Theory about conservatives

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 123
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
One of the things I take issue with in our current political discourse is the propensity of self identified conservatives to claim that the left just wants to silence their voices. This is or at least was mostly in reference to social media but seems to have grown quite a bit over the past few months and has become a widely accepted narrative in conservatives circles.

This narrative is of course false. The left is not trying to silence conservatives. No one is getting banned from Twitter over disputes about tax policy. This is about cracking down on hate speech and in particular, speech that can lead to or incite violence, or misinformation that is literally killing people. It just so happens to be the case that the vast majority of hate speech in our political discourse these days is coming from the right, to the point where the FBI has even taken notice.

These two very different things should be easy to distinguish, so why is it so difficult for so many?

I think the reason why is because right wing politics centers itself around culture issues and tribalism, leading to a sense of community in right wing circles that doesn’t exist on the left. But a sense of community in politics distorts the entire point. Politics is supposed to be about solving problems, not which side are you rooting for.

What this ultimately culminates in is a conflation of political beliefs with a sense of self identity, and that is where the issue here comes to light. When you tangle your sense of self identity to your beliefs, anything that opposes your beliefs is perceived as an attack on you personally, causing a very distorted view of every disagreement you observe. When another “fellow conservative” is banned from a platform all you see is that they banned a conservative, not what that conservative was actually banned for. And when it happens over and over again, now it’s undeniable that they’re just banning conservatives. The justification is not worthy of consideration because there’s no sense in looking closer at something that is obvious from afar, but it’s only obvious because of the tribalism present from the start.

Obviously conservatives will disagree. So what am I getting wrong?
#2
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
One of the things I take issue with in our current political discourse is the propensity of self identified conservatives to claim that the left just wants to silence their voices. This is or at least was mostly in reference to social media but seems to have grown quite a bit over the past few months and has become a widely accepted narrative in conservatives circles.

This narrative is of course false. The left is not trying to silence conservatives. No one is getting banned from Twitter over disputes about tax policy. This is about cracking down on hate speech
This is you begging the question.

"Hate speech" is one of the leftist political weapon designed to silence conservative views. For example, when people say that they want White nationalism, that intentionally gets conflated 'White supremacy' and 'racism' (former is a racial slur "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) ; latter is a nonsense, malicious term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) ) , and thus positive talk White nationalism gets labelled "hate speech". Of course, the left makes sure that any other race's nationalism is NOT conflated with supremacy, for whatever reason (I go into detail with this example in this OP: "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) ). 

When conservatives argue that race is a real concept, left wing people labelled that as 'racist' and thus 'hate speech'. When conservatives argue that there are difference in crime relative to race, that's also 'racist' and thus 'hate speech'. Differences in IQ? 'Racist' and 'hate speech'. Questioning race quotas for jobs? 'Racist' and 'hate speech'. Not wanting low-skilled people immigrating? 'Racist' and 'hate speech'. 

So it's rather funny that the very thing causing a truckload of conservative silencing ("hate speech") is the very thing that you think is fine. Rather convenient for you that you get to beg the question and assume "hate speech" is a valid concept and doesn't cause a lot of silencing.

It's also as funny that some people on the left then decides to verbally berate and threaten violence against White people, all of cause being against "hate speech": anti white twitter - Bing images anti white twitter - Bing images anti white twitter - Bing images anti white twitter - Bing images anti white twitter - Bing images . So not only are White people SILENCED with terms like "hate speech", "hate speech" against White people is totally permissible. 

It just so happens to be the case that the vast majority of hate speech in our political discourse these days is coming from the right, to the point where the FBI has even taken notice.
This is a bare assertion. You have failed to provide any evidence to support this. This also begs the question by assuming "hate speech" is a valid concept (as explained above).

I think the reason why is because right wing politics centers itself around culture issues and tribalism, leading to a sense of community in right wing circles that doesn’t exist on the left. But a sense of community in politics distorts the entire point. Politics is supposed to be about solving problems, not which side are you rooting for.
This is a human thing that all humans do. I explained this to you in this post (and some of the posts before it), showing that ALL humans are doing this: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) , yet you refused to respond to it because you got your fragile ego tied up in it.

The only way you can be this delusional about the left engaging in tribalism is if you refuse to look at the overwhelming data on the topic.

What this ultimately culminates in is a conflation of political beliefs with a sense of self identity
This is you being politically stupid and not understanding how humans operate, and so all the extensions you make from this are wrong (i.e. the rest of what you wrote in this paragraph).

People's sense of self constructs their political views because political ideology is heritable First Worldism Part 3: The Heritability of Political Views – The Alternative Hypothesis. If you want to engage in politics, you have to engage with this human nature. What you're doing is constructing "standards" that don't reflect the reality of human existence. When you decide to strip away the human elements and make these purely cerebral notions of "standards", you're no longer dealing politics for humans anymore. You're constructing political views for totally rational robots that are programmed to respond to logic. Again, humans are NOT THIS.

That's why you get Black CONSERVATIVES voting overwhelmingly (about 97%) for the DEMOCRAT candidate in the 2012 election Imgur: The magic of the Internet . You'd think that Black Conservatives would vote for the Conservative (Republican) candidate. You'd think this seems intuitive and correct. You'd think that's what a rational person would do. BUT. THEY. DON'T.

