Anyways, I'm curious why they are being so aggressive about this
Because Brexit, Trump, and the rise of a true conservative backlash in Europe has the liberal establishment there scared as fuck. Turns out that the common people are sick of open-door immigration policies and decades of sucking EU dick. And the left-wing establishment desperately wants to do everything they can to silence this growing popular backlash, by force if necessary.
Ha, you must be a time-traveler from the pre-SJW leftist era. These days the apeshit coming from the SJW left makes the old A.M. radio batshit coming from the right look positively sane.
It's a pretty bizarro world where liberals are now the ones screaming for banning free speech and bullying their opponents into silence. They've even managed to one-up conservatives on their conspiracy theories. I remember laughing after Obama's election when pawn shops were reporting a run on gun-buying from gun nuts convinced that Obama was coming for their guns. The I read a story recently about how there has been a run on birth control from crazy lefties convinced that Donald trump is coming for their birth control. Lol, same crazy, different day.
There is the very slim possibility that he will ally himself with Putin and Assad and finally take an active role in actually fighting back against ISIS and the radical Islamic movement that has come to dominate the region since the "Arab Spring." I'd give it a 10-15% chance, tops.
Other than this slim hope, I suspect it will be more of the same. He'll continue to suck up to countries like Saudi Arabia and they'll keep funneling the oil money we give them to movements that want to destroy Western civilization. Russia, Iran and Syria will continue to be the only countries really fighting ISIS. Turkey will continue its descent from the lone beacon of modern civilization in the region into just another radicalized Sharia-authoritarian shithole. And Western Europe will continue to keep their fingers in their ears in their own dreamworld where Islam is just fine and Muslims can't wait to come to Europe to exchange hugs with feminists and gay people.
Well, it depends very greatly on whose definition of "harassment" they're going to use. There are plenty these days on the SJW left who define "harassment" as pretty much any public statement that disagrees with their views or challenges them in any way.
If they're just going to ban direct threats ("I'm going to kill you!"), doxxing, calls to violence ("We should go burn this guy's house down!"), etc. then I doubt most people would object.
If they're going to ban anyone who says "I think we should deport illegal immigrants" or "I support a border wall" that's a VERY different story.
It's also a very different story if they decide to get into the business of deciding what ideas and news are worthy and which aren't. One man's "conspiracy theory" or "fake news" is another man's "story that the mainstream media are ignoring, but shouldn't be." Right now, other media companies like Wikipedia are already beginning to ban "fake news" on the right, but not on the left. You can learn all about discredited pedophilia claims against Donald Trump, for example. But search Wikipedia for the equally dubious "Pizzagate" and you'll see that it's been blocked as "A conspiracy theory falsely claiming the existence of a child trafficking ring". It's that double standard that people are worried about.
It's hardly a secret that most of these media companies are located in SJW-central Silicon Valley and that their leadership skews radically left. So you would have to have your head buried pretty far into the sand to buy into the idea that they have any intention of applying their new censorship policies fairly.
I think having the courage and decency to stand up for what you know is right, being willing to put yourself on the line to speak out for the weakest and working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of.
It would be something to be proud of, if working towards a fairer and better society were actually what SJW's were doing. But most people's idea of a fairer and better society isn't one in which the fix for discrimination is more discrimination.
A better society would be one in which everybody were united together, not one in which we continue to hate each other but just get to trade-out periodically on who gets to shit on whom.
but if you feel that your views are always being rejected, despite being well thought out, perhaps it is something in the way you present them?
No, they're not always being rejected. A majority of people in pretty much every state between California and New York seems to agree with them just fine. It's really only a problem when Silicon Valley and mainstream media become oblivious to the fact that these states exist (and aren't drinking the Koolaid, apparently).
I could maybe accept that argument if Trump were saying things that were truly racist, sexist, etc. If he were tweeting things like "I wish black people would go back to Africa" or "Man, I hate women" or "I think Asians are inferior to white people" then yeah, I could see your point. But when the SJW left has so expanded the definitions of "racism," "sexism" to include saying things like "I think we should deport illegal aliens" or "I think we should build a wall on our border" or "I love fucking supermodels" then the terms have lost all meaning. Calling someone a racist/sexist/blah/blah just because they disagree with a radical social agenda that's completely out-of-line with mainstream America is part of what got Trump elected (and what's probably going to help get him reelected in 2020).
