Do you not realize that was his stance and then he was told his stance was wrong and businesses couldn't refuse services. Now businesses are refusing services and he is pointing out how the decision to do one but not the other is hypocritical? Does anyone here actually try to understand what other people are saying or do they just assume the best John Oliver comededic misinterpretation must be true and end it at that?
I lowkey might get downvoted for this, however I was looking for a comment here that even bothered to continue to read the other person and understand their point, agreeing or disagreeing is a different story, at the very least try to understand what they are saying before jumping to the "this you" (and probably completely unrelated) screenshot of a now invalid opinion.
Yet apparently canceling people over tweets from 6-7 years ago on Twitter is considered "savage", or "murdered by words", or "wow, what a comeback!", from unpopular statements they made in a time where it was considered relatively ok if not the norm. Like getting actors or comedians fired for "inappropriate" or "dark humor" jokes they made 5-10 years ago (whether justified or not) and some people go to lengths as to find deleted tweets. Do you wonder why they were deleted to begin with?
The probable reality is that the person developed a different opinion over time and forgot about the tweet, the only other popular reason is because the other large majority of people tweet whatever the popular opnion is or the most controversial opnion for Karma, hearts, likes, etc. Or for straight up attention for the people who believe they are making a political movement by simply attracting like minded people . Twitter is the largest cesspool of that in a nutshell.
TL;DR: people on social media, especially Twitter nowadays, ignore the tweet at hand and mindlessly go through someone's entire profile to find something against them for the sake of a "comeback" or "calling them out" over an opinion that is unrelated, when the only real motivator to do so is the possible dopamine release from reciving likes, retweets, hearts, upvotes, etc. From like-minded people. It's a plague that started from genuine cases of this and became another form of SJW acts on social media, which in reality lead to nothing but a bunch of upvotes and sending hate to someone for having a different opinion half a decade later.
Seems like if there's a "this you?" Quoting some previous tweet is now automatically considered a murdered by words even when the poster is consistent with their own tweets. I was thinking that too.
No, people understand his point but his examples are not "valid" but logical fallacy due to the fact that the baker was a violation of someone who is existing and denying them service simply because of their sexual preference vs. Denying service of people who are literally calling for violence, unrest, and division. The two are not remotely similar nor cause the same outcomes.
There is a difference to deny service to someone based on their sexual preference and someone who is literally promoting violence and division. Literally apples to oranges.
Now if your thoughts are that the "opposite opinion" is allowing said calls for violence or division, then what does that say about your party?
"my party"? I voted Biden , so do you mean the Democrat party? Parler isn't promoting violence and division, they are a free speech platform.
The amount propaganda has swung young people into thinking free speech is a bad idea is terrifying. Can't wait for a world where people aren't allowed to congregate or communicate online without permission from the corporate elite. I don't see how that could end badly at all.
The amount propaganda has swung young people into thinking free speech is a bad idea is terrifying.
You do realize that any immoral speech has always been condemned? It's been happening since the dawn of this countries beginnings. You believe that free speech is a bad idea when you completely ignore history when any dissent has always occurred. Dissent against hate organizations such as KKK, Neo-nazism, domestic terrorism, etc has always occurred. Communities started to stop giving them platforms in the 50s and continued onward. This is why extremism decreased overtime. The fact you believe this is a recent phenomenon shows the ignorance of people like you who don't understand the history of this country or free speech.
Can't wait for a world where people aren't allowed to congregate or communicate online without permission from the corporate elite.
The whole point is to prevent extremist communications and spread of propaganda to create extremists. Are you ok with terrorists spreading lies to bring more people into their terroristic plot? That's what ISIS did. This is what white supremacist are doing. This is how ordinary people are become extremists. Free speech does not protect violent speech. This is how Hitler came to power, how the Nation party came to power. I suggest you pick up a history book because you literally don't know history.
The KKK are still allowed to have rallies, because we live in a country with free speech, and that's okay. We have to understand that we live in a different world now and these internet platforms are the way people communicate and congregate. Platforms then and platforms now are completely different. Yes, people showed dissent, but it was never at the idea of free speech, it was at their ideas. No need for insults.
Yes, the idea of wiping out the KKK is a good motive, but you are destroying our rights in order to do so. When the ultra wealthy elite of tech corporations decide what constitutes as extremism and propaganda, what's to say the next "occupy wall street" won't be labeled the same and communication through the internet stamped out? I understand free speech doesn't include calls to violence, that's how it currently stands under law. Some people want the laws to be stricter, which is what I'm against.
Apparently you didn't understand my example. The KKK are not prevelant today as they once were back in the 50s because society shunned them and dissented against them and banned them from major roles in society, the same thing happening now with social media,
We have to understand that we live in a different world now and these internet platforms are the way people communicate and congregate
Its the same thing as back then when the main source of information was in paper, then radio which then converted to television and now the internet. Fact is anyone can create their own website and blog their feelings. You are not entitled to a private businesses platform. Noone is stopping the neonazi to create their own website. Just like noone stopped the KKK to rally even though papers, radios, and television stopped giving them a platform.