When we have your stupid notion that political beliefs and sense of self-identity should be separate, this result makes no sense, and that's because your notion of political beliefs (and politics) is WRONG.

Obviously conservatives will disagree. 
Yeah great. Poison the well before you even hear the response.
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,674
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
absolutely clueless, you havent payed attention at all.The left is absolutely trying to get conservatives deplatformed. The left wants conservatives lives ruined and they think its funny

Recently, we have crowds on Jimmy fallon celebrating the fact that the population of whites are decreasing, we have a president who threatened to use the military against its own civilians and the government who will put people on a no-fly list for asking the wrong questions, we are living under Jacobin France and Bolshevik Russia with the EXACT same type of people pioneering this collapse.

as for your "theory", your acting like democrats arent tribal either, these are the same sick people who think your evil for your beliefs(1 in 5 do). Everything you accuse conservatives doing is what liberals due on a scale x10
#4
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,674
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Double_R
above
#5
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Double_R
good post

This narrative is of course false. The left is not trying to silence conservatives. No one is getting banned from Twitter over disputes about tax policy. This is about cracking down on hate speech and in particular, speech that can lead to or incite violence, or misinformation that is literally killing people. It just so happens to be the case that the vast majority of hate speech in our political discourse these days is coming from the right, to the point where the FBI has even taken notice.


I think maybe I can explain the conservative take on this, but if you look at history, conservatives had a habit of attacking free speech when it suited them to do so. I do think it's just the pendulum swinging to make it popular on the left. Free speech is as much a cultural thing as a political thing. At first I thought only the political free speech mattered, but now I see we also need a free speech culture.

Obviously social media sites like Facebook and Twitter should be allowed to censor whatever speech they want, but you can't say the left does not attack free speech. (Not everyone or most in the left, but a large swath) .

The left attack it through cancel culture, through tech oligarchs and through control of financial institutions that do things like stop accepting credit card payments for people like Alex Jones. The left isn't necessarily in charge if these institutions, they just bend to the largest political pressure.  Companies also bent to right wing pressure to stop funding wikileaks. 

I personally had the FBI visit my house,  because I was checking out a lot of books on national security related issues from the library, particularly ones about how the NSA deals with Muslim extremists.  

You point out misinformation that kills and hate speech being banned. That's not necessarily bad, depending on how you define it. The problem is those things are very ambiguous and the right just sees an opening for the left to exploit the ambiguity of those terms. Hell if the right regains control of institutions and government, and they will because the pendulum is always swinging, than they can exploit those things. 

Misinformation kills. Sure, it sucks.  Especially if you have a loved one who died because of misinformation.  It's one of those prices of freedom
 We want ideals debated on a public forum, not subject to people who decide what the truth is and eliminate anything that contradicts their truth from being publicly viewable. I think some of these sites are using a good balance, by posting disclaimers under what they find to be misinformation. It allows people to see both sides and make an intelligent decision, about which side was presented better.

Freedom is inherently dangerous. If an alien invasion happened tomorrow and we need every man woman and child to  fight to save us from extinction, the liberal would require compulsory service to protect mankind. The conservative would just allow our extinction, because freedom is more important than life.  Miainformation killing is the sacrifice we make for freedom. 

I feel like misinformation is scarier in the dark, because when it is shared in pms and not in the open, it can't be attacked. It's premises stand, because the misinformation is hidden from the eyes of people able to offer good rebuttals.

There is a dual problem though. We do see it playing out, it's the belief that minority opinion is wrong, and that only the majority belief system is right. Sometimes the masses are wrong and the lone nut is right and can save us, but we don't hear their voice and don't give them a chance to advance the scientific paradigm. 

Unpopular ideals are sometimes right, even ones that seem disgusting to the majority of people, are sometimes right. Certainly if an unpopular opinion is right, it should be allowed on the intellectual battlefield. 

I would say though, that if a bad ideal is wrong, it still deserves a good purpose. I bet you would learn a lot more by debunking big foot by researching data, than you would learn by having all people who claim Bigfoot is real, muzzled. Even wrong opinions advance the collective opinion of the human race.

Here is the kicker though. We have silicon valley, the media and large corporations working together to silence dissent.  Rich white men who run Twitter, get to decide what everyone thinks, and any opinion they deem misinformation or hate, gets erased. The rich white men who control media, get to tell you what to think and can shut off the mike of the president, if they don't like what he is saying. The rich white billionaires who control corporations, get to use their influence to punish or silence people through denying them payment processing or other manipulative mechanisms. 

The internet was an equalizer among all people, and sure it comes with weaknesses, like the anonymity creating more sociopaths or it being easy to subject to foreign propaganda, but it also allows everyone a platform. It's truly democratic. A democracy of ideals. Now though we see wealthy white billionaires taking control and deciding what is misinformation and hate speech.  

They may be using woke culture to size control, and by using woke culture it actually makes it easier to hide the fact that rich white men are crushing the democratic nature of the internet. The only reason it doesn't bother liberals, is they think these people are allies, and don't realize that these wealthy white men, don't give a shit about homosexuals or blacks or covid19. They only care about taking more power and found convenient excuses to do so. 

Trust me, power grabs are always reasonable in the moment. Hell Rome was falling apart when Julius Caesar took control. He had good reasons to be declared dictator, but he didn't give back power when the good reasons disappeared.  These rich white men, will not give back power when covid 19 and reactionary right wing trolls are gone. 

