Would you unfriend or blacklist someone over politics?

The discussion is right wing censorship. it has nothing to do with left wing censorship. In general there is none in the places the right is censord. So yes I have no examples of this happening.

 

The OP is about unfriending people in regards to varied political stance, liberals included. The discussion evolved into discussing online censorship.

Ok, I'm not even right-wing but I find this troubling.

 

you find it troubling private companies do not censor left wing ideas since they are the views of the customer? It's not up to me. Something like the NRA chooses what it censors too to please the customer. It all comes back to money. They want to make it so they create a customer friendly environment. Free speech is good though.

 

They aren't all views of the customer though, as is evidenced by the responses to Jeong's twitter posts.

 

But he didn't provide examples of left-wingers who should be deplatformed. The rationale for Jeong has already been explained.Maybe there are none. Is he/are you suggesting quotas--deplatform equal numbers or right wingers and left wingers on general principles?

 

I'm just asking for an example... any example of a left-wing person being deplatformed. Otherwise it makes no sense to say "when it suits their side..." in this context.

I think one would have to be led by extreme political bias to think that not one person on the left has said anything as egregious as some of these people on the right which have warranted bans.

 

But left-wingers are probably not the best to identify those "eggregious" instances. If there are such offenders, I'd think folks on the right would be most sensitive to them and in the best position to call them out.

 

DiDi Delgado.

The DiDi Delgado

Here are a bunch more.

Facebook’s Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men From Hate Speech But Not Black Children — ProPublica

The argument is duplicitous. Facebook may censor more conservatives than liberals, but unless you or 6 have numbers to back up the claims, it may just trope that's been repeated by the media and crybaby conservatives ad nauseam.

 

Your first link didn't work, but I appreciate the second link.

I don't really have a horse in the race tbh and don't care enough to seek out all the stats and facts. I just appreciate evidence in this discussion where people have been accusing 6-eyed shaman of being the one running from statements being made, which I see as unfair when they haven't been responding to his posts either.

 

^ First link worked upon quoting it actually

Maybe it's because we supposedly have Facebook censored here or something.

 

Works for me. What browser and OS are you using?

Facebook is censored here. That was bit.ly. When you clicked the bit.ly link they responded with a 301 redirecting you to Facebook.

 

you edited it and it works now.

 

Bedlam

LOL and what the fuck has that got to do with the price of fish?

So AGAIN - what interesting points has 6 made and why do you think them so ‘winning’?

Have you got anything of substance or just blowing smoke?

Sorry mate but this had me rocking with laughter, I mean to those that know 6 this is a hilarious statement, for months the guy has been dodging, evading, ignoring and running away, but you think he is the wronged party.

Oh and its even more funny given your own evasion

 

Bedlam

6’s argument seems to be that ALL of Silicon Valley and especially the social network companies have a conscious and open left wing bias because some radical right wing types have had their activities curtailed or been banned, now this isn’t effecting ALL right wingers, just certain radical types.

Now you readily admit that you think these radical right wing people that received bans have acted egregiously (outstandingly badly), - and I say people - these people in your own opinion have acted not just badly but outstandingly badly so can 6 say for definite that this is political bias or bias against what you think of as outstandingly bad people?

Now your argument seems to be that there must be bad people on the left side who also deserve to be banned but you admit you can’t think of any (6 put up two that didn’t seem very convincing)

Thing is can you or 6 prove categorically that ALL of Silicon Valley and social network companies have a conscious and openly left wing bias.

6 seems to be arguing that just because some companies have banned certain outstandingly bad people this is clear and irrefutable evidence of a left wing bias but in what other ways is this manifesting itself, are these companies lobbying for socialist policies, higher personal and corporate taxation or what?

Again this seems a lot like 6's black and white thinking so that if someone is not a supporter of rather extreme right wing ideas then that makes them by definition a left winger? No middle ground no shade, one or the other.

In my view these companies do not seem that left wing and getting rid of some outstandingly bad people that were breaking rules or bring the companies into disrepute and causing nagative publicity does not make them left wing.

