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
numberwang said:

Calling this a "once in a lifetime pandemic" shows how much people had moved in a echo chamber because of censorship. Information and consent are a necessity for a functional democracy. The perpetual lockdowns and censorship in China right now prove what an absurd mistake zero-covid policies were and are even though they were promoted by the uniparty and their media in fake "free democracies". I hope that Elon can bring a bit of balance back towards balanced information but I doubt that he is successful. We shouldn't have to rely on "good oligarchs" to save information and consent.

I should have mentioned in my last post about this, that while nobody wants to have to go through what some believe is taking place, that the Founding Fathers did make it clear that tough times would lie ahead no matter how well the system they had developed worked. That the people would have to constantly be keeping an eye on things, otherwise eventually the system would teeter too far one way, or bad actors would get put in charge, leading to things having to be fixed the hard way, if not the worst way, by the people.

"Good oligarchs" as you put it, were responsible for the creation of America. It's not really surprising that good oligarchs would potentially need to eventually rise again and save it.

numberwang said:

Democrats just raised military spending to new heights, refused student loan forgiveness, enabled draconian lockdown laws, pushed the USA close to a nuclear conflict with Russia, created the highest inflation in US history, open borders, pushing censorship for science, supporting regime changes throughout the world, etc. The uniparty has different talking points to dazzle smoothbrains but actual policies are identical.

It's easy for some, whoever they are, to ignore what may be good or bad, useful or disadvantageous, when it's a balancing act. When you've got someone else to either help prop you up, back you up, or cover you up, it's not always easy to see where you may be wrong.

It's not typically until they, end up on their own, with nobody but themselves to decide, to either accept the glory or defeat of the execution of their idea's. While that in itself is highly unlikely to occur within a Country, it can take place if enough people move away from the problem area's and into far better run locations.

Last edited by ConservagameR - on 15 April 2022

Around the Network

Side note.

Twitter sell to Elon yet?



RolStoppable said:
ConservagameR said:

Don't the people vote for the politicians though? Because if they don't, well, let's not go there.

The system is also set up so the minority shouldn't get ignored and crushed and as you stated, it's the Republicans who try and crush the minorities, not the Democrats. This goes along with the idea that conservatives are more so against democracy and would rather simply have few rulers with slaves.

So if the crazy left as you agree, is a vocal minority, it would then stand to reason, that the Democrat politicians are actually listening and setting their agenda at least partially to that crazy minorities liking. Otherwise the Democrat politicians are purposely ignoring their voters, the poor minority, which would go against the idea that the liberals are the one's hardcore for a just democracy.

I'm not saying conservatives are right and liberals are wrong, I'm just pointing out that both sides have their flaws, which they tend to like to ignore.

I have a hard time following your train of logic for the simple reason that it makes a few assumptions that are definitely not true to begin with.

What's clear is that it's easy to tell that the democrat politicians are ignoring the crazy far-left, because if they didn't, the bills and laws they pushed for and through would be very different. It isn't contradictory that at least a portion of the crazy far-left will vote the democrats regardless due to the political system of the USA. While the democrats may not do what the crazy far-left wants, they remain the far better option of the two major parties when it comes to voting.

You already pointed out that the Republicans are against the minority, which is a really bad thing and makes them poor leadership. If the Democrats are doing the same thing, ignoring the minority, doesn't that also mean it's a really bad thing and they're poor leadership?

Contradictory isn't really the right word to describe it. It would just be extremely illogical. Some people will work for free, in the hopes that they will eventually get paid. It doesn't take long before those people eventually leave and go elsewhere if they don't get paid in due time. It makes little to no sense for someone, or a group, to only ever vote for one party, even though that party never does anything for them.

Hiding small things, sometimes many, in (big) bills, happens all the time, and most are aware of this. That's one of the easiest ways to get things through that would be controversial enough that the people wouldn't accept and their political representatives would vote against. The media tends to only cover the main portion of the bills, so the people don't get to find out, unless they go to lesser known media, or take the time to read the entirety of the bills themselves. Both sides are guilty of this.