The problem the right wing has, is the same problem the left had when George Bush was making power grabs after 9/11. They see the ability to abuse the power and in fact the inevitability of it. George Bush had good reasons also. George Bush created a new branch of government because his orders were to "never allow another 9/11 to happen". 

A free countries top priority should not be safety though.  We should accept more personal risk, to enjoy freedom in fact. The internet can be made safer, but at what cost? 

The cost of it's inherent democratic nature? There was a point when the internet was destroying traditional media (rich white men), making it possible for everyone to become entrepreneurs. And destroying big business (rich white men). 

What did we see happen though. We have rich white men creating monopolies through Google, and Google even directs you to mainstream media usually, destroying the democratization of media for the benefit of traditional media controlled by white men. 

I am white. I have no problem with white men having power, but what happens when every avenue is taken away from non white males and females, to take some form of power?


You know what's sick. These rich white men, know you need a person's permission to take their power. So they point out that Russian propaganda got Trump elected, in order to appear allied with blacks or gays or whoever thinks Trump or Republicans hate them. The minorities than enthusiastically support the rich white men in Google, filtering results in a way that removes any possibility of coming into contact with ideals these minorities typically disagree with. 

Basically rich white men at Google, took more power and avenues to power away from non whites, by just allowing mainstream media outlets ran by whites, to take up most of the search results. 

Rich white men in social media companies, claimed to help the weak or people who feel hated by removing speech labeled as "hate speech" and removing "disinformation" (information they disagree with), and like a thief in the night, more power goes to rich whites who can now have more control over the thoughts of others, and they got away with it, because they pretended it was for the benefit of marginalized groups, that they were taking more power that should be democratic. 

The BLM riots, will get worse if we don't attack these sorts of power grabs. When these rich white sociopaths in the halls of power get sick of pandering to people they are taking power from, the marginalized will notice. The Civil unrest will grow worse and worse until something really bad happens. 

So in short, maybe the left is not trying to silence the right, but they sure as hell are allowing rich white people to use their woke narrative to make power grabs that only benefit the rich white men making them. 

"Derp a syrup company removes a beautiful black woman as an image, now they give a shit about blacks"

Blacks, don't be stupid. Stop allowing rich whites to make these power grabs. Stop believing their bullahit that they like you, because they took away aunt Jemima. 

In fact, stop patronizing these fucks. Visit small black businesses exclusively, and if they aren't offering you good service than find a small business of some other sort. Us poor whites are your allies, not pretend ones who give a shit about woke culture, or hurting your feelings, but actual allies who know society is better when it is democratize and marginalized people have a bigger voice. 


When you see a conservative alarmed by power grabs and fighting against them, it is always power grabs by other whites that make you lose power. It might be self preservation because us normal whites hate rich whites also, but it benefits you. 

Always remember. There is always an extremely good reason to take power away from you, and give rich white men more power, but those same men will not be giving that power back. 

Don't think the instrument of the state which is ran by rich whites is any better. If you give the state power, you give rich white men who control it more power, and they'll also pander to you, while discreetly accumulating more power, and it won't benefit you. 

Welfare programs have destroyed the black family unit, this benefits rich whites by making it impossible for you to compete with them. A black man raised by a father and a mother is powerful. Meanwhile one raised in a single family home turns into a criminal.

You are being attacked on the left and the right. The war on drugs simultaneously got large swarms of black men arrested, while welfare programs created a bunch of people dependant on the state. A perfect combination of things to destroy rivals to rich white men, and ensure a base of people who can be pondered to with free shit, as bribes to voluntarily hand over power. 

I am mostly speaking to blacks, but all marginalized groups need to start seeing that the people making power grabs "in defense of you", are really o ly out for themselves and I hate to even call them white. They are some sort of parasites on society. 
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
"X 10"...... More arbitrary stats Doc.

And Left becomes Right, and old Right becomes so extreme that it eventually becomes Left.

And who incited the proletariat to storm the Capitol.....Something of a Bolshevikian rebellion methinks.

Americans....Crazy mixed up people.
#7
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Stop allowing rich whites to make these power grabs. Stop believing their bullahit that they like you, because they took away aunt Jemima. 
How are they supposed to stop that if they vote into power the rich white male Donald Trump who not only is rich and Caucasian but is overtly racist?

What are you suggesting they do? Many refused to vote in 2016, the only reason more voted in 2020 was to keep that guy out of the President's seat. So, I'm unsure what you're getting at here. Blacks overall resented Biden, they voted him to stop Trump. That's a well known fact, so this line right here, from you, makes no sense if you directed it at black voters.
#8
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Theory about conservatives: they are just shitty people who are blinded by tribalism 

Saved everyone a read. 

You need to establish a definition of “hate speech”, secure agreement that this should be bannable, and then provide empirical evidence that one side is consistently engaged in it more, otherwise your position is not worth of serious consideration 
#9
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
One of the things I take issue with in our current political discourse is the propensity of self identified conservatives to claim that the left just wants to silence their voices. This is or at least was mostly in reference to social media but seems to have grown quite a bit over the past few months and has become a widely accepted narrative in conservatives circles.

