By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
 

Is free speech suppressed on the internet's main public squares

Yes 54 52.94%
 
No 44 43.14%
 
Undecided 4 3.92%
 
Total:102
Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:

"What I am finding to be an issue is that, yes free speech is important... But not if it comes at the expense of being ethical towards other people."

"There is no room for bigotry, fake information, hate speech, homophobia, sexism, racism and more, period. Real life or online."
"It's called being respectful."

This was the start of the conversation (above). Multiple times he's assumed the worst about me. Is that ethical? Is that respectful?

He made it clear that white people have an advantage which is a problem. He made it clear being rich was a bad thing. He made it clear that equality and equity are vital to a solid foundation. Yet to highly achieve would be, to be better or higher on a scale, to some degree, like wealth, than someone else.

How much more can someone achieve over others before it's a problem? How much wealthier can that someone end up before it's a problem? When is good enough, good enough, for anyone?

You can't then brag about being a high achieving rich white male and have someone honestly believe you're being genuine in this case. Even if you came from nothing on the street, you can't then take more than others or you're just becoming part of the problem. The only justification I could see being somewhat understandable would be if you were using all that extra power and wealth to specifically help those being highly oppressed. Doing good things for other people in this case, but reaping most of the rewards so you live like a king, isn't justified with those stated morals.

"In short, the guy is your typical hypocrite, they exist on the left and right side of the political spectrum."

As I pointed out to them, hypocrisy will soon be the norm for the majority. We're all guilty at times even if we're unaware of it. Hiding or running from it is just another addition to the problem, while practicing what you preach and accepting it is much easier said than done. Either that or make well thought out adjustments or changes to your morals to create a stronger foundation.

Why would you ask this if you've read through the conversation and understand the context as mentioned in your first point?

I've made it clear I'm open to options. Immediate pay or temporarily unpaid. It doesn't matter to me if I'm likely going to get what I want in the end and can make it work. If I'm unlikely to get it, or can't make it work, then I'm not doing it.

He made it clear that unpaid work is unacceptable, period.

Both baselines were already available. One of us is flexible and the other isn't in this case, so what do you hope to achieve here?

Also your position does not mean you are more flexible instead it just means you are willing to take more risk.  To work for free on a promise of getting paid is just the amount of risk you are willing to accept.  The thing is, there are a lot of people who do not have the flexibility to actually choose.  You present your position where you have a choice but there are many who are placed in those situations where there is no choice it either do as the employer says or find yourself out of a job. This is why we have labor laws because of the exploitation employers have used over the years.

Taking more risk wouldn't mean in every potential life scenario possible, but it did mean more flexibility when it came to that specific subject, as I stated.

Your point about lack of options is unnecessary as I've already said I find it an acceptable option depending on the other options. If the only option is slave labor, then the lack of options obviously means that's not acceptable. 

In today's world, for the most part, with today's rules, mostly being positive and useful, if your employer isn't giving you many or any options, you almost always have the choice to go elsewhere. In the off chance they're the only choice, you still have the choice to change careers or attempt to compete directly with them.

Choices aren't only about what's found to be perfectly acceptable. Sometimes people need to make hard choices that will lead to some negative consequences before they can move forward in a positive manner again. Two steps forward and one step back. It's unfortunate but it's the way of the world.

I asked you to answer your own question because you threw out a bunch of questions without any context to your position.  This usually boarder on sea-lioning so wanted you to actually state your position on the subject instead of asking a bunch of questions as you have done again in your reply.  This is the first time I have seen you actually make a declaration on your position instead of the appearance of you just throwing out stuff as a counter to an argument.

What I hope to achieve is for you to stop with the bolded part.  This tactic as I mentioned gives a sea-lioning feeling to your arguments instead of just putting your arguments into a declaration of what YOU actually believe.

Ah I see, I think. I didn't look at it from the other side when it comes to integrity. Didn't dawn on me at all.

To me it would have been beyond hypocritical, and flat out idiotic, if my stance, or anyone taking me stance, was to be a super wealthy snob who wouldn't bend over to pick up a $100 dollar bill, let alone offer some average person a helping hand, while also thinking slave labor was ok. That would be pretty embarrassing.

Apparently I should've, and should in the future, assume everyone takes a hypocritical stance. That will help me to better explain myself knowing that's also the assumption about me. It doesn't exactly seem very ethical and respectful, but who are we to judge? Though that assumption would also lead me to want to ask many questions of them, to verify their integrity, which would seem to be a concern here. What a pickle.

