Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2016, 08:59 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 01:25 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(17-11-2016 05:22 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Then why pray tell did the FBI show up at my High School in 1979 to arrest 3 guys who burned a cross into a black family's lawn?

I'm not familiar with the case, but as far as I know it's at least illegal to trespass on private property ... Makes sense to me, but I could still be wrong as fuck.

It's at least criminal trespassing I think. Not sure if I'd rather be arrested by the FBI or busted up and dropped off at the ER by the PG County cops again. Consider

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 09:15 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 04:41 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  For the record, I fought the decision to ban/censor the topic that shall not be named, but was over-ruled.

I think that not only were there community concerns and perceived possible legal ramifications and additional unwanted attention from The Man (He's already got his eyes on atheists anyway) over that topic, dude who's name is attached to this forum gets to decide just how much and what type of shit is allowed on the rug. Good enough for me. Suicide, while not disallowed, is another sensitive topic.

(18-11-2016 04:41 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Also hate the forum's "safe space" development, though I have been known to offer support in those threads from time to time.

Why should it bother you? What bothers me is reading GullyWagger describe the bumps on his balls and seams in his sausage in disturbingly dispassionate anatomically correct detail in that "not-so-safe space". Hobo

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
18-11-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
I have a decidedly civil libertarian leaning when it comes to these things. I believe any individual or non-governmental corporation can support or deny service to any group they want. And I believe that people should be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions even if they are stupid. But Twitter is under no obligation to provide a platform for everyone. I think they probably should, but I also believe their right not to trumps my opinion on the matter.

However, in practicality there must be some natural limit to civil liberties. Otherwise, allowing unfettered mean and hateful speech could result in a society descending into anarchy. A government's most basic function, if nothing else, is to maintain some element of civil order and protection for its people. Therefore, speaking from a pragmatic standpoint, laws must be provided to protect citizens from those words that could result in mass chaos. Criminalizing verbal threats is obvious and easy. Hate speech is difficult because it is such a gray area. The degree of the offense taken and the risk hate speech poses to society and human safety varies by group, community, and easily exacerbated by external circumstances. Making laws to protect or limit free speech should be avoided if at all possible.

Given the current political and social climate, legislators would be wise to stay out of it until the point where the risk of unfettered civil unrest threatens the stability of the country. Furthermore, individuals and corporations would be wise to self-regulate speech just because we need to learn to be nice to each other. Personally, if I ran Twitter a decade ago, I might have allowed just about anything to be said as long as it was not breaking any laws. But in today's environment, I would not provide a platform for any voice that encourages hate or violence just because of the potential risk to our way of life. I know that sounds hypocritical or wishy-washy, but I think it is one of those instances where even civil libertarians should step back and apply some common-sense.

I just wanted to let you know that I love you even though you aren't naked right now. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TurkeyBurner's post
18-11-2016, 09:34 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 08:33 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Earlier I gave examples of pre-internet classifieds recruiting for ISIS and supremacists groups, from what you say above you would have run those in the newspaper correct? I’d like an answer.
My answer is "Yes, I would have." If someone pays for a classified ad, a newspaper should feel obligated to run it so long as it doesn't violate any existing laws (e.g. if the ad contains child pornography). I've got a couple questions I'd like you to answer as well: If you owned a bakery, would you bake a cake for the wedding of a white supremacist couple, with a swastika decoration and the slogan "All Jews must die" on top? Do you think that a bakery should be allowed to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

In the interest of transparency, what I'm trying to do here is establish how far you think the right of a business to refuse servicing their customers should go.

(18-11-2016 08:33 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Is it possible you are conflating legal rights with natural rights? Consider
"Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).”
As I've said in my response to EK, I'm well aware that Twitter is legally allowed to censor whatever they want and that "free speech", in the legal sense, does not cover speech in private places. I'm fine with the existing legal framework, it's the attitude of my fellow citizens that I think needs to change. Twitter, for instance, given their size and influence, should feel a moral obligation to provide an open platform for discussion rather than censoring certain points of view to further an agenda.

(18-11-2016 08:33 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  If we were to follow your line of thinking that people should, “strive to defend (speech) regardless of whether or not they are legally obligated to do so”, should it then not follow that we should also strive to defend all actions regardless of whether or not we are legally obligated to do so?. After all we can make a case that our actions are a form of expression just as speech is can we not? Dance is a form of expression but so is beating up a person no? Is gay-bashing not an expression of deeply held beliefs? Should we as a society “strive to defend” this freedom of expression as well?
No, FC, allowing people to say that they don't like gay people does not mean that we should also allow them to beat up said gay people. Why do you respond with such an inane line of questioning when you already what my answer is going to be?

(18-11-2016 08:33 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  You seem to be arguing that all speech, and here I make the case that as a corollary all actions of expression as well [...]
Let me stop you right there because the rest of your post is based on this false premise. Again: Speech is not equivalent to action. You're not an idiot, there should be no need for me to tell you this.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
18-11-2016, 09:51 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 09:15 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 04:41 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  For the record, I fought the decision to ban/censor the topic that shall not be named, but was over-ruled.

I think that not only were there community concerns and perceived possible legal ramifications and additional unwanted attention from The Man (He's already got his eyes on atheists anyway) over that topic, dude who's name is attached to this forum gets to decide just how much and what type of shit is allowed on the rug. Good enough for me. Suicide, while not disallowed, is another sensitive topic.

(18-11-2016 04:41 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Also hate the forum's "safe space" development, though I have been known to offer support in those threads from time to time.

