American Politics Thread

[Deadly Nightshade 13,038]

3 hours ago, bluechemtrails said:

x, facebook, instagram, amazon, google and microsoft now all stand behind trump

i want to boycott all these tech companies

it's crazy 

i'm wondering what EU is going to do towards the more aggressive stance these tech companies are adopting now that they have support from Trump 

Edited yesterday at 11:38 AM by Deadly Nightshade

[Slutto 89]

i can't stand mark zuckerberg. it's infuriating how he's allowing LGBT hate speech on meta while he continues to spread his cheeks for the republican party.

i downloaded xiaohongshu and you can actually get banned for misinformation and hate on this platform like of course the government will use this to censor things but also like, wow, it's really that easy to just make a policy?? then enforce it??

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,677]

41 minutes ago, Slutto said:

it's infuriating how he's allowing LGBT hate speech on meta ... i downloaded xiaohongshu and you can actually get banned for misinformation and hate on this platform  

 

"hate speech" is free speech. unless violence is actively being incited people should be able to post whatever opinions they want on social media 

[bluechemtrails 27,761]

12 minutes ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

"hate speech" is free speech. unless violence is actively being incited people should be able to post whatever opinions they want on social media 

incitement to violence is not the only problem with hate speech, there's also direct psychological harassment and discrimination

Without rules and with unrestricted free speech, someone could run targeted campaigns against minority groups (as happened in the Third Reich, for example). Especially in social media where there are algorithms and numerous bots influencing political opinion, this is a major problem.

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,677]

20 minutes ago, bluechemtrails said:

incitement to violence is not the only problem with hate speech, there's also direct psychological harassment and discrimination

Without rules and with unrestricted free speech, someone could run targeted campaigns against minority groups (as happened in the Third Reich, for example) Especially in social media where there are algorithms and numerous bots influencing political opinion, this is a major problem.

 

i don't know if an analogy to the holocaust was the best way to make your point considering a factor that largely enabled it was the suppression of freedoms.. can you give me an example of how someone could use twitter, for example, to run "targeted campaigns against minority groups" ??    we don't live in a race war .. obviously social media companies are private so our constitution doesn't apply to them but i think it's fair to say that it would make logical sense for the largest social media companies (which act as the center of the public exchange of ideas in today's society) to strive to reflect the ideals of the constitution at least in the sense of not restricting speech and expression (even if they could constitute "harassment" when viewed through a certain lens) i also think your point about algorithms contradicts your point .. the algorithms you're talking about would only become "a major problem" when excessively restrictive rules on speech are made as the algorithms would boost and artificially inflate only the content that is "allowed" rather than the content that is actually representative of the public  

[baddisease 18,061]

1 hour ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

"hate speech" is free speech. unless violence is actively being incited people should be able to post whatever opinions they want on social media 

 

It shouldn't be. It's doing damage to actual people offline. 

 

17 minutes ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

i don't know if an analogy to the holocaust was the best way to make your point considering a factor that largely enabled it was the suppression of freedoms.. can you give me an example of how someone could use twitter, for example, to run "targeted campaigns against minority groups" ??    we don't live in a race war .. obviously social media companies are private so our constitution doesn't apply to them but i think it's fair to say that it would make logical sense for the largest social media companies (which act as the center of the public exchange of ideas in today's society) to strive to reflect the ideals of the constitution at least in the sense of not restricting speech and expression (even if they could constitute "harassment" when viewed through a certain lens) i also think your point about algorithms contradicts your point .. the algorithms you're talking about would only become "a major problem" when excessively restrictive rules on speech are made as the algorithms would boost and artificially inflate only the content that is "allowed" rather than the content that is actually representative of the public  

 

I don't think you're taking seriously what's happening to LGBT people, or at least trans people. Which sucks bc if you're gay or bi, they won't just stop with trans people. 

 

Right Wing thinkers, influencers, and politicians are using these sites to run campaigns against trans people broadly and any specific trans person they don't like. You have politicians using the deadnames of trans people to call them child predators. You have them using children as a weapon to fear monger that our existence inherently makes us pedophiles. They're doing all this with the support of Elon Musk (who is rumored to have sexually abused his trans daughter as a child and who did emotionally neglect and abuse her all the while having his fans attack her on social media and find her IRL). Now Zuckerberg, who is embracing neo-Nazism according to his now former lawyer is attacking and allowing attacks on LGBT people and religious/ethnic minorities. This is a coordinated rise of fascism. If not fascism, then still general right wing authoritarianism.

