they debate with Richard Spencer, these places do their damage because they apply fascist tactics and only allow the vulnerable in.

To preserve the vulnerable and allow them to learn on their own -- you, as a society, remove an easily accessible platform rather than try to argue with the opposition in public. Because the opposition will never allow you to be in an open environment full of impressionable people without being on their own terms.

If you give them a platform, you can let them act like victims without them actually being victims. If you deplatform them, their victimhood isn't widespread.

[General US Politics]

5 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

The second is what I prefer and involves making them look as ridiculous as possible. These peoples ideologies are paper thin and can be easily dismantled even if they will always act in bad faith. There is not much that isn't pathetic about an ideology that is insisting that you are special not because of your own achievements, but because of the race you had no choice in being born as.

Lol this is really easy to say when white people are like 70% of the west and have made little attempt to combat racism until 2020. Turns out one way was to deplatform them, either by screaming at them like this or by throwing them off a platform. You can't convince these idiots because, frankly, if the view were logical then you can use logic to cure it. But the view is not logical.

By giving a viewpoint from a bad faith actor oxygen you acknowledge the legitimacy of their point. Fuck that. Maybe if white people made a better attempt at this by actually socially punishing racists this argument wouldn't be happening. But as it stands, too many people are impressionable and apolitical for this to be a viable strategy.

Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, and even modern cunts like Hannity and Tucker Carlson are getting ads removed as a form of deplatforming their viewpoints, as well. But somehow deplatform is being taken as silenced; if it's within my power, I'd ban every racist possible because I've only ever heard white people (and clipsey lol) talk about how we should hear these racists out. I've spent four years doing it and nothing's happened, too.

[General US Politics]

2 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

But what if it's for a certain reason, like Scientology or the FLDS? Westboro?

If they post hate speech, then their posts should be removed and they should be deplatformed. Where's the ambiguity here?

Quote

This is not how to respond to ANYONE in any sort of discussion.  If you can't put aside your emotions to understand what is fundamentally wrong with your idea, then I think you need to step away from it.

I think you're confusing my vehement disagreement with your lack of a decent argument. You're just trying to shut down an argument with "get older" instead of explaining anything. This is literally all you do, you aren't making anything resembling an attempt you're just trying to re-explain your platitude instead of address any single argument I have made.

I fully understand your argument. I find your argument weak and I'm pointing out what I disagree with. You need to stop pretending like your viewpoint is some wise shit that I need to listen to. It's not. We've been over this multiple times and you haven't responded to my request that you address the argument instead of your perception that I don't understand.

You're just sidestepping the argument to condescend. Hence, that's not a way you should talk to me, especially when this forum hired a transphobe as a mod.

[General US Politics]

2 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

I'm confused here, I thought religion and racism where two separate  things?

I'm an agnostic but I'll be labeled a Muslim by a hateful red hat.

They're deeply intertwined. But being anti-a certain religion is the exact same concept as being racist, to me, so I'm not sure at all what the argument is. It's a slippery slope fallacy given form.

[General US Politics]

Yeah, that's not a way to talk to me. Gun control is government end, this is private company end.

If they ban Christianity, I'll attack them for that, as will many others. As I said, it's on us as a society -- including our media -- to correct these wrongs that have perpetuated. One way is deplatforming racists.

I'm specifically talking about racism, but you're implying private companies should not be able to regulate what they want. Even though this, a private website, does. Then don't moderate at all, if your view is that deplatforming anything bad is bad. But I shouldn't expect any less from a website who hired a red hat as a mod and suspended a user who called a racist user... A racist... For being racist against his people lmfao like seriously what the fuck?

Don't give me this "wait till you get older" bullshit. I've seen no attempt to try to engage or even talk about the various examples I've brought up, I've just seen a repeat of platitudes and condescension.

The fact that you're calling racism a point of view is FUCKING insane and is clearly a fundamental disagreement, you know that? It's not a point of view that black people are slaughtered like fucking dogs and our government is obsessed with listening to its people and lifting protections for historically disenfranchised classes because the people refuse to do jack and shit and just let people with big voices use their platform to spread hate. They're all complicit, as is this forum right now in my viewpoint.