Why should it bother you? What bothers me is reading GullyWagger describe the bumps on his balls and seams in his sausage in disturbingly dispassionate anatomically correct detail in that "not-so-safe space". Hobo


Getting rid of people who could cause legal problems, or who "we" (whoever that is) decide is bad is a common-sense solution. I advocating for not banning the topic because there is plenty of ways to discuss the topic that doesn't advocate for harm. For example, historical discussions, philosophical, legal, etc. That was and is my opinion.

As for the second part, I don't even think I held public opinion on it. Anyhow, it doesn't really 'bother' me, if I were to pick a word. I just don't like that approach to problem-solving. Why should I be potentially silenced? The individual could click away, ignore it, use the forum feature to make all posts from me invisible, ignore PMs, etc. The Admins could also just determine that the person is an asshole and ban him/her if it was truly abusive stuff. Why not?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Light's post
18-11-2016, 09:59 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 09:30 AM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  I have a decidedly civil libertarian leaning when it comes to these things. I believe any individual or non-governmental corporation can support or deny service to any group they want. And I believe that people should be allowed to voice their thoughts and opinions even if they are stupid. But Twitter is under no obligation to provide a platform for everyone. I think they probably should, but I also believe their right not to trumps my opinion on the matter.

However, in practicality there must be some natural limit to civil liberties. Otherwise, allowing unfettered mean and hateful speech could result in a society descending into anarchy. A government's most basic function, if nothing else, is to maintain some element of civil order and protection for its people. Therefore, speaking from a pragmatic standpoint, laws must be provided to protect citizens from those words that could result in mass chaos. Criminalizing verbal threats is obvious and easy. Hate speech is difficult because it is such a gray area. The degree of the offense taken and the risk hate speech poses to society and human safety varies by group, community, and easily exacerbated by external circumstances. Making laws to protect or limit free speech should be avoided if at all possible.

Given the current political and social climate, legislators would be wise to stay out of it until the point where the risk of unfettered civil unrest threatens the stability of the country. Furthermore, individuals and corporations would be wise to self-regulate speech just because we need to learn to be nice to each other. Personally, if I ran Twitter a decade ago, I might have allowed just about anything to be said as long as it was not breaking any laws. But in today's environment, I would not provide a platform for any voice that encourages hate or violence just because of the potential risk to our way of life. I know that sounds hypocritical or wishy-washy, but I think it is one of those instances where even civil libertarians should step back and apply some common-sense.

I don't know what you are talking about; are you talking about the Twitter thing? What law? The cross-burning thing? I'm legitimately unsure if we are talking about private entities, laws, or what? I don't know of any law proposal that has been brought up here...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 10:05 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 09:51 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  As for the second part, I don't even think I held public opinion on it. Anyhow, it doesn't really 'bother' me, if I were to pick a word. I just don't like that approach to problem-solving. Why should I be potentially silenced? The individual could click away, ignore it, use the forum feature to make all posts from me invisible, ignore PMs, etc. The Admins could also just determine that the person is an asshole and ban him/her if it was truly abusive stuff. Why not?
As far as I can tell, it has to do with an aversion towards personal responsibility and accountability. There's definitely a lot of that in this place.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
18-11-2016, 10:31 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
My 2 cents:

Free speech means you can say or write whatever you want to and the government cannot punish you for it or stop you from saying/writing it. So, if you want to speak, broadcast, publish, etc., you have the right to do so.

However, as soon as you start involving someone else, things change because that someone else might not want to be a party to whatever you are saying/writing. So, if you want to run an ad in a newspaper for example, that newspaper is free to refuse it. That's the newspaper's use of its own free speech. It's not actually "speech" per se, but printing it certainly would be and refusing to do so is also saying the newspaper disagrees.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
18-11-2016, 10:48 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 05:35 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 05:31 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Is it hypocritical when a store catering to Christianity doesn't also sell vetted textbooks on evolutionary biology?

I mean, if they're trying to cater to a particular audience...

The difference is that twitter says they want to ban hate speech. Saying you want to kill all white people is hate speech, yet those people aren't banned. If twitter was a progressive website from the get go, I wouldn't care, but it wasn't. You can ban people so you can score brownie points, but it makes you look bad.

So no your textbook analogy isn't a good one.


Christian catering stores that sell dozens of different version of the Bible think they are helping to spread the truth, even when their book is demonstrably wrong.

It's not that they actually care about what is true or not, they're interested in catering to the people who agree with them. It's a marketing tactic.

I doubt Twitter, or your local Christian book store, give a fuck about your opinion if you are not their target audience. And if you don't like what Twitter is doing? Don't use Twitter. It's why I don't shop at Christian bookstores. They're not offering a service I'm interested in.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-11-2016, 10:51 AM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2016 10:56 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 09:51 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 09:15 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I think that not only were there community concerns and perceived possible legal ramifications and additional unwanted attention from The Man (He's already got his eyes on atheists anyway) over that topic, dude who's name is attached to this forum gets to decide just how much and what type of shit is allowed on the rug. Good enough for me. Suicide, while not disallowed, is another sensitive topic.


Getting rid of people who could cause legal problems, or who "we" (whoever that is) decide is bad is a common-sense solution. I advocating for not banning the topic because there is plenty of ways to discuss the topic that doesn't advocate for harm. For example, historical discussions, philosophical, legal, etc. That was and is my opinion.

And how would you suggest limiting the discussion to those perfectly reasonable aspects without letting it deteriorate into more repulsive and detestable aspects? Censorship seems like the only way to me. Just prohibiting it all together is far more practical and involves far less censorship than what you suggest. This censorship is implicit, if discussion of the topic has to be monitored and it deteriorates to some unacceptable level your only recourse would be explicit and ongoing censorship. That or allowing it.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: