batgoat wrote: » The US constitution has never applied to private businesses in relation to freedom of speech so what law is being violated? You want laws invented to cater for a handful of conspiracy theorists. I favour net neutrality, what you're proposing is the antithesis of it. The US government or any other governments is not to suddenly start disputing terms of service and what violates it. Alex and co are free to relocate to Gabb where they'll find plenty of like minded souls.
Sweetemotion wrote: » I have no idea of where you got that little rant from the question I asked?
Sonics2k wrote: » Anyone else find it gloriously ironic that a bunch of Republicans are suddenly calling for Government intervention on private businesses?
Zorya wrote: » One good reason to avoid censorship is because it weakens intellectual capacity.
Zorya wrote: » If the opponents of any point of view can't manage to be sufficiently convincing, scintillating, argumentative, ballsy and charismatic that they blow idiocy out of the water then they weaken themselves. Instead of becoming the better force the opposition resorts to the emasculated techniques of crying wolf, demanding censorship, literally whimpering and whining instead of being respectable intellectual exemplars.
ogsjw wrote: » Citation needed. Drastic amounts, China amounts of censorship? Sure. Banning a few hate mongers for spreading lies that get people hurt or killed? Not the same argument imo. All those factors of a good argument are irrelevant in the face of the radicalized right. They know, they just don't care, because they're hateful bigots. They re-frame, handwave, and employ intellectual dishonesty and whataboutisms and then just block you at the end of the day anyway. A convincing argument will not sway any of that.
Zorya wrote: » One good reason to avoid censorship is because it weakens intellectual capacity. If the opponents of any point of view can't manage to be sufficiently convincing, scintillating, argumentative, ballsy and charismatic that they blow idiocy out of the water then they weaken themselves. Instead of becoming the better force the opposition resorts to the emasculated techniques of crying wolf, demanding censorship, literally whimpering and whining instead of being respectable intellectual exemplars.
MrFresh wrote: » Facebook removed 3 million items of ISIS material between July and September last year. Why should it treat people like Jones differently? Like I said before, the rules have changed. There is no honesty in people like Jones. There is no intellectual debate. If you fight them on their own terms you get reduced to their level, brought into the mud.
Zorya wrote: » And yet Zahran Hashim's hate preaching videos remained online for years. He influenced the Sri Lanka bombers. Just one example from hundreds. If these videos are taken down it is done quietly so as not to ''inflame'' so-called Islamophobia. But this could be otherwise known as justifiable critique. People are allowed to vent their spleen on an idiot like Jones and feel (ignorantly)that something is being done to save the world from ''hate''. But they are not allowed to question ''Terf killer'' videos, or lesbian bashing on Twitter or Islamist hate-preaching, online or elsewhere, as this is politically incorrect. The whole arena is manipulated for ideological reasons. I don't buy it.
Zorya wrote: » I'm talking about making convincing intellectual arguments in academia, the media, in politics that blow opponents out of the water. The progressive left is completely anathema to me presently because of its highly visible neuroticism and histrionics.
ogsjw wrote: » You want one thing, then blast the people who are succesfully doing it, and claim they're doing it 'unpleasantly'? The radicalized right does not have 'wonderful minds'. Ranting on Twitter because you're late for a hate speech conference because you've spent 30 minutes getting and refusing Middle Eastern immigrant Uber drivers does not constitute a 'wonderful mind'. Or claiming pizza places are secret child molestation meeting spots. That is actual 'histrionics'. That is the calibre people can expect from the radicalized right. That's why they keep losing. That's why they will always lose.
Zorya wrote: » Stop making silly misinterpretations of what I am writing. For every Cornel West on the left there is a Thomas Sowell on the right. And so on multiplied many times. There are indeed worthy minds on either side, I am not talking about the mad ones on either extreme. I don't give a single feck about Jones, but I don't like censorship as it is infantilising.
Zorya wrote: » Stop making silly misinterpretations of what I am writing.
MrFresh wrote: » The problem is that the support does not go to the Thomas Sowell's of the right, it goes to the Alex Jones and infoWars types.
Zorya wrote: » Not unless you divide the world into the Chan right
Zorya wrote: » No it doesn't. Not unless you divide the world into the Chan right and the Tumblr left which are just the places where the very silly people hang out. And as far as I'm concerned they should be allowed to be wretched there but under the public gaze, so that everyone can understand both extremes of the idiocy. We have brainz, ya know. We are allowed to hear all the mad stuff. :pac:
ogsjw wrote: » This thread is about Alex Jones and his buddies, and their methods, so it is about the 'Chan Right''s frame of mind. Not slightly more conservative individuals who manage to not be hateful chodes in the process. Stop obfuscating. If you have a list of people you think people should be reading as an alternative, by all means post that separate thread. I don't think you'd get anything resembling a negative reaction. If you want to actually educate people, do so. But be clear with your thoughts, and separate things that are not related.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » So its about money then not freedom of speech?
