Association of Flight Attendants calls for all those involved in yesterdays events of breaching the Capital Building to be banned from flying

[Agema]

Your single anecdote is not enough to disprove actual data:

Your data is bunk.

The first is looking at inclusivity, not free speech. Bear in mind that the underpinning rationale of inclusivity is freedom: if you intimidate people into silence, you are denying them free speech.

The second is nothing more than a poll on how much left and right trust social media companies, and nothing to do with free speech.

The third is as dumb as rocks. It looks at about a dozen issues, all but two of which Democrats are typically more ideologically opposed to... and then shows that Democrats find them more objectionable. Gee, well done, Einsteins at the Cato Institute: next you can do a poll on whether dogs prefer eating beef or curtains. When it actually covers two relatively non-partisan issues (advocating violence, insulting the police), Democrats and Republicans turn out to be effectively indistinguishable.

 

[Houseman]

The first is looking at inclusivity, not free speech.

Why do you think that? The question asked was whether "offensive online content is taken seriously" or not.
Republicans tend to think many people are taking content too seriously, democrats think it's not being taken seriously enough.
Also, Republicans tend to think that it's more important to be able to speak your mind, than to be welcoming and safe, and the democrats believe the opposite.

Sure, being "welcoming and safe" can be viewed as as a "inclusivity" issue, but it's deliberately contrasted with being able to speak freely. It's a question of "one or the other".

The second is nothing more than a poll on how much left and right trust social media companies, and nothing to do with free speech.

Not quite. I mean, it's all there in black and white.

The first graph shows "% of adults who say they approve/disapprove of social media companies labeling posts..."
And Rs tend to disagree, while Ds tend to approve.

This is not "trust". This is either approval or disapproval of censorship/suppression/whatever.

The second graph in the second picture DOES talk about confidence (trust), and it's about whether or not they trust companies to do fact-checking correctly. I agree that this is a separate issue not directly related with free speech, but the first graph in the image was why I chose to post it.

The third is as dumb as rocks. It looks at about a dozen issues, all but two of which Democrats are typically more ideologically opposed to... and then shows that Democrats find them more objectionable.

The third shows that democrats are more likely than Republicans in all cases, to censor speakers.
Do you disagree that this is what the third graph is saying?

 

[MrCalavera]

Your single anecdote is not enough to disprove actual data:

Umm, the first poll shows that conservatives are way more okay with offensive content, than liberals.

Also, love how dems and reps pretty much agree when it comes to advocating for violent protests(or criticizing police for that matter). You know, what's actually discussed in this topic.

 

[Houseman]

Umm, the first poll shows that conservatives are way more okay with offensive content, than liberals.

That's not the wording of question of the poll, please be accurate.

 

[MrCalavera]

That's not the wording of question of the poll, please be accurate.

Umm, the first poll shows that republicans are way more okay with offensive content, than democrats.

 

[Houseman]

Umm, the first poll shows that republicans are way more okay with offensive content, than democrats.

Not that. Not the difference between "republicans" and "democrats". I meant the working of the question in the poll. The wording doesn't say "more okay with offensive content"

The wording of the first questions are "Offensive content online is too often excused as not a big deal" and "many people take offensive content they see online too seriously"

It's not simply "are you okay with it or not"

 

[MrCalavera]

Not that. Not the difference between "republicans" and "democrats". I meant the working of the question in the poll. The wording doesn't say "more okay with offensive content"

The wording of the first questions are "Offensive content online is too often excused as not a big deal" and "many people take offensive content they see online too seriously"

It's not simply "are you okay with it or not"

Hmm, no seems to me you could describe in general sense as being "more okay with". There's no specifying what kind of offensive content also.

 

[Dalisclock]

Or we could just not reply. Gotta admit, the ignore list works like a charm, and there aren't any notifications for being on one.

Can take *months* for people to figure out they're on one. And that was before I told him

Honestly, after being reminded of this, it's working like a charm on certain people.

What's more amusing is that seeing one side of the conversation with "Person ignored" then a reply and I feel like I'm missing nothing of any substance.

 

[Dalisclock]

Oh I wasn't asking you to be heartbroken.

I was telling you prepare for shit to get worse cause now you have a number of people with what they believe to be very little to lose.


What you're expecting them to now suddenly go down quietly and peacefully?

I'm fully expecting it'll get worse. Apparently the milita/facist fucks are already plotting for more violence on their chosen social media networks.....kinda like they were before this shit happened. The Trump Death Cult is revved up and we're all along for the ride now, because we've gotten to the point JOE BIDEN, of all people, is the agent of Satan come to persecute good humble christian folk and rape their kids using pizza parlors, in their view. There's so much kool aid there I don't know where to begin.

And I came into 2021 with something resembling optimism. Man, that was a nice 5 days.

 

[Houseman]

Hmm, no seems to me you could describe in general sense as being "more okay with". There's no specifying what kind of offensive content also.

To me, "being okay with", is about whether or not you, personally, find the content to be "okay".
I find that different from "too often excused as not a big deal", as it's what 'ought' to be. It makes a statement on what they think society should be like. "This is too often excused as not a big deal and therefore society should see it as a big deal!"

It's the difference between "is this okay with you?" and "should society change?" in my view.

