Opinion Real progressives don't support the deplatforming of right-wingers; Kyle Kulinkski responds

[SleepyBoy]

.

Sigh. Then you're fundamentally not understanding why I'm opposed to people being able to say whatever they want.

No i don't.

I would assume as an adult you would just move on from information you dislike at the moment, instead of having a dramatic emotional reaction and demanding someone get banned.

 

[ferrisjso]

Not sure if it was just slander though.

Did you know the Free Mason's were once banned in much of the US?

Conspiracy theories aren't exactly new.

Ever seen this comic before, and do you know it's history?

I don't in particular. Sounds like they'd be lots of Libertarian land conspiracy's stemming from this.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I don't in particular. Sounds like they'd be lots of Libertarian land conspiracy's stemming from this.

That comic is apart of congressional investigations.

This was mainstream conspiracy theories.

Hell, look at McCarthyism.

What do you call the idea that communists have infiltrated every part of our society, other than a CT?

 

[ferrisjso]

.

No i don't.

I would assume as an adult you would just move on from information you dislike at the moment, instead of having a dramatic emotional reaction and demanding someone get banned.

Because it's not about me and whether I'm offended. Censoring climate deniers is about protecting the planet and censoring harmful speech is about mitigating the harm...not my or anyone else's feelings. That's the distinction between banning harmful speech and offensive speech. It's the thing libertarians for example fundamentally don't understand when they think everyone leaving everyone alone is so simple, things people do in totality effect the collective. If we don't respnd to climate crisis, we can't just build a wall around who gets effected. We can't protect ourselves from the health insurance industry etc etc. If policy gets enacted due to harmful speech you can't just move on, the impact effects everyone.

It's the difference between why I think flat earthers should be allowed to romp and play around in peace while climate change deniers should be held civilly liable. Sure they are both saying untrue things, but the consequences of one falsehood are immense while the conseuqences of the other don't exist.

 

[franklinstower]

Vote where?

Where is the alternative to Facebook and YouTube?

You can point me to a knock off without near the content or reach, or you can point me to a completely different social media product, but no equivalent competitor.

That is my point. Anyone can start one and do anything they want with it. Private companies are not censuring they are providing a product and the government CANNOT tell them what to provide.

Facebook is shit anyway. Its not like you have to be on there.

 

[VivaRevolution]

That is my point. Anyone can start one and do anything they want with it. Private companies are not censuring they are providing a product and the government CANNOT tell them what to provide.

Facebook is shit anyway. Its not like you have to be on there.

They have a competitive advantage, that gives them a monopoly. If you want to claim we have options, then the social media companies need to be broken up like standard oil was, so you actually have competition, and choice.

I don't care if you say it is their property, and they can do with it as they please within the law.

I take issue with the idea that we don't need laws to address this issue, because we have a real choice.

 

[ferrisjso]

That comic is apart of congressional investigations.

This was mainstream conspiracy theories.

Hell, look at McCarthyism.

What do you call the idea that communists have infiltrated every part of our society, other than a CT?

To be fair to McCarthy we might have hated Socialism but almost every major politican in the US was to the left of Bernie. Not Communists, but Socialists. We were the opposite of the Chinese who hate Capitalism but who have much of a Capitalist system in place but would never call it that. Henry Wallace did have Communist sympathies and he was VP, Dwight Eisenhower's policies were pretty left on economics, more left than Bernie's. Even the hated Richard Nixon was about Barack Obama who's been called a Socialist, a claim that makes McCarthyism look super sane by comparison.

The issue wasn't literal socialist or communist leanings(accurate) it was those labelings meaning you had sympathy to Russia which was horseshit. McCarthy was taking a microscope to people who'd lived through the Depression he was going to find quite a lot of things that could be misinterpreted as smoking guns if you took leftism to mean Soviet agent. McCarthy was playing on the fear after spies delivered nuclear secrets to the Russians and when he was going after people who there was no emotional attachment to he was winning. When he went after beloved figures like Eisenhower he'd crossed a line and got curbstomped.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

What is "progressive immigration policy", and what about your answer makes you think that that position is "progressive"?

Talk about delusion - "polls don't matter lol 2016 election", well... the polls were actually right.

