Compounding this is PR and network effects. Once they become known as the place for the far right, then more far righters go there, and more distant people avoid it.
Correct. We hate nazis.
Congratulations, you played yourself.
Congratulation you did not understood the irony.
Let me get this straight. One group of people has all the political power in an area. That group of people repressed another group. The second group wants to be treated like human beings.
To me, it seems that if you want to avoid conflict and strife, the first group should immediately give in to those demands. Those demands are just, and the status quo is indefensible, and the first group has the political power to solve the problem, and anyone obstructing the immediate implementation of those demands is the one causing strife.
Since they have a monopoly on power, the onus is on them to make the society they built just, not on the people they are repressing.
Who? The democrats or the republicans?
>The second group wants to be treated like human beings.
Who is that? The Citizens or the establishment? You have much deeper problems in your society, and it's not skin-color, that's just the game to distort you (yes and the police) from the real problems...trans vs woman, democrats vs republican, man vs woman, white vs black, vegans vs meat-eater those are some of the other ones. You always hit your nearest made up "enemy" not the one thirteen steps away. Keep the dump's entertained with problems so they don't see the bigger picture, and at one point they start to entertain themself with made up problems.
Segregationists, and their various flavors of racist allies of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. I don't really care which party they belong to. They had a monopoly on power, they built an unjust system, and I will firmly put all arising strife on their unwillingness to treat people of other races as human beings.
> Who is that? The Citizens or the establishment?
African Americans during the broad civil rights era. You are talking about the KGB, right? The KGB operated between 1954 to 1991, so I have to assume that whatever black versus white 'conflict' you are talking about is somewhere in that time period.
> You have much deeper problems in your society, and it's not skin-color, that's just the game to distort you (yes and the police) from the real problems
I assure you, when your society has no-n_____ water fountains, train cars, classrooms, and suburbs, your society's problems include skin color. They include it incredibly prominently.
Are you arguing about real issues that real people faced? Or are we going down some weird, theoretical rabbit hole? I have no patience for the latter.
Had? Have, is the right word or did that changed i the last 2 month? But yeah absolutely, human are humans and everyone has the same right and has to be treated the same way.
>African Americans during the broad civil rights era. You are talking about the KGB, right?
I was talking about that one of the KGB strategies was to heat already existing conflicts up to the point where no consensus is possible, that just works in democratic systems where consent is the ~only way to achieve something.
>I assure you, when your society has no-n_____ water fountains
Look that's the problem, i NEVER said that skin color or religion (especially muslims...remember the hate after 2001, but also jews) is not a problem in your country, again for me there is no race just humans. But ATM it's white vs black etc, that's the opposite what Martin Luther King said like "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that", atm your countrymen create borders between community's which creates a downward spiral, and the profiteer is for sure not "we the people" but we the media and the party (the two same ones) which can profit out of it and in the meantime easily maintain the status quo (both the democrats and the republicans...they have the exact same goal, they just play different so you have the illusion of choice).
That isn't true, since the first black slaves were brought over by the ethnic group we now call Latinx.
No, they weren't. Latinx (or the equivalent combination of Latino/Latina) is not synonymous with Hispanic, and more to the point, even if it was, the slavers were (by modern American terms) racially White ethnic Hispanics, so it wouldn't change the White/Black racial dynamic.
That’s some pretty impressive mental gymnastics. It’s likely that the crews of those first Portuguese and Spanish slave ships included plenty of mixed Hispanic/North Africans too.
By the way North Africans raided as far as the south coast of England in order to capture slaves of their own.
it wouldn't change the White/Black racial dynamic
The word you are looking for is “narrative”.
I guess I can't keep up with the shifting terminology, are natives considered blacks now then? Isn't that supposed to be BIPOCS?
Actually if we are talking about slaves, then native Americans had been enslaving each other for centuries before Whites or Latinx arrived.
Black people enslaved other blacks in Africa, Latinx shipped them to America where the natives were also enslaving each other. White people put an end to all 3 of these activities, everywhere. This is historical fact.
PS I am Welsh.
You rewrite history, white wsshing it to make yourselves out to be the great white saviors despite having participated for many centuries.
“Hey the Africans sold their enemies to us so it must be Ok.”
So had the peoples in africa:
>>Very few Americans know that slavery was common throughout the world as well as in Africa, says Sandra E. Greene, History.
https://research.cornell.edu/news-features/curious-history-s...
No one said something about justification, but since you need a slave you obliviously did not evolve...let me guess your from the US right?
BTW: I'm not your "bro" little wanna be slaveholder.
Native Americans enslaved each other so they needed white Europeans to civilize them.
Africans enslaved each other and sold them to us so it was OK to make avaracian fortunes doing the same.
You enslaved Africans so it is only fair play for them to invade your nation, rape your women and enslave your populace.
Oh dear, we have strayed from the narrative and now the Californians are here
If you believe there are 10s of millions of Nazis in America, you have issues.
Hundreds of thousands? A million?
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-w...