This narrative is of course false. The left is not trying to silence conservatives. No one is getting banned from Twitter over disputes about tax policy. This is about cracking down on hate speech and in particular, speech that can lead to or incite violence, or misinformation that is literally killing people. It just so happens to be the case that the vast majority of hate speech in our political discourse these days is coming from the right, to the point where the FBI has even taken notice.

These two very different things should be easy to distinguish, so why is it so difficult for so many?

I think the reason why is because right wing politics centers itself around culture issues and tribalism, leading to a sense of community in right wing circles that doesn’t exist on the left. But a sense of community in politics distorts the entire point. Politics is supposed to be about solving problems, not which side are you rooting for.

What this ultimately culminates in is a conflation of political beliefs with a sense of self identity, and that is where the issue here comes to light. When you tangle your sense of self identity to your beliefs, anything that opposes your beliefs is perceived as an attack on you personally, causing a very distorted view of every disagreement you observe. When another “fellow conservative” is banned from a platform all you see is that they banned a conservative, not what that conservative was actually banned for. And when it happens over and over again, now it’s undeniable that they’re just banning conservatives. The justification is not worthy of consideration because there’s no sense in looking closer at something that is obvious from afar, but it’s only obvious because of the tribalism present from the start.

Obviously conservatives will disagree. So what am I getting wrong?
Hmm just about everything.  The Left is trying to shut down free speech for conservatives.  They want to be able to say whatever they like and then shut the other side down. 

Take the word "homophobic" or the name "bigot" or the term "racist".  These three words are thrown at the Conservative now whenever the Conservative simply explains what they are agreeing with or disagreeing with.  The Lefties - have taken these words and throw them at Conservatives despite the fact that Conservatives themselves feel quite threatened by these terms.    I know Conservatives who are labeled these terms without proper reason - and yet once labeled - then they start receiving death threats, threats to stop them doing business, threats to commit violence - and just to be clear - it does not stop with threats - it often becomes real.  Yet the Left say - this is not hate speech. It is just calling it what it is.  This is bollocks.  

Are the Left's trying to stop free speech? Yes. But not all speech. Just the speech of the Conservatives.  Lefties don't want to have rational discussions. People get cancelled from Twitter or FB for not following the Left wing narrative.  I reject that most of the hate speech is coming from the Right. This is to ignore all of the hate speech coming from the Left.  You just omit all of the hate speech from the left. You rationalise what the Left is doing.  And justify it as ok. Yet that is just Left wing narrative. 

Left wing politics has several main planks. One of those is "the ends justify the means".  This means that the Left believes that it can do whatever it needs to do to get the result it wants.  The Conservatives - tend to believe that the journey is as important as the destination. That process is equal to outcome. That the ends do not justify the means.  When one side of politics holds to the view that the ends justifies the means - it gives them total justification to cheat and to lie and to steal and then to justify such actions if it brings about the end it is after. 

This is the essence of the greater good argument. It is the inbuilt problem of the last election.  The Left promote a particular narrative and then get upset when others believe them.   From my perspective the Left always had a reason to lie and cheat about the last election because for them the end justifies the means of getting Trump out.  If they had not been so gung ho throughout the entire Trump presidency, then perhaps things might have been different.  But they promoted their agenda of hate and they justified it in their philosophy.  It was only logical that it would come back and bite them. 

I have no sympathy for the Democrats and the progressive Americans. They get what they deserve. And now America unfortunately gets what it deserves - the worst president in history - 

Tribalism is a convenient myth isn't?  Rather than addressing the problem at hand - a diversion away from where the proper narrative. 
Topic's author
#10
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
Obviously social media sites like Facebook and Twitter should be allowed to censor whatever speech they want, but you can't say the left does not attack free speech. (Not everyone or most in the left, but a large swath) .
Broadly speaking, sure I can. Free speech means the government cannot silence you, it does not mean everyone else in society has to sit back and listen. Just as you have a right to say whatever you want I have the right to criticize it, and if enough people feel the same way then people will not want you on their platforms.

You can disagree with the criticisms and subsequent consequences, you cannot argue that others should not have the rights that they do to react. *That* is what opposing free speech actually looks like.

The problem is those things are very ambiguous and the right just sees an opening for the left to exploit the ambiguity of those terms.
That’s fine. You can be concerned about the opening this creates, it’s a legitimate concern. But an opening for wrong doing and actual wrong doing are not the same thing.

Hell if the right regains control of institutions and government, and they will because the pendulum is always swinging, than they can exploit those things.
That’s exactly the point and problem. Like you said, it creates the opening, which is why no matter what side you’re on this is and will always be a very difficult issue. For months social media companies sat back and allowed their platforms to be used as vessels to spread violent propaganda culminating in an attack of the US Capitol by our own citizens. So now when these companies react in the only responsible way they could have possibly reacted and the rest of us proceed with a greater awareness of the danger this issue creates, the political right says “they”, and not the speech that everyone is reacting to, are the real targets.

So what is the correct response? How does the left push back against the climate that made this happen without conservatives claiming they are being targeted for being conservatives? I’m all ears.
Topic's author
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
Theory about conservatives: they are just shitty people who are blinded by tribalism 
Why are you so easily triggered? Every time I tell you what I see when I hear your arguments or those of conservatives generally and go into painstaking detail to explain why I see it, all you take out of it is that I’m being insulting. Why not just focus on the content of the message and correct the errors?