The questions I asked most recently, no different than in the past, weren't asked to overwhelm, weren't asked to misdirect or change the conversation, and weren't asked for nothing as if I didn't care about the answers. They are clearly based on the conversation and were asked because the likely answers would've furthered my point. To call them sealioning would've been to call a penalty before the infraction even occurred, like Minority Report.

What I believe, hasn't always been found to be good enough though, which at times leads to me ask more questions. Questions where the likely answer will further explain and prove the point I'm making, if answered, and honestly. I can't exactly make a strong statement if I don't have enough information from them for a point I'd like to make, so the only way to do that is to ask more questions.

What was said between us prior is an example. You asked questions about my stance. I found them to be useless because to me the answer was, and is there within the prior conversation, if you assumed I was being genuine.

Yet you asked anyway. Why? Likely because regardless, you felt you needed more information to make a solid statement that you couldn't have otherwise, and there's certainly no point in making a weak useless statement, so why not ask?

Now should I have assumed the worst about you and called that sealioning prior, or been ethical showing respect by assuming you weren't just wasting time, and answering your questions? Hopefully it's more clear now to you why I reply the way I do at times.



Around the Network
ConservagameR said:

Ah I see, I think. I didn't look at it from the other side when it comes to integrity. Didn't dawn on me at all.

Has nothing to do with integrity, but if that is how you feel fine.  You can continue along the line I mentioned and it will go another way.

To me it would have been beyond hypocritical, and flat out idiotic, if my stance, or anyone taking me stance, was to be a super wealthy snob who wouldn't bend over to pick up a $100 dollar bill, let alone offer some average person a helping hand, while also thinking slave labor was ok. That would be pretty embarrassing.

What does this have anything to do with anything.

Apparently I should've, and should in the future, assume everyone takes a hypocritical stance. That will help me to better explain myself knowing that's also the assumption about me. It doesn't exactly seem very ethical and respectful, but who are we to judge? Though that assumption would also lead me to want to ask many questions of them, to verify their integrity, which would seem to be a concern here. What a pickle.

Are you really going to try the whole persecution tactic.  I do not know you so I have no assumption on who you are, I am talking about your statement and particular the 20 question one.  Your perception of how others see you has nothing to do with what I pointed out.  If you want to ask questions, without any context to your position then state your position on those questions, then ask them.

The questions I asked most recently, no different than in the past, weren't asked to overwhelm, weren't asked to misdirect or change the conversation, and weren't asked for nothing as if I didn't care about the answers. They are clearly based on the conversation and were asked because the likely answers would've furthered my point. To call them sealioning would've been to call a penalty before the infraction even occurred, like Minority Report.

I see it different. The only way it further your point is if you provided your point first.  As I stated, provide your point first and context to those questions and your position instead of throwing them out there.  Also I did not call them sealioning I said it was close and the continued use of that tactic make the case stronger against you.

What I believe, hasn't always been found to be good enough though, which at times leads to me ask more questions. Questions where the likely answer will further explain and prove the point I'm making, if answered, and honestly. I can't exactly make a strong statement if I don't have enough information from them for a point I'd like to make, so the only way to do that is to ask more questions.

I am going to call that BS.  You absolutely can make a declaration statement on your stance to your own questions.  Why ask them if you already do not have a stance and position. You are giving me this feeling that you are trying to play the victim role because your stance may not be shared by the majority.  I on the other hand do not care if your opinion is shared by the majority, as long as you debate in good faith.  I am telling you a particular tactic you use is probably going to get you moderated, so adjust that tactic so it does not have to come to that.  If your opinion never meets how the majority feel, I care not.  Not looking for an echo chamber here.

What was said between us prior is an example. You asked questions about my stance. I found them to be useless because to me the answer was, and is there within the prior conversation, if you assumed I was being genuine.

I am telling you that it was not.  Especially to the rapid questions you threw out.  Instead, its more like you trying to play devil advocate then anything else.

Yet you asked anyway. Why? Likely because regardless, you felt you needed more information to make a solid statement that you couldn't have otherwise, and there's certainly no point in making a weak useless statement, so why not ask?

Why not be direct with your statements instead of this middling way you like to go about things.  You will never not know my position on any subject because I will tell you.

Now should I have assumed the worst about you and called that sealioning prior, or been ethical showing respect by assuming you weren't just wasting time, and answering your questions? Hopefully it's more clear now to you why I reply the way I do at times.

You can assume whatever you want as I do not care about assumptions, what I do care about is people following the rules of the site and debate in good faith tactics.  I am telling you that tactic needs change, its up to you going forward in understanding where this goes next.  Its a simple modification on your part, I suggest you take my advice.

 



Oh how Twitter is dying. Let's all enjoy the downfall with popcorn



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:

Ah I see, I think. I didn't look at it from the other side when it comes to integrity. Didn't dawn on me at all.

Has nothing to do with integrity, but if that is how you feel fine.  You can continue along the line I mentioned and it will go another way.

To me it would have been beyond hypocritical, and flat out idiotic, if my stance, or anyone taking me stance, was to be a super wealthy snob who wouldn't bend over to pick up a $100 dollar bill, let alone offer some average person a helping hand, while also thinking slave labor was ok. That would be pretty embarrassing.

What does this have anything to do with anything.

Apparently I should've, and should in the future, assume everyone takes a hypocritical stance. That will help me to better explain myself knowing that's also the assumption about me. It doesn't exactly seem very ethical and respectful, but who are we to judge? Though that assumption would also lead me to want to ask many questions of them, to verify their integrity, which would seem to be a concern here. What a pickle.

Are you really going to try the whole persecution tactic.  I do not know you so I have no assumption on who you are, I am talking about your statement and particular the 20 question one.  Your perception of how others see you has nothing to do with what I pointed out.  If you want to ask questions, without any context to your position then state your position on those questions, then ask them.

The questions I asked most recently, no different than in the past, weren't asked to overwhelm, weren't asked to misdirect or change the conversation, and weren't asked for nothing as if I didn't care about the answers. They are clearly based on the conversation and were asked because the likely answers would've furthered my point. To call them sealioning would've been to call a penalty before the infraction even occurred, like Minority Report.

I see it different. The only way it further your point is if you provided your point first.  As I stated, provide your point first and context to those questions and your position instead of throwing them out there.  Also I did not call them sealioning I said it was close and the continued use of that tactic make the case stronger against you.

What I believe, hasn't always been found to be good enough though, which at times leads to me ask more questions. Questions where the likely answer will further explain and prove the point I'm making, if answered, and honestly. I can't exactly make a strong statement if I don't have enough information from them for a point I'd like to make, so the only way to do that is to ask more questions.

I am going to call that BS.  You absolutely can make a declaration statement on your stance to your own questions.  Why ask them if you already do not have a stance and position. You are giving me this feeling that you are trying to play the victim role because your stance may not be shared by the majority.  I on the other hand do not care if your opinion is shared by the majority, as long as you debate in good faith.  I am telling you a particular tactic you use is probably going to get you moderated, so adjust that tactic so it does not have to come to that.  If your opinion never meets how the majority feel, I care not.  Not looking for an echo chamber here.

What was said between us prior is an example. You asked questions about my stance. I found them to be useless because to me the answer was, and is there within the prior conversation, if you assumed I was being genuine.

I am telling you that it was not.  Especially to the rapid questions you threw out.  Instead, its more like you trying to play devil advocate then anything else.

Yet you asked anyway. Why? Likely because regardless, you felt you needed more information to make a solid statement that you couldn't have otherwise, and there's certainly no point in making a weak useless statement, so why not ask?

Why not be direct with your statements instead of this middling way you like to go about things.  You will never not know my position on any subject because I will tell you.

Now should I have assumed the worst about you and called that sealioning prior, or been ethical showing respect by assuming you weren't just wasting time, and answering your questions? Hopefully it's more clear now to you why I reply the way I do at times.

You can assume whatever you want as I do not care about assumptions, what I do care about is people following the rules of the site and debate in good faith tactics.  I am telling you that tactic needs change, its up to you going forward in understanding where this goes next.  Its a simple modification on your part, I suggest you take my advice.

 

What does this have anything to do with anything.

You seemed to want a more precise explanation with my thought's all put together, as you mentioned you didn't find there to be enough context on my position, so I put everything together from prior, which apparently fit with what I had stated prior, based on your follow up reply.

Below (in bold). Context from the start of the conversation. Notice his and my points about hypocrisy and how that played out over the conversation, including when you joined in and where that went as to questioning what I actually believe?

Again, it's like you didn't read or didn't understand much of the context of the conversation so you are not able to reference what my most recent points are about, which all relate to the conversation up until this point. Either that or you just assume I'm full of crap.

ConservagameR said:
Pemalite said:

What I am finding to be an issue is that, yes free speech is important... But not if it comes at the expense of being ethical towards other people.

There is no room for bigotry, fake information, hate speech, homophobia, sexism, racism and more, period. Real life or online.
It's called being respectful.