[bluechemtrails 27,761]

41 minutes ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

i don't know if an analogy to the holocaust was the best way to make your point considering a factor that largely enabled it was the suppression of freedoms.. can you give me an example of how someone could use twitter, for example, to run "targeted campaigns against minority groups" ??    we don't live in a race war .. obviously social media companies are private so our constitution doesn't apply to them but i think it's fair to say that it would make logical sense for the largest social media companies (which act as the center of the public exchange of ideas in today's society) to strive to reflect the ideals of the constitution at least in the sense of not restricting speech and expression (even if they could constitute "harassment" when viewed through a certain lens) i also think your point about algorithms contradicts your point .. the algorithms you're talking about would only become "a major problem" when excessively restrictive rules on speech are made as the algorithms would boost and artificially inflate only the content that is "allowed" rather than the content that is actually representative of the public  

the point is, "free speech" is good if you allow minor groups to raise their voice, but not if you allow to spread hate. it's a medal with two sides. but i think they use the positive term here just to camouflage

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,677]

4 minutes ago, bluechemtrails said:

the point is, "free speech" is good if you allow minor groups to raise their voice, but not if you allow to spread hate. it's a medal with two sides. but i think they use the positive term here just to camouflage

 

if a social media platform "doesn't allow" people to say certain opinions (that one could subjectively feel spreads hate) then that social media platform doesn't really have free speech as a value.. there can't be two sides of one "medal" because whether or not "hate speech" is banned is black and white, so i guess you could say there are just two different medals. you can't have free speech if xyz (unless you're threatening someone or inciting violence obviously). you either have it or you don't  

[bluechemtrails 27,761]

2 hours ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

if a social media platform "doesn't allow" people to say certain opinions (that one could subjectively feel spreads hate) then that social media platform doesn't really have free speech as a value.. there can't be two sides of one "medal" because whether or not "hate speech" is banned is black and white, so i guess you could say there are just two different medals. you can't have free speech if xyz (unless you're threatening someone or inciting violence obviously). you either have it or you don't  

Just compare it with Lanaboards. There must be certain rules to keep the peace in the forum. It is possible to express your free opinion as long as you do not hurt the rights or feelings of others.

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,607]

10 hours ago, bluechemtrails said:

Just compare it with Lanaboards. There must be certain rules to keep the peace in the forum. It is possible to express your free opinion as long as you do not hurt the rights or feelings of others.

Hurting someone’s feelings isn’t hate speech. No one is required to manage YOUR emotions.

if someone is rude to you, bullying you, that’s shitty, but people can say what they want. I think this argument is so wild because if someone is cruel to someone without a leftist worldview, then it’s fine; but being hateful to a leftist isn’t allowed.

 

You can’t stop people from hurting your feelings. 

[baddisease 18,061]

2 minutes ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

Hurting someone’s feelings isn’t hate speech. No one is required to manage YOUR emotions.

if someone is rude to you, bullying you, that’s shitty, but people can say what they want. I think this argument is so wild because if someone is cruel to someone without a leftist worldview, then it’s fine; but being hateful to a leftist isn’t allowed.

 

You can’t stop people from hurting your feelings. 

 

Why are you defending abhorrent behavior?

The "free speech" people are not thinking about the big picture effect on minorities. They aren't.

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,607]

2 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

Why are you defending abhorrent behavior?

The "free speech" people are not thinking about the big picture effect on minorities. They aren't.

You realize that the people you want to defend commit the same behavior tho right?

and for the record, I’m not defending anyone. I’m defending the right to say whatever I want as long as I’m not insinuating violence. Hurting feelings isn’t insinuating violence. Neither is calling people names, etc.

[baddisease 18,061]

1 minute ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

You realize that the people you want to defend commit the same behavior tho right?

and for the record, I’m not defending anyone. I’m defending the right to say whatever I want as long as I’m not insinuating violence. Hurting feelings isn’t insinuating violence. Neither is calling people names, etc.

 

It doesn't matter what they want to do bc the hate speech currently happening influences the physical actions people take when they assault trans people or gay/but/pan people or immigrants or people of color and so on. It's not the same at all. It's not okay but the impact is very different.

 

You're defending their "right" to bully and use slurs. You're defending them and making it okay even if you don't see tha

These people do jump to insinuating, influencing, encouraging, or threatening violence. And that kind of thing adds to it full stop

 

You're definitely prioritizing the right to be a horrible person over empathy for other people.

 

 

 

 

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,607]

2 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

It doesn't matter what they want to do bc the hate speech currently happening influences the physical actions people take when they assault trans people or gay/but/pan people or immigrants or people of color and so on. It's not the same at all. It's not okay but the impact is very different.