Talk about delusion - "a person that doesn't win the majority of American votes should be allowed to sit in the white house" ========> delusion

Cry all you want but the rules are in place and you lost fair and square. Popular votes are the same as overall yardage in Football. It doesn't count for shit if you don't have more touchdowns. Progressive immigration policy is anything based around loosening the current immigration laws. Nice job playing dumb though.

 

[franklinstower]

They have a competitive advantage, that gives them a monopoly. If you want to claim we have options, then the social media companies need to be broken up like standard oil was, so you actually have competition, and choice.

I don't care if you say it is their property, and they can do with it as they please within the law.

I take issue with the idea that we don't need laws to address this issue, because we have a real choice.

I think that argument is better actually. IF they have a monopoly then breaking them up might get my support.

I can see this for Youtube more than Facebook. Facebook is completely useless and unnecessary. Who gives a shit if they control content?

 

[VivaRevolution]

To be fair to McCarthy we might have hated Socialism but almost every major politican in the US was to the left of Bernie. Not Communists, but Socialists. We were the opposite of the Chinese who hate Capitalism but who have much of a Capitalist system in place but would never call it that. Henry Wallace did have Communist sympathies and he was VP, Dwight Eisenhower's policies were pretty left on economics, more left than Bernie's. Even the hated Richard Nixon was about Barack Obama who's been called a Socialist, a claim that makes McCarthyism look super sane by comparison.

The issue wasn't literal socialist or communist leanings(accurate) it was those labelings meaning you had sympathy to Russia which was horseshit. McCarthy was taking a microscope to people who'd lived through the Depression he was going to find quite a lot of things that could be misinterpreted as smoking guns if you took leftism to mean Soviet agent. McCarthy was playing on the fear after spies delivered nuclear secrets to the Russians and when he was going after people who there was no emotional attachment to he was winning. When he went after beloved figures like Eisenhower he'd crossed a line and got curbstomped.

Sure, their is nuance to it.

But from rail road barons, to why we celebrated bank robbers and cattle rustlers, one person's conspiracy theory is the next conspiracy fact.

I read your post on climate denial. Who gets to decide what climate denial is?

How can whatever answer you give, be gamed over time, and what is the tail risk to that?

It's not that I don't see disinformation as a problem, it's that the solutions that are offered are far more scary than the disinformation is.

If you can show me a checked and balanced, decentralized system that would make the judgement of what is dangerous speech, you would have my attention.

The idea that you can make this judgement from some central authority, and not create a bigger problem then the one you are trying to address, seems very far fetched to me.

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

On the surface you may think this is his having a conservative ideology in this one instance because he's coming to the defense of some nut bags who have conservative leaning politics.

This is too poorly written for me to understand what you're standing.

Kyle is subtly asking conservatives to "bake the cake."

No, he's asking progressives to stick to their principles and defend the freedom of speech for all people.

Not gonna happen.

Who knows.

Facebook and the rest are totally within their rights to decide what content they want on their platforms. And in a free market, conservative nut bags like Jones and Milo can create their own facebooks and twitters and have at it.

No they are not. The big tech companies need to be broken up and have regulations imposed on them. They should be forced to stick to the federal definition of freedom of speech.

I find "The View" to be full on Alex Jones level wacko and ridiculous. With cunts like Woopee refusing to say the god damn president's name ffs. How immature can a bunch of old hags get? But they are allowed to be on the air. That's their right.

Yeah the view is extremely bad, and there are many people that are outraged by the things said on that show. Yet you support the right for the view to say those things.

Sorry Kyle. I'm not gonna be forced to bake no fucking cake.

Whatever.

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

Cry all you want but the rules are in place and you lost fair and square. Popular votes are the same as overall yardage in Football. It doesn't count for shit if you don't have more touchdowns. Progressive immigration policy is anything based around loosening the current immigration laws. Nice job playing dumb though.

These are not equivalent things.

1 vote should equal 1 vote. You are literally supporting empty land having political representation.

No one is playing dumb, you are just too stupid to realize that you've been played by fox news and progressives don't support open borders.

 

[ferrisjso]

Sure, their is nuance to it.