As for how bills and laws would be different, this is the same type of point that Dulfite and Torillian were trying to make, which were poor arguments because both were suggesting things will or could be a certain way, when both were just taking educated guesses at best, and really didn't know because they couldn't. Nobody can know for certain what the past could have been, or what the future will be.



Shadow1980 said:

And one last thing about the American right's backlash against social media after Saint Donnie and other notable lunatics got banned, I find their reactions utterly hypocritical, though hypocrisy has been their stock-in-trade since at least the Reagan years. They spent decades preaching the gospel of laissez-faire free-market capitalism and claiming that any government interference in the market, however slight, is literal communism. But the moment private property rights were used in way that inconvenienced them, they threw away those professed principles and demanded Big Government solutions to their problems. Not that railing against government power while simultaneously using Big Government solutions when it suits them is anything new with the GOP. DeathSantis is continuing that proud tradition in Florida as we speak.



RolStoppable said:
ConservagameR said:

You already pointed out that the Republicans are against the minority, which is a really bad thing and makes them poor leadership. If the Democrats are doing the same thing, ignoring the minority, doesn't that also mean it's a really bad thing and they're poor leadership?

Contradictory isn't really the right word to describe it. It would just be extremely illogical. Some people will work for free, in the hopes that they will eventually get paid. It doesn't take long before those people eventually leave and go elsewhere if they don't get paid in due time. It makes little to no sense for someone, or a group, to only ever vote for one party, even though that party never does anything for them.

Hiding small things, sometimes many, in (big) bills, happens all the time, and most are aware of this. That's one of the easiest ways to get things through that would be controversial enough that the people wouldn't accept and their political representatives would vote against. The media tends to only cover the main portion of the bills, so the people don't get to find out, unless they go to lesser known media, or take the time to read the entirety of the bills themselves. Both sides are guilty of this.

As for how bills and laws would be different, this is the same type of point that Dulfite and Torillian were trying to make, which were poor arguments because both were suggesting things will or could be a certain way, when both were just taking educated guesses at best, and really didn't know because they couldn't. Nobody can know for certain what the past could have been, or what the future will be.

What I pointed out about the republicans is that they make laws that put society 50-200 years backwards, and yes, it can be infered from that that republicans are against minorities. However, the minorities we are talking about are groups such as people of color who can't do anything about this specific trait of them. This is not the same thing as a minority trait that is defined by the mind, such as what gets called social justice warrior and the like - or as Torillian put it, the Twitter left. What is bad is the discrimination of people based on their color of skin or sexual orientation, and that is what the republicans do; this shouldn't need to be spelled out, but I guess I have no choice when you are acting deliberately obtuse.

The far-left repeatedly voting for the democrats without getting any of their ideas turned into reality isn't illogical. You argue that they would go elsewhere, but as I pointed out in my previous post, there's no viable alternative in the political system of the USA. The only "elsewhere" is the republicans who will actively work against anything that could be considered left ideas. Therefore a vote for the democrats who will do nothing good in the eyes of the far-left is still preferable to abstaining or voting republican, because power in the hands of the republicans will only ever result in bad things in the eyes of the far-left.

That both democrats and republicans insert small things into larger bills is just about the only sound point you've made, but it isn't a point that anyone in this thread will contest anyway, so it's moot.

Lastly, my point about bills and laws didn't deal with hypotheticals, but actual bills and laws that have been passed in states where republicans have control. There are no "what ifs" here, but only irrefutable reality.

Well if we're going to use the moot point deflection, then what do POC's have anything to do with the crazy left which is what's being talked about here? Unless you think the POC's fit in that category, in which case you said that portion of the left is crazy and is being ignored.

As for irrefutable reality, everything the Republicans do isn't racist, though it's almost always claimed to be nowadays, at least by the crazy left. To also believe that every single Republican and Republican controlled government is automatically going to be worse for you is absolutely illogical. Nobody is forced to vote and for good reason.

So a good point means nothing if it doesn't lead to furthering the argumentative portion of a discussion? Since when is this was a requirement?

This is how it's supposed to work though. Republican controlled states, especially so called red states, where the majority of conservatives vote in Republican politicians, ask for those types of bills and laws, and if they don't, they vote for another Republican, or in most states, a Democrat eventually, if they don't get their way. Same goes for most Democrat controlled states, especially so called blue states.