Nobody is even explaining to me what they think my viewpoint is, despite my request. Because I'm literally hyperfocused on race, and the argument is that bigotry is similar in magnitude to violence, and not a matter of opinion.

 

 

I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to hate speech laws. I believe the onus is on us to police one another, even through our companies. How that is controversial is beyond me.

[General US Politics]

4 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Now, back to your argument.  No matter how passionate you are about race, you have to truly understand why deplatforming is dangerous.  Some dumbshits on my local newspaper's comments section mentioned that these riots over race only happen in blue places, implying that there's something wrong with Democrats in general.  I think it's because no one would bat an eye in a red state.  Now imagine if the morons who made those comments in my paper had the power to remove your opinion from Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/other big place

And they do if they can make those platforms. And I will continue to pressure them for standing for racism. So long as they don't run the government and put that into the government, by all means!

But as it stands, those platforms have been fully fucking complicit in systems designed to kill and discriminate against black people and other disadvantaged people. They should fix their mess and not give Alex Jones a platform for free speech if they have the power to prevent it.

I mean, you guys don't allow racism right? If I posted an article saying that black people like Obama are uppity n words then I'd be banned here. But you guys literally do it. Your only argument is that those companies are of much bigger scale, which is basically saying Facebook is a form of government and not a private company like it is. So is it a private company or government?

If it were government run, then your argument is valid. But my argument is not a legal one. It's a moral one. Don't conflate the two in any way possible, the platforms have a moral obligation to not allow people who stroke hatred such as Alex Jones on it. The only reason Trump even has a Twitter right now is because he's the president; if you copy trump tweets you get banned because of how vile they are.

Racism is not just an opinion and it's absolutely fucked up you're trying to make an argument that it is. And you're continuing to tell me I don't get it when I provided an example of German law. There are massive massive failures in our society, including our media and education, that is allowing racism to propagate and you guys are currently railing against any restrictions that the private media may oppose because racism is just an opinion.

It's a shame that you guys are attempting to downplay one of the greatest evils of our country and not encouraging private companies to help the movement along. Especially since you can Google any number of articles that empirically show deplatforming hatred works far better than deplatforming anti-hatred. People have tried to do the latter for centuries and they're on the wrong side of history now.

[General US Politics]

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

That you're in favor of deplatforming because it currently aligns with your personal views.  I don't care whether it's race-related or not.  I care about the underlying logic.

The underlying logic is that this is a problem that is continuously perpetuated throughout society, actively harming society, and actively harming minorities and we as a society need to take responsibility.

This is not a difference of opinion and it's nowhere near as simple as that.

You're strawmanning my point. Everyone should be anti-racist to ensure equality for all -- that's part of what America is supposed to preach, is it not? To say otherwise is willful ignorance. Making it into a general concept and saying it's on the citizens to police themselves (including companies) is a point to be made.

The fact that Germany has done this to great effect by having significantly less white supremacy than the US is amazing, but the fact that people raise a stink when we try to deplatform racists like Steve Bannon in the US is absolutely nuts. Do you want to curb racism or not?

The fact that you're saying racism is a matter of opinion is absolutely absurd. Why do we have protections based on race and sex? It's just an opinion that races and sexes are equal, after all!

[General US Politics]

What are you calling my stance?

Because I think it's pretty clear. Deplatform racists. Reforming racists doesn't work. Engaging rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones in honest dialogue doesn't fucking work, and it's been shown over and over again.

And the fact that they can rope people in and radicalize is a major issue that you guys are ignoring. Because it's been ignored and not dealt with and you end up with the death of Heather Heyer in the Charlottesville protest and the president saying there's good people on both sides of a march where one side is white supremacists.

[General US Politics]

You just compared Christianity to Racism. I'm not sure why racism is just an opinion in this context.

Until you can understand why bigotry is not just an opinion, which I'm 100000% sure you do, I'm not sure you can say you're not gaslighting. Racism being just an opinion is nullifying how that was wide reaching enough that police and the government brutalize the black community, and allowed the populace to be complicit by letting them create their own forums to invite and incite hate on platforms like reddit and Facebook and Twitter and all that.