 

[MrCalavera]

To me, "being okay with", is about whether or not you, personally, find the content to be "okay".
I find that different from "too often excused as not a big deal", as it's what 'ought' to be. It makes a statement on what they think society should be like. "This is too often excused as not a big deal and therefore society should see it as a big deal!"

It's the difference between "is this okay with you?" and "should society change?" in my view.

That's fine. In my view it's splitting hairs. "Being okay with it" is general, but so is the question asked.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

This is why we can't have "unity", one side is all too happy to censor and block the other.
One side values freedom of speech, and the other side doesn't.
One side wants a dialog, the other side doesn't.

Why Speak when they can try to yell over you seems to be the position I keep pointing out keeps happening because for some it's about winning not going forward.

How Hatred Came To Dominate American Politics

To anyone following American politics, it’s not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other. Take what happened in the presidential debate…

fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You realize this is a gaming web forum for a site that’s declared bankruptcy multiple times? Bit overdramatic to view “censorship” here as anything of even the vaguest significance.

Talking to people has to start somewhere. Shouldn't it be an indication of a larger problem when the same attitudes and approach has filtered down this far?

I probably disagree with Houseman on a lot if it actually came down to things but it's kind of very funny to me watching people think I'm somehow his partner in crime because I'm not trying to put on a show and come up with some grand ownage of him.

No.

Um, considering some people here seem to think Houseman is some kind of monster, yes I'd say there is very much some core value difference.
I don't think I've once seen him tell people to "Get the fuck out of this forum" or such things.

 

[MrCalavera]

Why Speak when they can try to yell over you seems to be the position I keep pointing out keeps happening because for some it's about winning not going forward.

How Hatred Came To Dominate American Politics

To anyone following American politics, it’s not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other. Take what happened in the presidential debate…

fivethirtyeight.com

Well, if you're really worried about polarization in american politics, and only yearn for rhetoric that calls for everyone getting along, burying the hatchet, healing etc. then Biden is your politician of choice.

...But apparently he's Stalin adjacent, so seems like you're in a pickle.

 

[Houseman]

Well, if you're really worried about polarization in american politics, and only yearn for rhetoric that calls for everyone getting along, burying the hatchet, healing etc. then Biden is your politician of choice.

Aligning with the side that didn't start the war might be better than the side that started the war, and now wants to bury the hatchet.
If one side always wanted peace, and if the other only now wants peace after they won, I could see why one might not "fall for it".

To wit:

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well, if you're really worried about polarization in american politics, and only yearn for rhetoric that calls for everyone getting along, burying the hatchet, healing etc. then Biden is your politician of choice.

...But apparently he's Stalin adjacent, so seems like you're in a pickle.

I've said before I was happy Biden suggested healing. Problem being he now needs to actually show he's serious about it and it's not healing and unifying in the same way as Hillary supporters trying to heal and unify with Bernie supporters in 2016. As in "fuck you kneel and do what you're told you stupid ignorant worm and be glad we still allow you to live by our good graces as even that is more than you deserve" kind of way that some were approaching things.

 

[Revnak]

Talking to people has to start somewhere. Shouldn't it be an indication of a larger problem when the same attitudes and approach has filtered down this far?

Talking starts with real people in real spaces, not on fucking Internet forums or social media where that communication is monetized and marketed.

I probably disagree with Houseman on a lot if it actually came down to things but it's kind of very funny to me watching people think I'm somehow his partner in crime because I'm not trying to put on a show and come up with some grand ownage of him.

I think you two are partners in the same way I’m partners with, I dunno, Obsidian or whoever. I dislike you both separately, don’t worry.

Um, considering some people here seem to think Houseman is some kind of monster, yes I'd say there is very much some core value difference.
I don't think I've once seen him tell people to "Get the fuck out of this forum" or such things.

Are you gonna quit this? You’re literally just pulling fucking old Escapist maneuvers here, trying to get people to talk about things you think will get them banned. In any case, yeah, he was being fash. I don’t feel bad about saying that and don’t regret it.

 

[Dreiko]

I don't care for pursuing unity because as far as I can see, there is unity in the big important issues like medicare for all or the minimum wage and what have you, enough unity as you'd ever get in a diverse society.

My concern is with the lack of a mechanism to translate that unity into action in the current political system.

The sort of unity the Bidens of the world speak about is regarding boutique issues that most people don't actually care about, issues that people would bury their disagreements over in a second if they were presented with a realistic chance to achieve the goals there is unity over as the alternative.

For a monthly 2k UBI, never mind being homophobic, every redneck would bake a gay cake themselves and deliver it wearing tight leather pants and a tutu. But no, the only thing they get is the joy of owning the libs. No UBI, no healthcare. And the libs get other ways of feeling good, stuff like gay marriage and an indian jamaican vice president and Trump looking like an idiot (well, more than usual).


The rhetoric that we're divided/need to be brought back together is something used to distract us from achieving actually important goals by focusing on the BS ones.

 

[Hades]

So being in a place where violence was occurring now to be a crime? So there go all the what was it "Good mothers" or whatever they were calling themselves in Portland near where the courthouse was being attacked.

This wasn't a random place were violence occurred. This was the capitol which got stormed because the president wanted it to be stormed. If the ''good mothers'' join people punching their way past the police to storm a state building and forcefully try to cancel democracy them yeah, same thing applies.

 

[Baffle]

never mind being homophobic, every redneck would bake a gay cake themselves and deliver it wearing tight leather pants and a tutu

?!