 

People have a habit of viewing ‘objectivity’ through the prism of your own bias – it’s the same here in the UK where the BBC is said to be ‘left wing’ by many on the right when what they mean is that it at least tries to be unbiased and objective and so isn’t biased to the right, which they don’t like.

But I’ve heard many on the right say that as an institution the BBC leans to the right and others think that often it is so frightened to be seen as impartial that it will treat some dodgy ideas the same weigh as more concrete ones (with for example climate change deniers been allowed the same time and seeming authority as climate scientists).

The majority of the UK newspapers are right wing and owned or controlled by just six billionaires and they push and promote a right wing mainly neo-liberal agenda and they use their power to support right wing politicians and political parties.

The right hate the BBC for ideological reasons it is a successful and popular public body which shouldn’t be possible in neo-liberal thinking and the reason why many right wing politicians are trying to destroy it through the torture of a thousand cuts (as they are with the other successful and popular public body, the NHS).

But another reason for their hate is this as I’ve said it is a loud alternative voice to their own right wing message, not because it is openly pushing left wing views but because it tries to be unbiased and objective.

In the US this seems similar to the right wing attacks on the ‘mainstream media’ and as been too ‘left wing’, when actually what they mean is it’s right wing but not right wing enough.

 

I already explained, if you cannot accept it that is not my problem. I don't feel I need to elaborate any further.

Well that's good I can get you to laugh at least. I wish I could share the same sentiments, unfortunately, I find your posts mostly dull, unpersuasive and uninspiring.


And the quote button helps because it alerts someone when there is a response to their posts, if you hadn't noticed. So maybe, just maybe some of this "running away" you perceive is just that people have too busy of lives to sort through threads looking for your posts where you half ass addressed them by their handle.

 

Bedlam

LOL its clear you won’t elaborate because you can’t elaborate – I’ll ask one more time - what interesting points has 6 made and why do you think them so ‘winning’?

Oh I do declare sir, you cut me to the very heart LOL – as I’ve said I just find your posts evasive.

Man you sound like a petulant teenager thinking up half arsed excuses why you haven’t taken out the trash.

It seems to me that the reason why 6 (and you) don’t answer questions or address the criticisms of their views and statements is because 6 (and you) can’t, without revealing just how much trash those views are.

 

Bal

I already expained, why can you not understand this?

I'll say it again, I already explained, so tell me again why do you not understand this?

 

Never said you were

Rachel Dolezal
Elizabeth Warren
Sean King
Beto O'Rourke

These 4 white people lied to convince us that they are of a minority ethnicity. They did it to advance themselves in their careers and professional lives because there are some political benefits to being a minority. If white privilege is a real thing, why don't we ever hear about people of color ever put on a white-face to get a piece of that tasty white privilege?

In many parts of the world, cultures that are coming in as refugees are not assimilating in the land to which they came. They do not wish to. That's my point of cultures that refuse to accept people of different backgrounds, norms, and values.

Even the Dalai Lama agrees: Dalai Lama to refugees: ‘Europe belongs to the Europeans’


If you saw a man wearing a turban, and your first thought was being reminded of terrorism and 9/11/01, then it might be the bigotry of low expectations. He might've been hindu for all we know.

Here's an interesting article about leftism and the bigotry of low expectations: Prison Planet.com » Yale Study Finds That White Liberals Dumb Down Their Vocabulary When Speaking to Black People

 

I don't understand. You're saying that there is some requirement that they assimilate to the given culture. There isn't any such requirement. They can live here as hermits or I don't know, who knows what else.

Maybe it's better if we learn to appreciate what they are or what their culture is instead of asking them to understand ours.

I can see where you're coming from because it can feel a bit like they are plotting our demise or taking over or something like that. It can feel really awkward almost like they are being rude by not observing our customs.

It might be rude, but only maybe. I'm not the authority on etiquette.

it's my feeling that all people should be given the benefit of the doubt in these situations where it can be difficult to see what is wrong or right.