You need to establish a definition of “hate speech”, secure agreement that this should be bannable, and then provide empirical evidence that one side is consistently engaged in it more, otherwise your position is not worth of serious consideration
You know exactly what I’m talking about, so I don’t know why you need me to provide you with examples, but we can start with Trump being banned from social media as a result of his role in the attacks on the US Capitol.

And as far as which side is engaging in it more… are you really suggesting the left is claiming it’s being censored by the right?
#12
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
And as far as which side is engaging in it more… are you really suggesting the left is claiming it’s being censored by the right?
No, the claim from conservatives is that they are being unfairly targeted, ie the rules are not being applied equally. If this is true, of course leftists wouldn’t be getting censored even if they were behaving just as badly . I don’t know who is more hateful. I know what my bias says, but I have no empirical evidence and you don’t either. 

but we can start with Trump being banned from social media as a result of his role in the attacks on the US Capitol.
Trump is a political liability so I think it’s actually a good thing for my politics…but yeah I do think it’s an extremely weird Overton window if it doesn’t have room for the opinions of someone who won a presidential election 
#13
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Double_R
Broadly speaking, sure I can. Free speech means the government cannot silence you, it does not mean everyone else in society has to sit back and listen. Just as you have a right to say whatever you want I have the right to criticize it, and if enough people feel the same way then people will not want you on their platforms.

I am actually differentiating here between free speech as a cultural thing and free speech as a law. When I say we should have a cultural acceptance of free speech, I still think platforms should be allowed to regulate it. 

So I'm not really disagreeing with you here. . The scary thing is you do seem to advocate for eliminating an opinion if enough people disagree with it, which seems like a shitty reason to do so. However, platforms should have the right, it just contradicts their ethical duty.  Like I said before. We risk marginalized groups being affected more by this sort of thing, and marginalized groups with unique perspectives who may advance our collective knowledge if given the opportunity to engage in public debate.


That’s fine. You can be concerned about the opening this creates, it’s a legitimate concern. But an opening for wrong doing and actual wrong doing are not the same thing.

Obviously, and I think if you were being honest here, you would realize that popular attacks on freedom, will always precede the more unpopular methods, it's called the foot in the door method, or slippery slope, which is not usually a fallacy when mentioned. 

I also think if you were being honest you can thi k of where these powers have already been abused. More than likely you'd agree if I showed you they also come down on leftists as well, albeit more quietly because it is the same group they pander to.

For months social media companies sat back and allowed their platforms to be used as vessels to spread violent propaganda culminating in an attack of the US Capitol by our own citizens. So now when these companies react in the only responsible way they could have possibly reacted and the rest of us proceed with a greater awareness of the danger this issue creates, the political right says “they”, and not the speech that everyone is reacting to, are the real targets.

So what is the correct response? How does the left push back against the climate that made this happen without conservatives claiming they are being targeted for being conservatives? I’m all ears.
I think a good way to mitigate it, is by posting disclaimers like they do. However I think ultimately we need to realize that living in a free and open society comes with certain risks that won't be eliminated. Risks such as the ability to propagandist the people. 

It's funny though that when the establishment does it we approve, but God forbid people we hate do the exact same thing
#14
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,674
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
the people who stormed the capital were let in
Topic's author
#15
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
Take the word "homophobic" or the name "bigot" or the term "racist".  These three words are thrown at the Conservative now whenever the Conservative simply explains what they are agreeing with or disagreeing with.
I agree that the left throws these words around far too frequently and often makes no real attempt to understand the point of view of the person they hurl them at. But you cannot seriously claim that a term which is used to call someone out on their hatred, is hatred.

I think a perfect example of what I’m pointing to is Candice Owens getting turned away by a Covid testing facility, and then turning around claiming she was denied service because of her politics. That sentiment was then echoed on Fox News, and the narrative continues to on.

This narrative is however, absolutely absurd. She was denied service because she is spreading misinformation about COVID vaccines and encouraging people to not only not take them but to not wear masks. Again, this isn’t about tax policy, this is about public safety in the middle of a pandemic. There is nothing political about this, or at least there shouldn’t be. But that’s exactly what the right does…  politicize an apolitical issue and then claim anyone who acts against it is acting against their politics. How ridiculous.

It’s a medical clinic fighting back against Covid and refusing to serve someone who is largely responsible for the mindset that’s spreading the disease. If you can’t see how this is not about her politics you are either blind or you need a mental health examination.

So anyway that’s my example of the day. You clearly believe the right is being censored for their political beliefs. Can you provide something, anything to support it?
#16
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Double_R
What do you constitute as hate speech?

Do you believe the Taliban should be on Twitter, where there organizations stand for conquering the world in a Muslim rule and making minorities live in fear is hate speech?

or

Do you think being a whiny little bitch counts as hate speech?

----------

The problem with social media sites is that there is an implicit bias toward the left, not that the left is trying to censor Conservatives
#17
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the people who stormed the capital were let in
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Topic's author
#18
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the people who stormed the capital were let in
Because the Capitol police lost control of the situation. That should have been evident to you after seeing the mob push, shove, and beat their way through them and then smash the windows and climb in, then open the doors themselves to let their fellow rioters in.