 

You're defending their "right" to bully and use slurs. You're defending them and making it okay even if you don't see tha

These people do jump to insinuating, influencing, encouraging, or threatening violence. And that kind of thing adds to it full stop

 

You're definitely prioritizing the right to be a horrible person over empathy for other people.

 

 

 

 

taking away the right to free speech is the first step of the government having full control over every aspect of your life. 
no one should have the right to control what you say.
if someone wants to be a bully they’re a shitty ass person. And guess what? In a world where there’s no free speech, you can’t call someone a shitty ass person when they’re being one because it would be considered hate speech.

Someone saying a slur or a bad word is shitty, but it’s not criminal.it is not calling for your death. Controlling speech will not give someone empathy.

[Slutto 89]

Sure hate speech is free speech but also social media platforms are not the public square. These are privately owned companies who have the right to determine what kind of content is permitted on their platform. And then there's the whole mess of advertisers who don't want their brand associated with nazis. Also there are LGBTQ people on the meta team who will voice concern and outrage about what effect on society their work is having.

So Zuck reversing the ban on transphobic hate speech is protecting free speech. Yay. Meanwhile the Vivienne is dead due in no small part to the constant barrage of conservative hate she got.

Meta is communicating their values on trans rights with this decision and believe me the message is heard loud and clear

[bluechemtrails 27,761]

18 minutes ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

Hurting someone’s feelings isn’t hate speech. No one is required to manage YOUR emotions.

if someone is rude to you, bullying you, that’s shitty, but people can say what they want. I think this argument is so wild because if someone is cruel to someone without a leftist worldview, then it’s fine; but being hateful to a leftist isn’t allowed.

 

You can’t stop people from hurting your feelings. 

but why do people want to have the freedom to hurt someone? they should use their freedom for something useful, not for insulting others

[baddisease 18,061]

25 minutes ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

taking away the right to free speech is the first step of the government having full control over every aspect of your life. 
no one should have the right to control what you say.
if someone wants to be a bully they’re a shitty ass person. And guess what? In a world where there’s no free speech, you can’t call someone a shitty ass person when they’re being one because it would be considered hate speech.

Someone saying a slur or a bad word is shitty, but it’s not criminal.it is not calling for your death. Controlling speech will not give someone empathy.

 

You're really not even trying to see the bigger picture bc the right of people to be horrible people is more important to you that the people they want to hurt. And neither you nor them have empathy 

[DCooper 37,370]

23 minutes ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

taking away the right to free speech is the first step of the government having full control over every aspect of your life. 
no one should have the right to control what you say.
if someone wants to be a bully they’re a shitty ass person. And guess what? In a world where there’s no free speech, you can’t call someone a shitty ass person when they’re being one because it would be considered hate speech.

Someone saying a slur or a bad word is shitty, but it’s not criminal.it is not calling for your death. Controlling speech will not give someone empathy.

 

You are really over-simplifying the issue. No one is supporting the idea of taking away free speech. We all want free speech, it's our right, and I think everyone can recognize the dangers of government control.

 

That being said, harassment and bullying are crimes and hate speech should absolutely fall under those categories. You don't have to directly and explicitly call for violence to call for violence. Dehumanization leads to violence and we should all be concerned about that. Limiting the freedom of cruelty online is not the same as blocking free speech. 

[That Venice Bitch 29,162]

37 minutes ago, bluechemtrails said:

but why do people want to have the freedom to hurt someone? they should use their freedom for something useful, not for insulting others

Not defending the opposite position at all, but asking why they want to do that isn’t something you can expect a rational answer from. Asking someone WHY they’re open to allowing/defending hate speech will get the answer that hate speech is free speech. Which isn’t wrong constitutionally, but each on of us can individually stand against hate speech and ensure that those who use it face repercussions. 

 

If Meta, X, whatever wants to remove guidelines that protect against hate speech, then it’s up to us to push back against those who use it. We can’t be complacent for the next 4 years while things will inevitably get worse.

 

This all being said I don’t understand why normal human beings are so obsessed with the American Constitution. Like from a moral standpoint, why are people so happy and quick to defend hate speech just because it’s indirectly protected by the Constitution…

 

Why don’t you want to be a nice person and not have hateful opinions … Where is the fun in hating people or being mean 

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,607]

44 minutes ago, bluechemtrails said:

but why do people want to have the freedom to hurt someone? they should use their freedom for something useful, not for insulting others

You don’t have the freedom to physically hurt someone. 
Hurting feelings is literally not the same thing.