Zorya wrote: » Don't you think discussions evolve to things that are tangential but still related to the opening argument? Don't you think that putting limits on the parameters of a debate is a form of censorship? Or would you prefer discussions to always remain in some righteous circular spleen-venting mode where in-groups back slap and thank each other for saying the same things over and over, rather than seek solutions. My proffered solution is to become better debaters than the haters, rather than to cowardly shut down what one doesn't like, to get past sound bites and click bait and extremism on either side and move towards deeper consideration of issues and perspectives. But I knew I should not have waded back into this kind of thread - silly me - so I'll leave you to the echoes echoes echoes.....
Sonics2k wrote: » Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate. This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count. The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media. Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention.
Zorya wrote: » Yes this has been said ad nauseam. So you and others want him banned, censored. But it won't work and can't work because he hasn't been negated by effective methods but simply by an alternative form of bullying and weasel tactics. Far better to be the victor in the war for minds and hearts than to be the censors foot servant.
Sweetemotion wrote: » So what? Racheal Maddow has made millions the last few years spreading the lie of collusion and exploiting the fears of people. Looks like she has gotten away scot free.
Sonics2k wrote: » claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors.
Sonics2k wrote: » Yes, it has been said ad nauseam because it's the reason he was banned. Not censorship, not proclaiming the Government is out to get him (Trump loves him by the way). We'll keep saying it until you understand it. The man openly and clearly -lied- about Sandyhook, then further proclaimed it over and over again. He's not being censored. A private company has removed him from their platform. And you can be damn, damn sure that if you were to go onto a right wing based website and start proclaiming the joys of gay marriage, interracial marriage and a whole lot more, they'd kick you off their platform too. Go on, go on over to huge site like Voat and start talking badly about Alex Jones and let me know how long you last. Oranges, meet apples. I'm sure you two have little in common. Firstly, I never actually believed Trump was directly involved in collusion with Russia, he's too stupid and arrogant and Putin is too smart. Secondly. Maddow reported on various findings, with sources, and claims made by people involved with the investigation. That is what journalists do. Alex Jones does not do this. He simply makes it up on the spot and then sticks to it if it's making him money. Alex Jones is, and always has been, far more interested in making money than taking on "the man" and deep state.
Zorya wrote: » Sonics2k wrote: » Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate. This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count. The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media. Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention. Yes this has been said ad nauseam. So you and others want him banned, censored. But it won't work and can't work because he hasn't been negated by effective methods but simply by an alternative form of bullying and weasel tactics. Far better to be the victor in the war for minds and hearts than to be the censors foot servant.
Sonics2k wrote: » Zorya wrote: » Don't you think discussions evolve to things that are tangential but still related to the opening argument? Don't you think that putting limits on the parameters of a debate is a form of censorship? Or would you prefer discussions to always remain in some righteous circular spleen-venting mode where in-groups back slap and thank each other for saying the same things over and over, rather than seek solutions. My proffered solution is to become better debaters than the haters, rather than to cowardly shut down what one doesn't like, to get past sound bites and click bait and extremism on either side and move towards deeper consideration of issues and perspectives. But I knew I should not have waded back into this kind of thread - silly me - so I'll leave you to the echoes echoes echoes..... Let's just clarify something here. Alex Jones didn't really debate. This is a man who made vast amounts of money from the Sandyhook shooting by claiming the grieving parents were crisis actors. He intentionally showed footage not in any related to the shootings, but claimed they were. He's been debunked more times than I can count. The man has been a scumbag and a liar since the 90's and after making millions of dollars exploiting the fears of people, is finally getting some punishment in the form of losing his social media. Looks to me like he's gotten off very lightly, and is now exploiting those same fears to get more attention.
P_1 wrote: » Have to say I'm not a fan of no platforming. Irrespective of how abhorrent you may find someone's opinions its better to leave them in the open and open to public scrutiny and ridicule. As was mentioned in another thread its shït like this that will get the Orange Buffoon reelected in 2020.
Patty Hearst wrote: » LOL Facebook moderators start believing the conspiracy theories they're charged with policinghttps://www.gq.com/story/facebook-moderators-conspiracy-theories
biko wrote: » I'm sure the **** these moderator have to sift through is soul-killing. Many of them are on drugs to cope. They are just falling for the old "make the lie big and repeat it. Eventually people will believe it"