Or did you miss all of that because the right wing propaganda networks would never show it?
#19
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,674
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Double_R
no its because they were let in, there was no pushing and shoving, the capital police did nothing
#20
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,674
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
idk
Topic's author
#21
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
No, the claim from conservatives is that they are being unfairly targeted, ie the rules are not being applied equally. If this is true, of course leftists wouldn’t be getting censored even if they were behaving just as badly . I don’t know who is more hateful. I know what my bias says, but I have no empirical evidence and you don’t either.
I don’t personally, which is why I invoked the FBI who have deemed right wing extremism as the greatest threat to the safety of the public, including over Muslim extremism. I didn’t think it would be heavily contested but I forgot the climate I am posting this in.

Trump is a political liability so I think it’s actually a good thing for my politics…but yeah I do think it’s an extremely weird Overton window if it doesn’t have room for the opinions of someone who won a presidential election 
Do you think Donald Trump’s words played a major role in the Capitol attacks?

If yes, what should be the proper response?

If no… wow we’re going to need a whole new thread.
#22
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,626
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 10–503.16. Unlawful conduct.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons willfully and knowingly:
(1) To enter or to remain upon the floor of either House of the Congress, to enter or to remain in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to such floor, or to enter or to remain in the Rayburn Room of the House or the Marble Room of the Senate, unless such person is authorized, pursuant to rules adopted by that House or pursuant to authorization given by that House, to enter or to remain upon such floor or in such cloakroom, lobby, or room;
Topic's author
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
I am actually differentiating here between free speech as a cultural thing and free speech as a law. When I say we should have a cultural acceptance of free speech, I still think platforms should be allowed to regulate it. 
There is no such thing as cultural free speech, it’s an incoherent concept because it directly opposes itself. I think you missed the whole point of everything I just said. I expressed no approval for eliminating someone’s position, I talked about the fact that what you are calling the elimination of people’s opinions is actually a necessary component of free speech.

Again, you get to say whatever you want and the rest of us get to decide what we will say in response. That includes what we do with our money, so if I disagree with you to the point where I want to boycott your products or boycott any platform that allows you to maintain yours, that’s my right to free speech in action. You can disagree with the cumulative result, but you cannot claim to be against this principally and be for free speech.

I also think if you were being honest you can thi k of where these powers have already been abused. More than likely you'd agree if I showed you they also come down on leftists as well, albeit more quietly because it is the same group they pander to.
What you’re pointing to is one of the biggest problems within all of human society, and its central to this thread. I don’t know if there’s a name for it but I’d love to read up on it, anyway it’s the twisting of something into the opposite in order to claim you hold the same position of those you oppose. For example; the fascist dictator who wishes to destroy democracy so they can take power gets criticized as a threat to democracy, then turns around and plays the victim thereby claiming it’s everyone else who is destroying democracy, thereby painting his efforts as necessary to save democracy against everyone else are “really” the fascist dictators.

The reality is that a properly functioning democracy requires good faith by those who are in or close to power, and it also requires the rest of us to be able to spot the difference (That’s why accepting the results of an election for example is so incredibly important).

If one side abuses their power then the other side has no good options since the only responsible reaction will almost always fall into the territory where it can be painted as an abuse of power itself. I think that’s exactly what we ate seeing here. Trump gave us no good options, so here we are.

However I think ultimately we need to realize that living in a free and open society comes with certain risks that won't be eliminated. Risks such as the ability to propagandist the people. 
If I start openly calling for the assassination of political figures will you still take that same position?
#24
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
I don’t personally, which is why I invoked the FBI who have deemed right wing extremism as the greatest threat to the safety of the public, including over Muslim extremism. I didn’t think it would be heavily contested but I forgot the climate I am posting this in
I am HIGHLY skeptical of that for a number of reasons but that’s for another day. That could be true and conservatives could still be being banned far too often. Even if people on the right deserve to be banned more often (I don’t concede this but for arguments sake) they could still be getting banned too much. You are saying basically that conservatives are being banned from social media because they are making hateful and nasty comments but they are too hateful and nasty to realize this. Your “theory on conservatives” is not a theory at all, it presupposes that your opponents claims have no merit 

Do you think Donald Trump’s words played a major role in the Capitol attacks?

If yes, what should be the proper response?
I don’t actually care about Trump that much. I would agree that he fucked up massively and abused his platform. Ultimately I don’t think he should be banned because he was literally the president. But I do understand people who think differently. 

My problem is entirely with the complete prohibition on discussing certain SUBJECTS. People should absolutely be allowed to discuss voter fraud. In 2018 there was a congressional election in North Carolina that had to be redone due to mail in voter fraud. This is what makes me roll my eyes whenever Democrats say there is no voter fraud. Yes there is, and in the last verified instance of it you were the victims! I think what you and people who think the same as you tend to miss is that power always uses unpopular edge cases to roll things out at first. They to be make for banning discussion on election fraud in 2020 because the evidence simply does not show widespread voter fraud. But what if, in a future election, there really IS voter fraud? Do you really want some corporate oligarchs being allowed to decide whether or not that can be discussed? Whether or not a particular instance is “real”? To me, that seems like a giant problem. And I don’t think we should pretend as if “oh it’s just online stuff anyway.” Online and reality have converged. Nobody is handing out pamphlets or whatever any more, real politics happens using the internet.