And just remember that the same vile paintbrush can be used by the other side too. I'm pretty sure you don't appreciate people on the right labeling all Clinton supporters as "baby murderers" because Hillary Clinton said she supports abortion, do you? Well, it cuts both ways. The lower you sink, the lower your opponents will sink too.
Believe it or not, there is this thing called "humor" that often involves someone saying something for comic or satirical effect that they don't actually believe and that their audience knows they don't actually believe.
Even Vulcans know not to take everything humans say literally.
the difference between berating someone based on their behavior, and berating them based on their skin color
Well, I don't recall hearing Trump ever say he hated Mexicans (skin color), or any other race (unless I missed that speech). He said he hated illegal aliens (behavior), which SJW's immediately asserted was some secret code language for "all Mexicans."
So, based on your own criteria, I guess you agree with me that Trump isn't a racist after all, huh?
So if my rules say "Saying Muhammad is the prophet is considered hate speech. And anyone using hate speech will be banned from this restaurant" then I guess I'm not actually banning Muslims from my restaurant, huh? They were just BREAKING THE RULES.
If you can't see that Twitter is not banning white male Republicans
Sure sounds like they're about to start. I don't really see much functional difference between "I'm not going to ban you because you're Muslim. But if you espouse any Muslim ideas openly, I'll ban you for that." So you can't pretend that "I'm not banning you for *being* Republican. But I'm labeling all Republican positions as racist, sexist, and homophobic and anyone who espouses them will be banned for *that*." is anything more than a verbal sleight-of-hand.
It actually reminds me of the silliness of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy towards gays. Yeah, we * absolutely welcome* all you gays, just as long as you stay good and quiet and don't let anyone know you're gay. It was the kind of typical symbolic bullshit that was so symptomatic of the Clinton administration--trying to pretend to be liberal while stabbing liberals in the back at every turn.
How about we just let everyone speak and people can decide for themselves what to believe?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe. And Black Lives Matter supporters will still be able to post whatever vile shit they please about those evil white people. But the second someone dares post "#alllivesmatter" or uses the term "illegal immigrants" it's HATE SPEECH!!!!!!!!
If you expand "hate speech" to include "speech that offends groups" then so did EVERY OTHER politician (and most of their supporters).
In fact, doesn't Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" fit this definition almost perfectly? I'm pretty sure Trump supporters are a group who were pretty fucking offended by that statement.
But something tells me only the right-wing politicians and supporters will get banned. Call it a crazy intuition.
The fact that some Republicans embarrassed themselves by acting batshit crazy in 2008 doesn't make it okay for some Democrats to do the same thing today. Batshit crazy is still batshit crazy either way.
Oddly enough, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any problem posting info on equally discredible pedophilia claim against Donald Trump. But I guess in SJW-dominated Silicon Valley, it only counts as a "conspiracy theory," "fake news," and "harassment" if it's coming from the right. The left is free to spread whatever bullshit they want.
Canada and the UK have already been passing Orwellian internet surveillance and anti-free-speech laws on their own just fine without any influence from Trump. Moving the Internet Archive to Canada over concerns about possible libel laws and oppression is like responding to a fear of increased crime in your neighborhood by moving to Detroit.
Slashdot Mirror
Companies adopt self-checkout because the money they save on employee wages far outweighs the money that they lose on additional theft.
Anyways, I'm curious why they are being so aggressive about this
Because Brexit, Trump, and the rise of a true conservative backlash in Europe has the liberal establishment there scared as fuck. Turns out that the common people are sick of open-door immigration policies and decades of sucking EU dick. And the left-wing establishment desperately wants to do everything they can to silence this growing popular backlash, by force if necessary.
^ A million times THIS
Ha, you must be a time-traveler from the pre-SJW leftist era. These days the apeshit coming from the SJW left makes the old A.M. radio batshit coming from the right look positively sane.