The problem is the federal government trying to force every state, and all voters in them, to adhere to Democrat or Republican bills and laws. Beside what's already been widely agreed upon and established that makes the country a whole through federal government, each state should be left to it's own devices. Most who really don't like or won't accept a states politics will vote them out, or leave, and eventually the state has no choice but to change for the better or pay the price.

Allowing the system as is to work is slow, and causes some chaos and pain, but works out best. Forcing the system from the very top down, causes more and more chaos, and eventually major pain.

Lastly, I realize no state would ever be even close to 100% conservative or liberal voters, so yes, it'll never be close to perfect for everyone, but it's not about being perfect, it's about being the best it possibly can be at this point in time. The best way to do that, the majority of the time, is to focus on smaller separate groups, not a focus as if all are one.



Around the Network

I support Musk and agree that free speech has been severely and unjustly curtailed online.



RolStoppable said:

If you didn't make such an effort to twist my words, you would most likely not confuse yourself so much.

Do you think Elon is confused?



RolStoppable said:
ConservagameR said:

Do you think Elon is confused?

The first Google result for "Elon Musk freedom of speech" is a Twitter poll posted by him where he asks if Twitter adheres to free speech. The first two visible responses to his poll explain that Twitter is a private company, not a government.

So there's no doubt that Elon is confused.

Then I am in good company.



RolStoppable said:
ConservagameR said:

Well if we're going to use the moot point deflection, then what do POC's have anything to do with the crazy left which is what's being talked about here? Unless you think the POC's fit in that category, in which case you said that portion of the left is crazy and is being ignored.

As for irrefutable reality, everything the Republicans do isn't racist, though it's almost always claimed to be nowadays, at least by the crazy left. To also believe that every single Republican and Republican controlled government is automatically going to be worse for you is absolutely illogical. Nobody is forced to vote and for good reason.

So a good point means nothing if it doesn't lead to furthering the argumentative portion of a discussion? Since when is this was a requirement?

This is how it's supposed to work though. Republican controlled states, especially so called red states, where the majority of conservatives vote in Republican politicians, ask for those types of bills and laws, and if they don't, they vote for another Republican, or in most states, a Democrat eventually, if they don't get their way. Same goes for most Democrat controlled states, especially so called blue states.

The problem is the federal government trying to force every state, and all voters in them, to adhere to Democrat or Republican bills and laws. Beside what's already been widely agreed upon and established that makes the country a whole through federal government, each state should be left to it's own devices. Most who really don't like or won't accept a states politics will vote them out, or leave, and eventually the state has no choice but to change for the better or pay the price.

Allowing the system as is to work is slow, and causes some chaos and pain, but works out best. Forcing the system from the very top down, causes more and more chaos, and eventually major pain.

Lastly, I realize no state would ever be even close to 100% conservative or liberal voters, so yes, it'll never be close to perfect for everyone, but it's not about being perfect, it's about being the best it possibly can be at this point in time. The best way to do that, the majority of the time, is to focus on smaller separate groups, not a focus as if all are one.

If you didn't make such an effort to twist my words, you would most likely not confuse yourself so much.



ConservagameR said:
RolStoppable said:

If you didn't make such an effort to twist my words, you would most likely not confuse yourself so much.

Do you think Elon is confused?

The question wasn't for me, but no I dont think he is confused, he know exactly what he is doing. He is not the typical billionaire and I wish more billionaires could be like him instead of Jeff Besos for example, or bankers (fuck bankers).

He understands of course twitter is a private company, but he thinks (my opinion) that twitter reached a status where it is more than a company, it became de facto the public square for people public discourse. I would include other places alongside such as reddit and facebook, reddit is the worst. In being a "public square" it has the responsibility to allow free speech, to allow ideas to be discussed and let public decide which ones are good or not, and not a board of people deciding "this can be published, this cannot".

As he have seen recently, a combined effort by just a few of those companies is enough to bury a story, a person, a subject to be discussed.

But I think his strategy is not the best. I think the impact of him and a few other people by leaving twitter and opening an account in another lookalike company would have a much bigger impact in the discussion. Or open himself a new company, or buy a smaller one and throw money in it.