Would you unfriend or blacklist someone over politics?

i've unfriended a number of ppl who had "donald trump" as a screen-name across different online networks.

 

"Not for certainty: "Solid link". Pretty shabby. And is Milo a leftie? The logical fallacy you serve up to us today is "faulty comparison", or apples and oranges. "Trolling to spread false information is wrong, but so is pedophilia. Therefore, if social media allows advocates of pedophilia it should also allow trolls to use its platforms to spread disinformation." Or so your argument goes. Social media operators seem to have concluded that the pedophiles are so far not engaging in the trolling behavior, orchestrated personal attacks, and disinformation campaigns that made them conclude your right wing heroes were too hot to handle. This doesn't mean that pedophiles are morally superior to evil trolls, but the threat they pose to the integrity of information is different. Your sleight of hand in switching from social media to the "mainstream media" was clever but noticable. If the mainstream media has been promoting drag queen children like "Desmond is Amazing", they must not be all that effective, since I never heard of them. I do agree it's sick, outrageous, disgusting, morally wrong, and intolerable, but then again, I'm not a so-called "libertarian". I see pedophilia as a serious threat to the moral fabric of society, and a place where a line in the sand needs to be drawn. But social media and mainstream media don't see themselves in the business of policing morals. They're more concerned with preventing use of their platforms to promote egregious political assaults on truth and accurate information. Instead of trying an illogical linkage between pedophilia and trolls for propaganda purposes, you might try explaining why you, as a libertarian, think advocacy of pedophilia is the sort of threat that social media have a responsibility to ban. And pass it on to Milo.

 

Why? This is oddly specific.

 

it's annoying to see such a disgusting name pop up over and over on something i use to lie back and relax.

 

Indeed, it sucks to watch politics taint so many things I used to enjoy. Things like comedy, music and even food fall prey to joyless political whining. I'm with you on the name dropping, it's weird. But it's also an excellent flag for deciding where to trim the conversation. So many of these bridge dwellers spew 98% of their message early. Then they switch to repeat.

So it's as annoying as a commercial in a chat room, the reason I left AOL!

And came here.

 

i don't know how you're on hipforums then, his name pops up in every other thread title. even the ones that have nothing to do with him, like the trump memes thread.

 

I have “unfollowed” friends on FB because of what they post. not just political nonsense

 

usually when i log in i really only look at maybe 2-3 threads which i follow and then i'm off. i intentionally avoid debate/political threads. so a good chunk of this forum doesn't exist to me.

 

First of all, Good Morning America is the epitome of mainstream media, so I'm surprised you've "never heard of them." There was an active thread about Desmond the drag kid in the Random Thoughts forum. Wrong on so many levels

Secondly, what gives you the moral high-ground to say that everything from all those banned Twitter members I listed are always spreading false information? Oh I see, it's not that it's false information, as it's information you just don't like hearing.



The biggest difference between you and me, is that if the speech and opinions of YOUR ideologues were being actively censored and banned, I would fight WITH you for your right to express those horrid opinions freely without suppression.

 

The speech you disagree with the most, is the very speech you should fight to protect.
When the government and corporations become able to shut up your opponent, you will be next.

So few understand this...

 

Woah

Say it, don't spray it.

 

At this point, I don't really care enough about Beto to continue on. He seems like just a regular-ass democrat with nothing new and original to offer his party. So I'll let you win this one. However, that still doesn't change the fact that white privilege is a lie.

Venezuela wasn't a exactly a 3rd world country either. It may've had its problems, but they were a strong player in the global economy by South American standards. They have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia.

And yes, Corbyn would turn the UK into a 3rd world country the same way Emanuel Macron is turning France into a 3rd world country.[/quote]

 

6

LOL I think calling people whose views you don’t like ‘evil’ is probably the definition of hate.

Yes two types

A) Naïve good ones

B) Pure evil ones

LOL - The only problem is that as soon as any from list A begin criticising your view they get put on list B

And to repeat calling people whose views you don’t like ‘evil’ is probably the definition of hate.

 

6

I mean come on man do you read the shit you are posting?

controlling populations for a diabolical cause

pure evil

the global corporate elite

This isn’t an example of rational discussion this is red eyed, tin foil hat wearing, derangement speech.

It’s just a variation on the Nazi propaganda of a Bolshevik/Capitalist/Jewish conspiracy, and just another reason why alt-ighters and righ wing libertarians so often remind me of Nazis – which leads on to –

 

6

Again I’m just not sure if you don’t actual read the posts or purposely misrepresent them or just don’t understand them.

Anyway what I’m getting at is not the ideology but the methods the alt-right and right wing libertarians seem to be using to attract people to the ‘movement’.

The National Socialist’s learnt not to dwell on their political policies they found they made a lot more headway if they appealed in other areas.

They could never really hid the policies they espoused but they could try and camouflage them behind concepts with greater appeal such as ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’ slogans that often appeared on early Nazis posters.

The other thing they could do was try and misdirect people by scapegoating others. Blaming all problems on a shadowy conspiracy of Jewish bankers, claiming that political opponents even the whole system was corrupted or controlled by the conspiracy, and accused the media of the day of lying to the people.

These things seem to me to be very similar to what some so-called libertarians are doing on these very forums.

Here are a selecting of captions that appeared on early Nazis posters.

[Hitler] - “is ruthless in uncovering the rulers of the German economy, the international bank Jews and their lackeys, the Democrats, Marxists, Jesuits, and Free Masons!”

"Citizens! Do not believe that the Germany of misfortune and misery, the nation of corruption and usury, the land of Jewish corruption, can be saved by parties that claim to stand on a foundation of facts. Never!"