It's a pretty bizarro world where liberals are now the ones screaming for banning free speech and bullying their opponents into silence. They've even managed to one-up conservatives on their conspiracy theories. I remember laughing after Obama's election when pawn shops were reporting a run on gun-buying from gun nuts convinced that Obama was coming for their guns. The I read a story recently about how there has been a run on birth control from crazy lefties convinced that Donald trump is coming for their birth control. Lol, same crazy, different day.
Yeah, if it's from Reuters and "thinks like a reporter" then the algorithm will be quite simple
IF (newsSource = conservative)
THEN (fakeNews = true;)
ELSE IF (newsSource = liberal;) THEN (fakeNews = false;)
ELSE {SEND(story,DNC,vetting);}
There is the very slim possibility that he will ally himself with Putin and Assad and finally take an active role in actually fighting back against ISIS and the radical Islamic movement that has come to dominate the region since the "Arab Spring." I'd give it a 10-15% chance, tops.
Other than this slim hope, I suspect it will be more of the same. He'll continue to suck up to countries like Saudi Arabia and they'll keep funneling the oil money we give them to movements that want to destroy Western civilization. Russia, Iran and Syria will continue to be the only countries really fighting ISIS. Turkey will continue its descent from the lone beacon of modern civilization in the region into just another radicalized Sharia-authoritarian shithole. And Western Europe will continue to keep their fingers in their ears in their own dreamworld where Islam is just fine and Muslims can't wait to come to Europe to exchange hugs with feminists and gay people.
Well, it depends very greatly on whose definition of "harassment" they're going to use. There are plenty these days on the SJW left who define "harassment" as pretty much any public statement that disagrees with their views or challenges them in any way.
If they're just going to ban direct threats ("I'm going to kill you!"), doxxing, calls to violence ("We should go burn this guy's house down!"), etc. then I doubt most people would object.
If they're going to ban anyone who says "I think we should deport illegal immigrants" or "I support a border wall" that's a VERY different story.
It's also a very different story if they decide to get into the business of deciding what ideas and news are worthy and which aren't. One man's "conspiracy theory" or "fake news" is another man's "story that the mainstream media are ignoring, but shouldn't be." Right now, other media companies like Wikipedia are already beginning to ban "fake news" on the right, but not on the left. You can learn all about discredited pedophilia claims against Donald Trump, for example. But search Wikipedia for the equally dubious "Pizzagate" and you'll see that it's been blocked as "A conspiracy theory falsely claiming the existence of a child trafficking ring". It's that double standard that people are worried about.
It's hardly a secret that most of these media companies are located in SJW-central Silicon Valley and that their leadership skews radically left. So you would have to have your head buried pretty far into the sand to buy into the idea that they have any intention of applying their new censorship policies fairly.
ell, he said a man who is not just a citizen but a pillar of the community could not fairly judge a case against him because of his skin color.
So again, by your own criteria, I guess that anyone complaining about all-white juries in trials would be a racist too, huh?
I think having the courage and decency to stand up for what you know is right, being willing to put yourself on the line to speak out for the weakest and working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of.
It would be something to be proud of, if working towards a fairer and better society were actually what SJW's were doing. But most people's idea of a fairer and better society isn't one in which the fix for discrimination is more discrimination.
A better society would be one in which everybody were united together, not one in which we continue to hate each other but just get to trade-out periodically on who gets to shit on whom.
but if you feel that your views are always being rejected, despite being well thought out, perhaps it is something in the way you present them?
No, they're not always being rejected. A majority of people in pretty much every state between California and New York seems to agree with them just fine. It's really only a problem when Silicon Valley and mainstream media become oblivious to the fact that these states exist (and aren't drinking the Koolaid, apparently).
I could maybe accept that argument if Trump were saying things that were truly racist, sexist, etc. If he were tweeting things like "I wish black people would go back to Africa" or "Man, I hate women" or "I think Asians are inferior to white people" then yeah, I could see your point. But when the SJW left has so expanded the definitions of "racism," "sexism" to include saying things like "I think we should deport illegal aliens" or "I think we should build a wall on our border" or "I love fucking supermodels" then the terms have lost all meaning. Calling someone a racist/sexist/blah/blah just because they disagree with a radical social agenda that's completely out-of-line with mainstream America is part of what got Trump elected (and what's probably going to help get him reelected in 2020).