My perspective as a long time social media lurker is that the solution to bad speech is good speech, not shutting down things that go against elite consensus. As recently as a few months ago, social media companies were banning people for saying that they thought the coronavirus came from a lab. The US intelligence community has now concluded that they will probably never know the origins of the virus for sure, but said that the lab leak hypothesis is completely plausible. I know you refuse to discuss this issue because the CDC disagrees but I am watching the elite consensus on masks for children change in real time. Today an article arguing against masking children in The Atlantic.

But here’s what really grinds my gear about it: they are making the exact same arguments using the exact same data as the anonymous accounts being banned! But you know an author in The Atlantic is never going to be banned. The elites are allowed to stick their necks out, even if they are slower on the draw.

I’ve seen this trend happen again and again INCLUDING WARNING ABOUT THE VIRUS ITSELF. First random people or anonymous accounts start talking about something, then semi respected bloggers pick up the story, and then FINALLY the mainstream media and people who matter start paying attention. In January of 2020 the only people talking about the virus were random people online while the experts were assuring us that there was nothing to worry about. This continued until late February or March of 2020, when it was beyond obvious that this thing was a serious threat. Quite a few of the people warning about coronavirus in early 2020 have since been banned, even though they have an established track record of alerting people of important information.

So no, I don’t support a two tiered system where only the elites are allowed to speak their minds especially since the elite consensus frequently gets things wrong. Let the marketplace of ideas flourish. If someone makes a good argument with robust data it doesn’t matter if they are a neurosurgeon or a janitor.

As far as hate speech goes, that term can mean anything. Whatever rules are being applied clearly don’t apply in the case of anti white “hate speech” which is absolutely ubiquitous. But more importantly, one mans hate speech is another mans free speech. I think the founders got it right when they implemented the first amendment. One of the good things about a democratic society is that everyone, even the people who have no social or economic power, get to speak their minds. 

My final point in this wall of text: realize that the elites in this country aren’t really your friend. They largely favor the Democratic Party (right now) but not because they want to help the working class, or stop police brutality, or whatever. Organizations like the New York Times (run by a hereditary dynasty of wealthy elites) or the Washington Post (literally owned by the richest man in the country) exist to take the economic priorities of the elite and translate them into moral arguments to win over the populace. When it comes to censorship, the shoe will absolutely be on the other foot the moment you or people like you start advocating for things that people like Bezos feel like represent a threat to their interests. Why cede free speech on the internet to the oligarchs just because they are currently targeting people you dislike?

#25
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Double_R
If I start openly calling for the assassination of political figures will you still take that same position?
Actually yes, but I don’t think a person has to be as extreme as me, to be more tolerant of free speech that falls outside of threats or libel. I mostly agree with what you say above this, so it needs no response. I do want to dig further into cultural free speech acceptance in another thread though.

I'd also like you to expand on democracy requiring good faith. Why trust those in power, when we can see so many instances of power corrupting and real conspiracies. Such as the Tuskegee experiments. Why trust the oligarchs and family dynasties running America? 
#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
As I said Doc...Crazy mixed up people.
Topic's author
#27
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no its because they were let in, there was no pushing and shoving, the capital police did nothing
Got it. So I guess all that video footage of police officers getting beat with their own weapons, windows being smashed and people combing through them must have been from that other time congress had to evacuate the building because a mob attacked the US Capitol.

Ok Franklin.
Topic's author
#28
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Vader
What do you constitute as hate speech?

Do you believe the Taliban should be on Twitter, where there organizations stand for conquering the world in a Muslim rule and making minorities live in fear is hate speech?

or

Do you think being a whiny little bitch counts as hate speech?
Like I said before, I’m referring to speech that incites violence.

No, I don’t think the Taliban should be on Twitter, but I don’t take a particularly strong opinion on it. That’s up to Twitter.

The problem with social media sites is that there is an implicit bias toward the left, not that the left is trying to censor Conservatives
That I agree with

Topic's author
#29
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,276
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Wylted
If I start openly calling for the assassination of political figures will you still take that same position?
Actually yes
Then we just have a fundamental disagreement on the responsibility a society has to protect itself. I understand the basic position, essentially you’re arguing it’s a slippery slope so you see your position as the greater protection, but that only works of you disregard the idea that we should base our decisions on logic and reasoned argument. I say if we give up on that we’ve already lost.

I'd also like you to expand on democracy requiring good faith. Why trust those in power, when we can see so many instances of power corrupting and real conspiracies. Such as the Tuskegee experiments. Why trust the oligarchs and family dynasties running America?
Trust describes one of two things; a state of mind or an action. As a state of mind no one is saying trust those in charge. We should always be skeptical and to the extent we give them our trust is to the extent they earn it. This is why we have divided power and institutions to hold people accountable.

As an action, we trust them because we have no other choice. Someone is going to call the shots within our society, so the only question is whether we get a say in it. We don’t get to create our politicians in a lab, we’re stuck choosing from those who apply for the job.