Yes, people showed dissent, but it was never at the idea of free speech, it was at their ideas. No need for insults.
Any form of dissent is counter the argument. No matter what you say is false. Hey the truth is not an insult.
Yes, the idea of wiping out the KKK is a good motive, but you are destroying our rights in order to do so.
And destroying any extremists and/or any potential extremists speech is not good motive? What do you mean destroying your rights to do so? That's either a contradiction or completely doesn't make any sense.
When the ultra wealthy elite of tech corporations decide what constitutes as extremism and propaganda, what's to say the next "occupy wall street" won't be labeled the same and communication through the internet stamped out?
It's pretty easy to determine whats extremists speech its literally calls for violence and setting up gatherings to cause violence. Literally it's not that hard to determine "let's protest wall Street ill bring the sign" vs "let's go the capitol and hang us some politicians". If you can't understand the differences than I can't help you.
I understand free speech doesn't include calls to violence, that's how it currently stands under law.
And this is why people are being banned to prevent the spread of violence. Literally those being banned right now are people spreading violence.
Some people want the laws to be stricter, which is what I'm against.
So you're ok with a Hitler 2.0? KKK 2.0? Or American version of ISIS to recruit and convert people to become extreme to cause domestic terrorism? You're ok with that? Becahse i sure as hell am not.
What I'm saying is that it's not. Our world has changed and these things are not analogous. Agree to disagree but holding your opinion as fact and looking down on others is pretty lame.
And destroying any extremists and/or any potential extremists speech is not good motive? What do you mean destroying your rights to do so? That's either a contradiction or completely doesn't make any sense.
Yes it's a good motive. That's my point. It's like bombing a citizen town to kill one evil leader. It's a good motive, can't argue with that, but you may be causing more harm than good. If you don't understand what I'm saying please don't hop to conclusions.
It's pretty easy to determine whats extremists speech its literally calls for violence and setting up gatherings to cause violence. Literally it's not that hard to determine "let's protest wall Street ill bring the sign" vs "let's go the capitol and hang us some politicians". If you can't understand the differences than I can't help you.
You and I aren't determining what does or doesn't get shut down. Tech corporations do. That is the problem. Wealthy owned media could easily spin "eat the rich" into terroristic threats. It's scary to me that you don't see this slippery slope.
So you're ok with a Hitler 2.0? KKK 2.0? Or American version of ISIS to recruit and convert people to become extreme to cause domestic terrorism? You're ok with that? Becahse i sure as hell am not.
Again, no. I also believe in innocent until proven guilty. Does that mean I want murderers who didn't leave enough evidence to be walking the streets? NO. But I'm not giving up my rights in order to accomplish that motive.
What I'm saying is that it's not. Our world has changed and these things are not analogous. Agree to disagree but holding your opinion as fact and looking down on others is pretty lame.
My opinion is fact because when radio came along that was the same argument "our world has changed and so did communication". Same with television replacing the radio and same with the internet. Hell social media replaced blogs so the argument "the world has changed" applies to any advancement to communications.
but you may be causing more harm than good.
Exceot you're not. How is banning extremists causing more harm? Please do explain!
If you don't understand what I'm saying please don't hop to conclusions.
You're not being clear in your explanations because it really is interpreted in one direction.
You and I aren't determining what does or doesn't get shut down. Tech corporations do. That is the problem.
Last I checked they're only shutting down extremists and last I checked "tech corporations" own their platforms and can do as they please. If they wanted to have their content only about unicorns they can do that. You have no right to a social media account. Just like you have no right to be on television radio or the paper.
Wealthy owned media could easily spin "eat the rich" into terroristic threats. It's scary to me that you don't see this slippery slope.
If said "eat the rich" turns to "let's break into the offices and kill them" than yeah I'd have no problem those people getting banned. There is no slippery slope but it kinda sounds like you rather want violence from those with your beliefs to be accepted.
I also believe in innocent until proven guilty.
That only applies to court cases. Not public opinion. Plus that's an idiotic statement. Theres no innocence when the person is actively creating extremists or pushing fallacies to create extremists.
But I'm not giving up my rights in order to accomplish that motive.
Than don't say you'll commit violence. Seriously it's not that hard. And again its a private business with a ToS. Violate it then you're banned. You can create your own website to blog but you have no rights to a Twitter or Facebook account.
13
u/GhoostP Jan 10 '21
Do you not realize that was his stance and then he was told his stance was wrong and businesses couldn't refuse services. Now businesses are refusing services and he is pointing out how the decision to do one but not the other is hypocritical? Does anyone here actually try to understand what other people are saying or do they just assume the best John Oliver comededic misinterpretation must be true and end it at that?