I know people are going to mad about this because tech boys loooove him but google it he's a eugenics supporter and endorses far-right race philosophers.
And though the main feed / explore page is not quite as openly tilted toward that audience today, the 'groups' features not one but three QAnon groups, which appear to be some of the largest on the site.
In short - if you've been looking at Gab's content since their inception, it be hard not to see activity from some prominent altright/stormer users, and there remains a large quantity of both weird political extremism and general cultism promoted at the top level of the site.
Personally, I usually don't even do that, because it's useful to occasionally comment on their posts (which are a tiny, tiny fraction of Gab's content) to point out to them that Nazi totalitarian tyranny is in no way preferable to socialist/Communist totalitarian tyranny.
I wonder if anyone here has ever even seen either site, because the vast majority of the comments here are simply regurgitating national media talking points about the sites - and those talking points bear zero relationship to reality.
America used to be about the free exchange of ideas.
As for myself, I hate all totalitarians - Nazis are no worse than Communists, but they are no better, either. (Arguably, as horrible and inexcusable as the Nazis were, by the numbers they are in the flyweight class for genocide in the 20th century compared to their Communist counterparts...)
Those are the “far right” (or “far left” depending on your views) in those contexts.
The point remains: extreme views will gravitate to these platforms.
That is “far right”.
If you don’t prefer that title call it “extremist views”; it’s irrelevant what you label it; the point remains entirely valid.
Would you say that this kind of a pushback on your views, which to me don’t seem extreme, have any significance in actually making you an extremist?
Protection of offensive speech is a bedrock classical liberal view.
The point being made is that the application of censorship on some platforms results in a uneven distribution of users with such views in platforms that don’t due to self selection.
If the entire population has an X% rate of folk with extreme views, and 0% are allowed on platforms A, B, C... but platform D allows it.
The regardless of the overall distribution of users you cannot deny that the rate of folk with extreme views on D will be more than the 0% on A, B, and C.
Like, it’s not a matter of opinion; that’s just a fact.
So it’s fair to say Gab has higher proportion of users with extreme views simply by allowing them; that is, it is inherently controversial to even allow controversial discourse on your platform.
I don’t care if you don’t like that; that’s irrelevant. It’s simply not correct to assert that the platform is not to blame; when different platforms enforce different rules you get different content on different platforms.
It’s the same for porn, under age users, pictures of dogs ffs.
If you allow it, you’ll get it... and if you do when no one else does, you’ll get attention for being the “only Platform with [whatever]”.
The argument to here is about if the content is good or not; whether Gab is “far right” or “far left” is just arbitrary bs labels that distracts from the actual discussion of the content itself.
So is the protection of personal freedom, and yet no one claims we shouldn't put people in jail. Protection of speech is not an absolute principle of liberalism; just one principle that is weighed against others. Plus, in this case, most of the speech banned by Twitter is protected and can't land you in jail. It is also not at all a principle of liberalism that any publisher must publish any speech. Quite the opposite, the reputation of institutions like newspapers and universities are entirely predicated on their freedom to filter out and not disseminate certain things. The liberal view is that institutions should be able to build their reputation by choosing which speech they want to disseminate and amplify.
Because it’s often one and the same: the “identity” of the people on them are the ones spreading hate speech and disinformation. You don’t need to sugar coat it as “not-sanctioned speech”, nobody is banning anyone for saying “hey I support Donald trump!’ They are banning people for saying “trans people will burn in hell” and “the Jewish cabal that run the world are eating babies and that’s why Biden stole the election and the democrats will be executed on TV by trump”.
Unfortunately this kind of speech comes from mostly one side of the political spectrum. Yes, I’m sure you can cherry pick random left-leaning Twitter users saying dumb things, but it’s not quite on the same level as you can find on ParlerWatch[1] for example.
Gabs founder: https://i.redd.it/u8mbqmrh41k61.png
1. https://old.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/top/?sort=top&t=month
They most certainly are. That exact phrase will literally get you banned on some forums. [0][1]
If you want to radicalize people, a good way to start is to marginalize them.
[0]https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump
[1]https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-...
Go to /r/conservative and say “I support Biden” and you will be banned within a minute. Does that mean liberals are being brutally silenced by oppressive moderators and therefore we have no choice but to helplessly become radicalised by racists?
And yeah, it is often one and the same. Don't remember who it was, but someone said that the problem with free speech is that you'll spend most of your time defending scoundrels.
As far as hate speech goes, people literally lecture that people who happen to be born like me are "born into not being human", say the lives of people like me don't matter. We are told we should not speak and yet that our silence is violence. Trainings for "diversity" across a wide range of institutions have started segregating along racial lines, and the list goes on. During the Grievance Studies hoax, for example, one of their papers was sent back because it was too sympathetic and not sociopathic enough. Said paper advocated making white students sit on the floor and putting them in chains as a learning experience.
Yet open racism is fine, because the target ethnic group and sexual orientation are acceptable to the activist class.
