News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Re... by mcguire on Wednesday December 26, 2018 @06:14PM (#18765701)
Careless remarks?

"Before your stupid social justice feminine bullshit, [mass murders] didn't happen on this scale, it's crazy. This is a disease of the modern age. YOU are responsible for perpetuating it, by disenfranchising these poor fucking guys who don't have any options left. When someone takes the option of absolute insanely last resort, you have to wonder, what kind of system is producing them? And I'll tell you what, Laci, it is a fucking feminist system that is doing this."

Quirky ideas?

"I wouldn't even rape you, @jessphillips. #AntiRapeThreats #FeminismIsCancer"

Do you really think Carl Benjamin is quirky and careless? Are you really defending him as having done something harmless, funny, or simply unthinkingly? Are you as laissez-faire about, say, the anti-vaccine crowd or the creationists---they're just disagreeing "with the overall bent of the arc of history?"

In a more serious mode, have you any evidence that we are "talking about people who may have made a careless remark, or have quirky ideas, or disagree with the overall bent of the arc of history?" I would think everyone would be up in arms if such were the case. All of the examples I have run across are individuals who are repeatedly, deliberately and provocatively making loathsome statements, and, due to "tolerance", being applauded for it.

Re:Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Re... by nicky0 on Friday January 04, 2019 @07:33PM (#18829060)
The "wouldn't rape you" tweet is crass but the first, longer quote is a perfectly reasonable point of view.
Re:Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Re... by _Tev on Thursday December 27, 2018 @07:49AM (#18769147)
Frankly, yes, those ideas are just "quirky", if you want to use that word. I would use "extreme", and maybe even "a bit crazy", but I still think deplatforming those stupid ideas is wrong, because:

1) you should be able to say stupid stuff in public, as long as it does not actually cause violence ...

2) ... Which I think this does not. Yes, the line is blurred, but that's the point - is presumption of innocence a good idea?

I think yes, mainly because

3) this deplatforming apparently does not work to reduce the following of such people (I might be wrong, but have not seen any data disproving this).

Btw I get the impression that Trump has said similarly abhorrent things. Should we deplatform him? The slippery slope arguments starts to get real when you expand the bans to people like the one you quoted (assuming those were the worst things from him).