And just remember that the same vile paintbrush can be used by the other side too. I'm pretty sure you don't appreciate people on the right labeling all Clinton supporters as "baby murderers" because Hillary Clinton said she supports abortion, do you? Well, it cuts both ways. The lower you sink, the lower your opponents will sink too.
Yes, I believe the preferred terminology is "SJW."
Believe it or not, there is this thing called "humor" that often involves someone saying something for comic or satirical effect that they don't actually believe and that their audience knows they don't actually believe.
Even Vulcans know not to take everything humans say literally.
the difference between berating someone based on their behavior, and berating them based on their skin color
Well, I don't recall hearing Trump ever say he hated Mexicans (skin color), or any other race (unless I missed that speech). He said he hated illegal aliens (behavior), which SJW's immediately asserted was some secret code language for "all Mexicans."
So, based on your own criteria, I guess you agree with me that Trump isn't a racist after all, huh?
So if my rules say "Saying Muhammad is the prophet is considered hate speech. And anyone using hate speech will be banned from this restaurant" then I guess I'm not actually banning Muslims from my restaurant, huh? They were just BREAKING THE RULES.
If you can't see that Twitter is not banning white male Republicans
Sure sounds like they're about to start. I don't really see much functional difference between "I'm not going to ban you because you're Muslim. But if you espouse any Muslim ideas openly, I'll ban you for that." So you can't pretend that "I'm not banning you for *being* Republican. But I'm labeling all Republican positions as racist, sexist, and homophobic and anyone who espouses them will be banned for *that*." is anything more than a verbal sleight-of-hand.
It actually reminds me of the silliness of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy towards gays. Yeah, we * absolutely welcome* all you gays, just as long as you stay good and quiet and don't let anyone know you're gay. It was the kind of typical symbolic bullshit that was so symptomatic of the Clinton administration--trying to pretend to be liberal while stabbing liberals in the back at every turn.
How about we just let everyone speak and people can decide for themselves what to believe?
Yep, just like a private bakery is free to establish a policy of only baking cakes for weddings between a man and woman, right?
I mean, a private company doesn't have to respect anyone's civil rights, amiright?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe. And Black Lives Matter supporters will still be able to post whatever vile shit they please about those evil white people. But the second someone dares post "#alllivesmatter" or uses the term "illegal immigrants" it's HATE SPEECH!!!!!!!!
Sure, just like a proprietary bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, right?
If you expand "hate speech" to include "speech that offends groups" then so did EVERY OTHER politician (and most of their supporters).
In fact, doesn't Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" fit this definition almost perfectly? I'm pretty sure Trump supporters are a group who were pretty fucking offended by that statement.
But something tells me only the right-wing politicians and supporters will get banned. Call it a crazy intuition.
The fact that some Republicans embarrassed themselves by acting batshit crazy in 2008 doesn't make it okay for some Democrats to do the same thing today. Batshit crazy is still batshit crazy either way.
most users regard being able to use Reddit without being harassed as a positive improvement
Yeah, because I'm sure they'll also crack down hard on all those users slinging hate and harassment at Republicans and Donald Trump supporters.
I'm holding my breath in anticipation for all the fair, not-at-all-biased ways in which this censorship policy will be applied.
Oddly enough, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any problem posting info on equally discredible pedophilia claim against Donald Trump. But I guess in SJW-dominated Silicon Valley, it only counts as a "conspiracy theory," "fake news," and "harassment" if it's coming from the right. The left is free to spread whatever bullshit they want.
No point in trying to talk to them. They're all holed up in their safe spaces with their fingers in their ears right now.
Canada and the UK have already been passing Orwellian internet surveillance and anti-free-speech laws on their own just fine without any influence from Trump. Moving the Internet Archive to Canada over concerns about possible libel laws and oppression is like responding to a fear of increased crime in your neighborhood by moving to Detroit.
Yeah, I hear he's going to eat our babies, ban all birth-control, and put all Democrats into concentration camps too!!!!!!!
DID I MENTION THAT I'M TOTALLY RATIONAL, and in no way just a sore loser who is freaking out like a petulant child over losing an election?!?