But from rail road barons, to why we celebrated bank robbers and cattle rustlers, one person's conspiracy theory is the next conspiracy fact.

I read your post on climate denial. Who gets to decide what climate denial is?

How can whatever answer you give, be gamed over time, and what is the tail risk to that?

It's not that I don't see disinformation as a problem, it's that the solutions that are offered are far more scary than the disinformation is.

If you can show me a checked and balanced, decentralized system that would make the judgement of what is dangerous speech, you would have my attention.

The idea that you can make this judgement from some central authority, and not create a bigger problem then the one you are trying to address, seems very far fetched to me.

I mean feel that's pretty straight forward, denying climate change is real. But I'd give you one more and limit to to hindering the response to the emergency rather than questioning the science.

I don't think it's possible for any solutions to be more scary than the harm we're seeing now from false information at least IMO. I don't have a long term alternative besides changing the culture(which takes time same way opinion culture being created took time) but in terms of specific issues I'd favor the drastic approach in a vacuum though I agree it wouldn't be sustainable for everything.

I think prior to several decades ago we had said system and just took it for granted.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I mean feel that's pretty straight forward, denying climate change is real. But I'd give you one more and limit to to hindering the response to the emergency rather than questioning the science.

I don't think it's possible for any solutions to be more scary than the harm we're seeing now from false information at least IMO. I don't have a long term alternative besides changing the culture(which takes time same way opinion culture being created took time) but in terms of specific issues I'd favor the drastic approach in a vacuum though I agree it wouldn't be sustainable for everything.

I think prior to several decades ago we had said system and just took it for granted.

I think climate change is real, but I don't think we have any idea if it is a 100 year concern, or a 1,000 year concern.

You know we are going through a extinction event right now, and it has very little to do with climate change, and much more to do with ocean pollution, cutting down rain forests to grow palm oil trees, and neocontinoids from Monsanto seeds.

Are you sure even from just a environmental stand point, that climate change is our most pressing concern?

 

[ferrisjso]

I think climate change is real, but I don't think we have any idea if it is a 100 year concern, or a 1,000 year concern.

You know we are going through a extinction event right now, and it has very little to do with climate change, and much more to do with ocean pollution, cutting down rain forests to grow palm oil trees, and neocontinoids from Monsanto seeds.

Are you sure even from just a environmental stand point, that climate change is our most pressing concern?

We do. Also I'm telling you the scientists are heavily biased in favor of denial who wants to believe the world is going to end?

We live on this planet. How is an extinction event a casual thing to shrug off? Cutting down rain forests is a heavy contributor to the crisis. Which is why if I were President I would be regime changing that lunatic in Brazil. The main reason the rain forest is such a real crisis that effects everyone and not just the Brazilians is cause of climate change and carbon levels. There is much more wrong with the destruction of the rain forest but that is the most severe effect. Trees suck carbon, rain forest trees suck considerably more carbon and getting rid of them is obviously a problem, puts the finish line further away without burning new carbon.

Monsanto is a problem. Generally think anti GMO crowd is naive, GMO's are a reality of having a population our size.

Ocean pollution is terrible but what are the short term non climate change related crisis stemming from this?

 

[Mcountry]

This is too poorly written for me to understand what you're standing.

No, he's asking progressives to stick to their principles and defend the freedom of speech for all people.

Who knows.

No they are not. The big tech companies need to be broken up and have regulations imposed on them. They should be forced to stick to the federal definition of freedom of speech.

Yeah the view is extremely bad, and there are many people that are outraged by the things said on that show. Yet you support the right for the view to say those things.

Whatever.

Did you seriously feel the need to break down every god damn sentence?

Beyond my needing to restate that even conservatives don't care about Milo or Alex because one is an openly admitted provocateur and the other is a cartoon conspiracy theorist. This conversation boils down to your wanting government to intervene because a few companies have won at playing the game.

No. Government doesn't need to jump in and force companies to have people on their platforms that they don't want. They are within their rights and freedoms to not serve people they don't want to serve. They are within their rights to "not bake the cake". This isn't racially motivated or bigotry or sexist.