I think Musk just thrives on attention, Trump does the same thing, they like to be the center of it, that is how they make their "brand"... So the crazier the idea, the more disruption they can cause, the better for their particular brand... Which is themselves.

But you know what? If twitter falters and fails, there will be another company to take it's place.

Pemalite said:

Generally free speech has a ton of restrictions anyway. Libel/Slander for example are some restrictions to free speech.

In saying that, proponents of free-speech don't seem to recognize those fundamental limitations and desire a free-for-all.
That is... Until they suffer the wrath of other peoples free-speech, then wish to impose limitations and start acting like a snow-flake until they get their own way.

In short, the guy is your typical hypocrite, they exist on the left and right side of the political spectrum.

I'd guess Elon had about enough of hearing, it's a private business so they can do what they want, and, if you don't like it go build your own.

So he just bought it instead and then decided to do what he wants by actually taking it private.

Hypocrites will soon be the norm at this rate. The right is increasingly realizing that pointing out hypocrisy doesn't accomplish much, while the hypocrites tend to keep winning somehow, so they're shifting from playing heads they win, tales we lose, to playing hypocrisy as well. Do not do as you say, collect $8 per blue check.

Twitter failing could very well mean a right wing platform becomes the new town square, and if that takes place while conservatives are shifting from morality to hypocrisy, then we just might get old Twitter back again, just flipped politically, and that no doubt would be a nightmare to some.

The last thing I'll say is I find it quite coincidental that when a point or accusation is made about me and I explain myself, the resulting reply the majority of the time, from whoever, is that I'm wrong for whatever reason and that's final. Yet when I make a point about someone, they or someone else, will explain to me that I, again, as per usual, are wrong for whatever reason, and that's final.

Even when it comes to someone else admitting they don't know me so they can't know exactly what I'm like and what I'm thinking, seems like one way or another I tend to almost always be wrong, especially when it comes to knowing myself.

As for the rest I'm not going to bother because it's getting ridiculous at this point.

Don't worry though. I'll be more selective when choosing who to, and not to, start a conversation with or reply to going forward. I can only hope that won't somehow become a problem.



I dunno about Twitter dying, but Elon is sure worried about his own life.

'If I committed suicide, it's not real': Elon Musk reassures the public he's not suicidal for a second time this year (yahoo.com)



Around the Network

Here is the live from this week.

https://youtu.be/1QV0F-wj480

will post summary tomorrow

Last edited by padib - on 07 December 2022

ConservagameR said:

I dunno about Twitter dying, but Elon is sure worried about his own life.

'If I committed suicide, it's not real': Elon Musk reassures the public he's not suicidal for a second time this year (yahoo.com)

Of course he’s paranoid. Have you seen the guy’s posts on Twitter? The guy’s a legit nutcase.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Renamed said:
zero129 said:

1. I am hoping how you can inform me how one bad thing (Black slavery) Makes another less bad (The irish famine) as they where both caused by people in power not the general populous. But that in no way makes one less bad than the other and once again i am insulted by your narrow view point on this subject. If all them Irish was black would it fit what your saying then? As if the colour of skin means anything when bad things happen?.

2. That point means nothing to me as the irish here build our own things. It also means nothing if i lived in america as i should not feel guilty for something that happened years ago. Otherwise how long is this guilt trip going to go on?. and also Africans was not the only slaves in history. If you follow history you would know Africans had slaves themself well before the USA. They had European slaves from the coasts in the pirate raids. Slavery is nothing new it was part of history and imo thats where it should be left as looking back will bring no one forward only make more divide.

3. Thats good for you. If you can let me know when my benefits a due ill be happy but for now i see none. Once again this is painting everyone with the same brush. If you feel guilty for being white thats on you but me i dont as i know we didnt do anything or dont benefit in anyway.

 

What guilt trip?  

 No response?



Jumpin said:
ConservagameR said:

I dunno about Twitter dying, but Elon is sure worried about his own life.

'If I committed suicide, it's not real': Elon Musk reassures the public he's not suicidal for a second time this year (yahoo.com)

Of course he’s paranoid. Have you seen the guy’s posts on Twitter? The guy’s a legit nutcase.

Exactly. The Twitter Files? Really Elon?

Like who spends billions on a company to very quickly show the public as much as possible about how it's actually been operating and covering up?

Didn't he learn anything from JFK's speech about secret societies and hidden agenda's?



I love how this is exposing the myth of meritocracy and that billionaire are dumbasses.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also