Btw getting suspended for calling an islamophobe a racist is gaslighting. I'm brown, you know. 

[General US Politics]

14 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Not if you're willing to think about it honestly. 

I have thought about it honestly. Don't make that assumption that I haven't. I'm sick of being fucking gaslighted every time I point out racism and ways to deal with bigotry.

Four years ago I got suspended for calling tuvarkz a racist because he used charged language to basically shit on Muslims. And yet, nothing happened to him. This is some minor shit, but that's exactly what I'm talking about. Not deplatforming anti-Muslim (note: NOT anti-islamic) and harmful rhetoric is being complicit. But you guys went after the guy who pointed it out instead, and hired a red hat as a mod. I have every reason to assume I am not being honestly dealt with, instead.

Now, let me go for the rest of the paragraph.

Quote

Where are the big places that people go in order to interact with others?  What if they all decided that Mormonism is the de facto religion and screw everyone else that dares to advocate otherwise?  While it's not the government silencing, it is a way of shaping opinion.  Just because their values align with yours at the moment doesn't mean that it's a good thing.  It's something that must be heavily monitored.  It's also why I think fact-checking the president's tweets without deleting them is a damn good compromise.

Racism is comparable to religion now?

So you think being Christian is like being a racist?

There's no "views align with mine" going on here. Unless you actively think Racism is a viewpoint of the same degree as Christianity.

I even asked if somehow these social media companies split up into multiple things and outlawed racism in their platform, but I got no response. Somehow an oligarchy shouldn't do things to limit their platform, but also a smaller forum shouldn't either?

Meanwhile there's black people being slaughtered by the police, lynchings being reported as suicide, and hatred and bigotry allowed to fester on Facebook and even being encouraged on various platforms to pretend nothing is happening... To portray people as thugs then accuse them of not doing anything... (as you can see by the anti-racist being suspended for pointing it out)

In all honesty, its not even about silencing individuals on Facebook. It's about deplatforming news sources that are harmful to the public debate. It's about deplatforming public figures like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos who had wide reach and influence, yet no longer do.

There's a reason Germany bans Holocaust denial. I don't think we should go that far, but to me this is not holding society and private institutions responsible for the racist bullshit and rhetoric they've created. And encouraging people not to hold them responsible!

You wantr race riots again or do you want to actually start educating the population on bigotry before they are entrenched? Because the entrenching of bigotry is what got Trump elected and put us in the middle of a fucking pandemic that is disproportionately killing black people.

The first amendment protects us from the government. Everything else is fair game. There's research and anecdotes to back me up about how deplatforming works to combat racism. This country and its people haven't done anything close to taking responsibility for the racism in its structure, and not deplatforming racists implies they're fine with that structure staying so long as their bottom line is fine.

[General US Politics]

Just now, Captain Karnage said:

 

That's pretty bold of you to assume that.

Just because someone falls into a spot on a political map doesn't mean that they automatically believe what the majority of people in that group believe.

The logic is to advocate private citizens and platforms do whatever they want according to their own morals, but thanks for skipping a page of discussion to attack my wording. It really was more nuanced than that if you read my arguments instead of feeling compelled to respond to one thing.

What happened to the red hat in your avatar?

[General US Politics]

You don't have to incite violence to advocate genocide.

Ever heard of dogwhistling? Ever heard of those people who post 1350 stats to advocate black people are genetically predisposed to violence? What about those people who claim the blacks deserve it? That's not a call to violence, but it's giving a massive platform to racism.

If you could rationally discuss racism, then bigotry wouldn't be an issue since bigotry is ultimately an irrational thing.

Deplatforming is not silencing. She keeps reframing my argument as silencing. It's silencing on a specific platform, but nothing in a legal sense.

I've made it clear that I'm advocating deplatforming in private venues and deplatforming in social contexts. I am getting first amendment arguments despite this not being about the government. The first amendment already covers calls to violence.

There is a massive difference between what I am arguing and what Rezzy is responding to.