Now your ideology of breaking them down forcefully into smaller entities is again, entirely ridiculous. You don't punish people for playing the game better than you can. Free market enterprise is designed to allow people to create competitive platforms that will house people like Milo and Alex should there be a market for those two idiots. If either platform becomes too regressive and their policies are closing too many people out, expect direct competition to spring up. But I sure as shit wouldn't feel the need to start up my own YouTube just so those two idiots can have a voice.

Conservatives want less government. Get out of my life and let me live how I want to live. You want more government "waaa life isn't fair! Make life fair, government!".

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

Did you seriously feel the need to break down every god damn sentence?

Now you're mad because I'm directly responding to each and every thing that you say???? What the fuck would you prefer that I do? Dismiss everything that you have to say and instead say "HAHA #TRIGGERED"?

Beyond my needing to restate that even conservatives don't care about Milo or Alex because one is an openly admitted provocateur and the other is a cartoon conspiracy theorist. That's how both got their claim to fame.

It seems to me that all of the energy in the right wing of the US is with Alex Jones, Milo, Gavin, etc etc. There is no energy among the voters for supporting limp wristed corporate republicans.

No government doesn't need to jump in and force platforms to have people on their platforms that they don't want. They are within their rights and freedoms to not serve people they don't want to serve. They are within their rights to "not bake the cake".

So would you also support utility companies shutting off services to people that have opinions they don't like? Stay consistent. This is what you support.

Now your ideology of breaking them down forcefully into smaller entities is again, entirely ridiculous. You don't punish people for playing the game better than you can. Free market enterprise is designed to allow people to create competitive platforms that will house people like Milo and Alex should there be a market for those two idiots. If either platform becomes to regressive and their policies are closing too many people out, expect direct competition to spring up. But I sure as shit wouldn't feel the need to start up my own YouTube just so those two idiots can have a voice.

No, it's not ridiculous. They're called anti trust laws, they've been around for a very long time and there is a great case for why we should be using them on the big tech companies. Maybe look into the history of anti trust laws before you go down this road?

Conservatives want less government. Get out of my life and let me live how I want to live. You want more government "waaa life isn't fair! Make life fair, government!".

You only want government out of your life, but you don't give a fuck about corporations dominating your life. Peak conservative idiocy.

 

[Mcountry]

Now you're mad because I'm directly responding to each and every thing that you say???? What the fuck would you prefer that I do? Dismiss everything that you have to say and instead say "HAHA #TRIGGERED"?

It seems to me that all of the energy in the right wing of the US is with Alex Jones, Milo, Gavin, etc etc. There is no energy among the voters for supporting limp wristed corporate republicans.

So would you also support utility companies shutting off services to people that have opinions they don't like? Stay consistent. This is what you support.
[quote[
Now your ideology of breaking them down forcefully into smaller entities is again, entirely ridiculous. You don't punish people for playing the game better than you can. Free market enterprise is designed to allow people to create competitive platforms that will house people like Milo and Alex should there be a market for those two idiots. If either platform becomes to regressive and their policies are closing too many people out, expect direct competition to spring up. But I sure as shit wouldn't feel the need to start up my own YouTube just so those two idiots can have a voice.
No, it's not ridiculous. They're called anti trust laws, they've been around for a very long time and there is a great case for why we should be using them on the big tech companies. Maybe look into the history of anti trust laws before you go down this road?


You only want government out of your life, but you don't give a fuck about corporations dominating your life. Peak conservative idiocy.

This conversation isn't about several things. It's about one damn thing.

You are comparing utility services to fucking facebook or twitter? Seriously? I don't even use twitter and my facebook account has one post so far this year. I use it primary to wish people happy birthday. These are not necessities one needs in order to survive. If I don't get heat in the winter time, my family could fucking freeze to death. These things are not even remotely comparable.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

So... is your solution totalitarianism?

Of course it is. The left has been over run with totalitarian radicals.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

You are absolutely delusional. Trump has the worst polling numbers of any president in modern history.

"but muh polling during the 2016 election"
The polls were right. Hillary won the popular vote by 2-3 million people (gag).

Trump actually has a higher approval rating than Obama had at this point in his first term.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/06/trump-approval-obama-poll/