As much as I hated to see Donald Trump sworn in I recognized that we had no other choice. If I had the nuclear codes in my hand and the power to hand them to anyone I wanted I would have given them to him because that’s the system we have. It’s that system from which every force of stability in our society stems, and it’s that system that we put our trust in. But that system just like any other is only as good as the people running it, hence my original statement about the requirement of good faith.
#30
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
Take the word "homophobic" or the name "bigot" or the term "racist".  These three words are thrown at the Conservative now whenever the Conservative simply explains what they are agreeing with or disagreeing with.
I agree that the left throws these words around far too frequently and often makes no real attempt to understand the point of view of the person they hurl them at. But you cannot seriously claim that a term which is used to call someone out on their hatred, is hatred.
I can because they are being used as words of hate.  Not just calling people out. But using them to incite people to hatred.  I am not saying this is intentional - but that is the impact of those words.  Think of all of the viral videos uploaded of people using that word. Canceling them from life, whether it is justified or not. the Left want to get rid of hate speech - yet they refuse to acknowledge they do it themselves.  This is one reason Conservatives think progressives are hypocrites.  This is why Conservatives believe that the Left have one rule for themselves and another one for those they disagree with. 


I think a perfect example of what I’m pointing to is Candice Owens getting turned away by a Covid testing facility, and then turning around claiming she was denied service because of her politics. That sentiment was then echoed on Fox News, and the narrative continues to on.
I don't know anything about that.  I am not an American. I have not even heard about it until you mentioned it here. 

This narrative is however, absolutely absurd. She was denied service because she is spreading misinformation about COVID vaccines and encouraging people to not only not take them but to not wear masks. Again, this isn’t about tax policy, this is about public safety in the middle of a pandemic. There is nothing political about this, or at least there shouldn’t be. But that’s exactly what the right does…  politicize an apolitical issue and then claim anyone who acts against it is acting against their politics. How ridiculous.
One person doing the wrong thing does not ipso facto translate to a generalisation to every conservative.   I see Lefties - becoming very violent with their speech and with their fists. They call people a racist but then never want to discuss it further.  It is "take our word for it" or go away.  This is not engaging in ideas.  It is shutting down any potential for a conversation. 


It’s a medical clinic fighting back against Covid and refusing to serve someone who is largely responsible for the mindset that’s spreading the disease. If you can’t see how this is not about her politics you are either blind or you need a mental health examination.
Again, I am not an American, I don't really follow American politics that much. I have heard of Candice Owens.   But I don't know much about her politics.  Medical clinics like every other organisation in America have the right to be left alone.  Yet, both sides of politics seem to have the places they picket and cause grief with.  How many times has the Business Centre been picketed and attacked by the Left? How many times has Trump's centre been attacked? Lots of times.  If the Left were serious about getting rid of hate speech - they would not discriminate.  They would stop doing it themselves.  But they don't. In fact they don't even admit it when they do it.  


So anyway that’s my example of the day. You clearly believe the right is being censored for their political beliefs. Can you provide something, anything to support it?
As I said I am not an American. I am Australian.  Laws are quite different over here.  We don't have free speech. We have laws against Hate speech. However hate speech in our laws is defined by the Left and only relates to things that anti-progressive.    In Victoria, we are not even currently permitted to speak against the government's laws about how it is handling the pandemic without fear of being charged for incitement.  Several people have been charged.  More will be charged. 

I gave examples above about censure.  In Victoria, I am no longer permitted to pray for any person who has questions about their sexuality.  Even if they come and ask me - even if they are an adult.  If I do I can be charged and be given a maximum of 10 years in prison.  In Victoria it is currently in the process of banning people having flags depicting the NAZI swastika.  But not the Hammer and Sickle. 

Don't misunderstand me. I am ANTI- NAZI.  I am pro- freedom and pro - democracy.  I am also anti communist.  

Yet, I think the censure of these items will cause more harm in the community - because when the Government - the Left censures anyone - it tends to not stop it, but to force it underground where it grows and grows.   

Banning things - prohibiting things is not the answer or solution.   Yes, it sends a message. But not one that will do good. One that says - We are stronger than you - and we will beat you to pulp if you disagree.  Again - this is left wing politics to the hilt.  the ends justifies the means.  As long as we get to where we want to go - then how we get there does not matter.  

If the Left would throw away this utilitarian justification, then perhaps many who think that the journey is just as important as the destination would not be so afraid of them.  

Yet, while the Left and indeed any Socialist including the Far Right - hold to this measure of justification and morality - then they will always have people who will never trust them.  I don't.  By the way - I don't even consider myself right wing.    Others might object.  And that is fine.  

I am a libertarian who believes in small government.  Hence neither Left nor Right politically or economically.  

In religious thinking I would fall into the Confessional type.  Hence anti-fundamentalist and anti- evangelical but also anti-Liberal and anti- socialist camps.  

I think on a political level, there should be no borders and no need for passports.  Everyone should be able to travel whereever they like, in the world. Not necessarily onto private property.   I would like to see the end of nuclear weapons and chemical weapons.  And biological weapons.  I was not a fan of Trump. I dislike Biden even more. I could not stand Obama or the Bushes.  I'm not old enough to know Reagan or Carter. Yet I am pleased to see the end of the Berlin Wall and the end of the soviet union. I don't agree with state funded public education. I do agree with separation of church and state.  I think we should care for the environment.  I think vaccines are a good thing.  I don't think the modern society is ready or mature enough for the death penalty. 

I do think the Left are dangerous. And I think the far right are dangerous as well.  Who is worse? I think both the Nazis and the Communists are equally dangerous.  

Any government which says - the ends justifies the means is dangerous.  Any government which uses the "greater good" argument is dangerous.  Any government which just tells it people to comply in all things is dangerous.