7 ms·

> They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. "in defense of looting" And whil

> They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. "in defense of looting" And while I'm at it - why isn't China being deplatformed? They literally just posted on their embassy twitter account saying they fixed minority women who were "baby-making machines." One can only guess they mean sterilization. It's obvious who's allowed to be inhumane and who isn't. https://abcnews.go.com/International/chinese-embassy-tweet-uighurs-birth-rate-draws-instant/story?id=75118569 https://abcnews.go.com/International/chinese-embassy-tweet-u...

caconym_ 6y ago
I can read quite clearly between the lines of your comment, but I’m still having trouble finding where in my comment I said that users calling for violence on social media should be exempt from sanctions if they’re left-leaning.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > we take whatever measures we have to to get rid of it for the greater good of society Justifying around the "greater good" is so obviously fraught and subjective. And since the workers in tech are overwhelmingly liberal, they will undoubtedly bias policies of mass communication platforms to disallow opposition. Oddly enough people so concerned with minority representation will steam-roll minorities when they make blind "greater good" majoritarianism the norm. And nowadays the definition of "harm" has been trivialized so far that really practically anything is a target.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  Also, beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being. They will use the word "violence" to describe both, rather than get into a definition war with them, just keep the distinction clear.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being Ok so I guess economic circumstances can never be oppressive. So if a thieve steals all your stuff and you starve...that's not violence!
    - spoonjim 6y ago
      Here is a curated selection of the logical failures in your two line comment: * saying that economic circumstances are "oppressive," then trying to draw this to "violence" * a claim that if a thief steals all of your stuff, you "starve" -- please give an example of one person who "starved" because BLM looters stole their stuff * implying that being in a situation where you are "starving" is the same as actually being violently attacked, i.e. shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, etc.
      - nec4b 6y ago
        >>* a claim that if a thief steals all of your stuff, you "starve" -- please give an example of one person who "starved" because BLM looters stole their stuff You are 100% sure that nobody who lost a job because his place of work was destroyed in riots is not starving? Not everybody is so privileged to have enough savings to support himself after loosing a job.
        spoonjim 6y ago
        Of course I'm not 100% sure of that, but there is a long sequence of events between smashing a window and getting to that outcome, unlike bashing a guy's face in with a crowbar where the consequence is guaranteed within milliseconds. The two acts are not equal and attempts to equate them are either idiotic or in bad faith.
        nec4b 6y ago
        Once upon a time in Germany there was a special night, it was called "Crystal Night"[1]. It got it's name because of all the glass from the smashed windows lying on the ground. There were some people arguing that it was violence, but some said that those people were either idiotic or arguing in bad faith. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht
- bobbobb54444 6y ago
  I don’t give a fuck about your comment, I care about the reality of the situation you fucking mongoloid
platinumrad 6y ago
> One can only guess they mean sterilization. Only if you read it in the least charitable way possible and in the context of unverified claims from fringe figures like Adrian Zenz. It's a bad tweet, but the literal reading is that due to "emancipation" they are no longer only "baby making machines". Not even CCP propagandists are clumsy enough to admit to forced sterilization in a public forum.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  It’s not uncharitable to state there’s ethnic cleansing occurring in China and the state has codified race supremacy.
selfishgene 6y ago
Don't forget about Saudi Arabia! Their "Crown Prince" assassinates a dissident journalist by placing a plastic bag over his head to suffocate him while his fiance waits outside the embassy in her car. And leaders like president Rafael Reif at MIT invite this brutal dictator onto the MIT campus in order to thank him for his donation to the Media Lab in a photo op covered by the newspapers, presumably as a form of reputation laundering and because Rafael Reif cares about human rights about as much as he cares about the sexual abuse of 12 year-old girls. Why is the Crown Prince's violence "more legitimate" than folks who perhaps mistakenly think the election was stolen from them and feel the need to break a few windows in order to protest the ballot count?

caconym_ 6y ago

I can read quite clearly between the lines of your comment, but I’m still having trouble finding where in my comment I said that users calling for violence on social media should be exempt from sanctions if they’re left-leaning.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> we take whatever measures we have to to get rid of it for the greater good of society Justifying around the "greater good" is so obviously fraught and subjective. And since the workers in tech are overwhelmingly liberal, they will undoubtedly bias policies of mass communication platforms to disallow opposition. Oddly enough people so concerned with minority representation will steam-roll minorities when they make blind "greater good" majoritarianism the norm. And nowadays the definition of "harm" has been trivialized so far that really practically anything is a target.
spoonjim 6y ago
Also, beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being. They will use the word "violence" to describe both, rather than get into a definition war with them, just keep the distinction clear.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being Ok so I guess economic circumstances can never be oppressive. So if a thieve steals all your stuff and you starve...that's not violence!
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    Here is a curated selection of the logical failures in your two line comment: * saying that economic circumstances are "oppressive," then trying to draw this to "violence" * a claim that if a thief steals all of your stuff, you "starve" -- please give an example of one person who "starved" because BLM looters stole their stuff * implying that being in a situation where you are "starving" is the same as actually being violently attacked, i.e. shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, etc.
    - nec4b 6y ago
      >>* a claim that if a thief steals all of your stuff, you "starve" -- please give an example of one person who "starved" because BLM looters stole their stuff You are 100% sure that nobody who lost a job because his place of work was destroyed in riots is not starving? Not everybody is so privileged to have enough savings to support himself after loosing a job.
      - spoonjim 6y ago
        Of course I'm not 100% sure of that, but there is a long sequence of events between smashing a window and getting to that outcome, unlike bashing a guy's face in with a crowbar where the consequence is guaranteed within milliseconds. The two acts are not equal and attempts to equate them are either idiotic or in bad faith.
        nec4b 6y ago
        Once upon a time in Germany there was a special night, it was called "Crystal Night"[1]. It got it's name because of all the glass from the smashed windows lying on the ground. There were some people arguing that it was violence, but some said that those people were either idiotic or arguing in bad faith. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht
bobbobb54444 6y ago
I don’t give a fuck about your comment, I care about the reality of the situation you fucking mongoloid

platinumrad 6y ago

> One can only guess they mean sterilization. Only if you read it in the least charitable way possible and in the context of unverified claims from fringe figures like Adrian Zenz. It's a bad tweet, but the literal reading is that due to "emancipation" they are no longer only "baby making machines". Not even CCP propagandists are clumsy enough to admit to forced sterilization in a public forum.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
It’s not uncharitable to state there’s ethnic cleansing occurring in China and the state has codified race supremacy.

selfishgene 6y ago

Don't forget about Saudi Arabia! Their "Crown Prince" assassinates a dissident journalist by placing a plastic bag over his head to suffocate him while his fiance waits outside the embassy in her car. And leaders like president Rafael Reif at MIT invite this brutal dictator onto the MIT campus in order to thank him for his donation to the Media Lab in a photo op covered by the newspapers, presumably as a form of reputation laundering and because Rafael Reif cares about human rights about as much as he cares about the sexual abuse of 12 year-old girls. Why is the Crown Prince's violence "more legitimate" than folks who perhaps mistakenly think the election was stolen from them and feel the need to break a few windows in order to protest the ballot count?