Freedom and food for every decent working German! The gallows for profiteers, black marketeers and exploiters, regardless of religious faith or race!

"Germany's Liberation."

"Freedom and Bread."

“The big-wigs are living high on the hog, the people are wretched."


In the early part of the 20th century socialist ideas were popular in Europe amongst those who were disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of governments of the time, which they saw as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests. But while there were many legitimate socialist organisations there were others who were just using the guise of socialism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

National Socialists may have used some of the words and ideas of regular socialism but to me Hitler’s goals had more to do with seizing power than socialist reform.

**

In the US of the 21st century libertarianism seems to me to be attractive to many Americans who are disillusioned with the mainstream political parties and even the system of government, which they see as corrupt and upholding the power of vested interests.

So while there may be legitimate libertarians I feel that there are those that might just be using the guise of libertarianism to attract the disaffected for their own purposes.

Now this is just an impression, an opinion or a theory, and I’m not accusing all libertarians (although it is a philosophy I personally dislike) of only faking their beliefs, most are genuine (if misguided in my view). But sometimes talking to others I get the impression that just like many of the Nazis they are less interested in genuine political thought and debate and more interested in trying to misdirect and scapegoating others. For example in blaming all problems on a shadowy conspiracy of leftists and global corporate elites and claiming political opponents are pure evil and that the whole system and media is corrupted or controlled by these conspiracies.

 

6

Sorry mate but the more you post these days the more you show how ill-informed and blinkered are you views and how obviously they are fuelled by grievance and hate.

I honestly don’t think this is good for your health and wellbeing.

You have just given up even pretending to address the many outstanding criticisms of your views and instead just seem to be posting attacks on the socialist scum you so clearly and blindly hate.

A hate that seems all the more intense because of your utter failure to address all those outstanding criticism.

Rather than get angry with us for your own failures why not try and work out why those failures are happening.

Anyway happy New Year

 

I've unfriended and unfollowed people because they're Trump supporters. I just don't want to read their crazy shit. We're still friends/relatives IRL where they're sensible enough to not bring up their dumb ideas

 

6

I found you spectrum rather interesting been both basic and very right wing in outlook, I’d be interested where you copied it from, the only place I could find was a meme store.

Here is the list you pasted

*
Communist

Socialist - fascist

Liberal – progressive

Moderate – Populist

Conservatives

Libertarian

Anarchist

*

Now again I wish you would actually read posts and try and learn from them because we have been through this before.

As I explained communist thought grew out of anarchist thinking and was meant to lead to Anarchy in the withering of the state.

"Withering away of the state" is a Marxist concept coined by Friedrich Engels referring to the idea that with realization of the ideals of socialism the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear as the society will be able to govern itself without the state

Anarchy is communal and cooperative.

But at the other end of the spectrum is Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market

This anarchy is definitely NOT communal and cooperative it is based on social Darwinist ideas of competition and the survival of the fittest where the week and disadvantaged are exploited and allowed to die when used up.

Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed.

As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.

*

 

6

What you spectrum seems to be wanting to suggest is that left wing political thought is authoritarian while right wing thought is about the ‘freedom’ of the individual

What you wish to say is your collectivist/individualist paradigm

Government Power

Communist -Socialist – fascist - Liberal – progressive

In the middle

Moderate – Populist

Individual Liberty

Conservatives –Libertarian -Anarchist

*

I mean this is actually a bit mad if examined

Why is Moderate coupled with Populist, there have been many populist governments that have had rather bad human rights records Hugo Chavez was a Populist.

How do you gauge what is Moderate?

And that fascist label just seems out of place I mean in many ways fascists saw themselves as conservatives protecting the cultural grouping from dilution.

Which been said conservative regimes are normally not thought of as great supporters of ‘liberty’ in the sense of individual freedom. It’s often coupled with religious and anti-progressive ideas, I mean Saudi Arabia is thought of as a conservative regime, so is Iran, it was conservatives in many western states including the US that fought against gay rights for example. Not exactly champions of liberty and individual freedom.

And can you give me an example of a Libertarian government? I mean as I’ve pointed out many times there are differing types of libertarianism some left wing other right wing.

*

Frankly this chart is a mess.

*

But if it’s looked at in another way in relation to wealth and its ability to exploit or not the disadvantaged it can be seen in another way

Wealth LESS likely to be able to exploit

Socialism – Progressive - Liberalism

Wealth MORE likely to be able to exploit

Conservativism –Right wing Libertarianism - anarcho-capitalism

 

When in doubt, fall back on the Pro-Trumps favorite tired cliche insult. What Is NPC, the Pro-Trump Internet’s New Favorite Insult? How stereotypical of you. I don't watch Good Morning America, but I do recall the drag kid in Random thoughts. Outrageous! Disgusting! But still irrelevant to a discussion about the ability of troll armies to use private platforms to spread fake news on social media. When asked for examples of left wing abuses of social media, you shifted the discussion to mainstream media and came up with coverage of pedophiles--the fallacy of false comparison. In a libertarian world without government censorship, it's axiomatic that a handful of mega-corporations will have some control over what we say on the internet. Skip has some control over what we say--or can't say--on Hip Forums. If he didn't, I'd be calling you lots of unprintable names! If I told you "you must repent your sins and embrace Jesus Christ as your personal savior in order to be saved", I'd expect my ass to be banned from Hip Forums. Why would someone who values the "free market" quarrel with the notion that successful entrepreneurs should be able to do as they please with their creations? So is it your position that trolls should be able to use social media platforms to accuse politicians they oppose of being part of a pedophile ring holding kids prisoners in the basement of a pizza parlor? or to accuse the bereaved parents of Sandy Hook victims of being actors? And the owners of these platforms should have to stand idly by while this happens?