'Free Speech' is just a dog whistle for 'Conservatives can say whatever they want and not face even so much as criticism for it'. Why do you think they never speak up about it when leftists are silenced or censored? Maza never called for a flagging campaign.
-
-
Replying to @GearyDigit @ElectricLizardz and
“Dog whistle” is a dog whistle for, “I just want to censor people I disagree with.” Also amazing that free speech was promoted strongly by the left up to around the Occupy time. Now censorship is the modus operandi. But you think it’s just the right. Hell ACLU was big into it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @levi_gay @ElectricLizardz and
Nobody's preventing you from posting videos on your own website.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GearyDigit @levi_gay and
The Private Company argument simply does not work, For Example, would you consider it just if Twitter just banned every left winger for hate speech and their only response to it was that they can simply go to a different social media page?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ElectricLizardz @levi_gay and
Leftists, by and large, don't peddle hate speech. Hate speech has a meaning, and as much as it upsets you, it's overwhelming done by the right, not the left.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GearyDigit @levi_gay and
But this is the rules for thee and not for me argument, Hate Speech is a subjective term, Would you consider it fair, if Conservatives suddenly started considering basic left-wing arguments to be hate speech and then banning them for it?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ElectricLizardz @GearyDigit and
Well the first issue with that, would be that it's not actually hate speech. So no, I wouldn't like it if people started labelling things that aren't hate speech, hate speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SortofSalient @GearyDigit and
But again that it my point, Hate Speech is a subjective term, Different people define it in different ways, Twitter is considering many basic Conservative arguments to be hate speech and is using that as an excuse to ban then and i am making the point that...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ElectricLizardz @GearyDigit and
Except that it's not. Hate speech is derogatory or offensive comments on the basis of immutable characteristics towards another person. Sociologists have had a solid definition of this for years now.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SortofSalient @GearyDigit and
Ok if we go on that definition, firstly we would have to define offensive since many people would be offended by different things and then I would ask you to confirm where the line is drawn between joking about things like race and nationality and what would be hate speech
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't care about the line or where it goes. My contention with your statement was that hate speech was subjective. It's not. It's been pretty clearly established by sociologists for a long time what constitutes hate speech. You're playing semantic games.
-
-
Replying to @SortofSalient @GearyDigit and
It is subjective, Ask two random people on the street to define hate speech and you will get two different answers. For example Google defines Hate Speech as "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.