Likewise, people who get kicked out for "transphobia" will often not be people who hate transpeople in any proper sense, but have policy disagreements where there are no win-win solutions. Yet anything but being completely on board with the activist class's 100% no limits pro-trans policy agenda is "phobia". The claim holds up as well as wet paper.
How about gender affirming treatment for kids who cannot physically know what sexuality properly is because they haven't been through puberty? Someone's a bit off their gender role? Tomboy, nah, they're a boy, time to stuff them full of hormones. Concerns that this just might be insane are again, labeled hate.
Said cultists insist on mantras of trans(wo-)men are (wo-)men in an explicit denial of biology that the best of our medicine can't alter: We just craft a facade that eases dysphoria to care for our fellow human beings. As Buck Angel put it: "I use testosterone to masculinize myself so I feel more like me." He's routinely called a transphobe.
This is basically the biology equivalent of flat eartherism or young earth creationism, but not subscribing to the creed is stamped hate speech. The mantra wouldn't even be necessary if its claim was actually true. It's even worse than flat eartherism, since a human can't at a glance confirm that the Earth is indeed round, but TWAW/TMAM asks us to baldly deny the input of our eyes in everyday life.
Hate and disinformation do not at all come "mostly from one side of the political spectrum" - science denial in the "party of science" is alive and well.
That was Chomsky.
2. MSNBC Nicolle Wallace suggests Drone Strikes on US soil to combat Trump cult aka inciters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU5hw9H7htc
If that person says they don't believe the results of the election they are. If that person says that they don't believe the vaccines or lockdowns don't work, they are.
Twitter, Facebook, and tech in general have lost this card to play. They've been banning people for things that have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with them being not-Democrat.
In a world where 95+% of tech companies are Democrats in the U.S., it's easy to believe all the head-nodding and congratulations that your views are the only morally correct ones. It's also easy to deliberately avoid any sense of nuance or context because that would require overcoming cognitive dissonance that half the country isn't a bunch of racists.
The Republican Party: not racist, just #1 with racists. I think that’s the problem.
So spreading misinformation then?
You just proved GPs point.
It's the right wing of American politics that has swung so far to the right of where it used to be that it's made tech look Democratic in contrast. If tech employees are supporting Democrats, it's because the alternative has come to look insane.
Because he routinely harasses other trans people and has a coterie of cis people chomping at the bit to bully trans kids he retweets and mocks. He's not called that for the quote you chose. I think similarly the rest of your points are warped and exaggerated to fit your view that you are under siege by "open lunatics" because you're tired of certain people you find undesirable having a collective voice all of a sudden.
Saying racist sh*, and wanting to restrict the rights of minoritys is waaaay different then protesting against an opressive regime.
It is a shame, that the far right were and are able to use the ccp-protestors for their meanly targets.
The far right is a minority, and you are actually the one who try to restrict them with the label "offensive/hate"..is that correct?
There is a good reason why "political" views aren't a protected class in most modern countries.
But who is the instance who gives a group the label "hate" you? And why do you have to be a different race to be a fringe hate group?
>There is a good reason why "political" views aren't a protected class in most modern countries.
I fact they are, hence the term "political prisoner" which is equal to "no modern country" just have a look at spain atm.
You are right, exactly that is my point!
Did you ever wonder why you are calling others far right or far left? Why are you referring to other American citizens with those terms? Who is pushing those terms that divide the vast majority of normal Americans? Who stands to gain?
The fascist establishment elite are getting richer by the second, while the lower classes are calling each other insulting names and fighting amongst themselves.
There’s an old movie called They Live. When you watch it now, you can call it time shifted documentary.
It's a great movie, but a metaphor not a "time-shifted documentary", unless I missed the latest Qdrop.
Interesting position.
As glen greenwald says, censorship eventually is always about those in power staying in power. Unless you are in power it’s sad to see so much pro censorship these days.
Read up on Ira Glasser at the ACLU or watch the documentary. Why did he as a Jew defend neo nazis?
Obviously, if you're going to name your faction with a preceding adjective like national/international then:
a) it's important to you
b) you're probably not going to get along with the other faction that is named in direct opposition to yours
Which pretty much explains how these two groups of socialists hate each other and why the Nazi's 25 point plan [0] reads 50% nationalist and 50% socialist.
It's not a misnomer, unlike the DPRK.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The...
Edit: formatting
Oh, I see. Names don't matter if they are inconvenient....
Nazis (a literal shortening of Nationalsozialismus) - no they weren't the left.. 'cos Hitler, and Hitler bad.
Freedom is speech, but not 'hate speech'. (Who defines 'hate speech'?) What is hate speech except for a reason to stop people speaking. These are ideological positions couched as morality. And everyone needs moral busybodies who know it all, to tell them what to do, right?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis
of course.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-need...
Besides, party names have never been a good indicator of political standing. Only policy is. You can look at the Liberals in Australia as an example of a conservative party.
Marx used the terms socialist and communist interchangeably in his writings. So that is a distinction without a difference.
However it also depends are you simply looking at the economic beliefs of left/right wing idealogies or also social rights? It also depends on which era of left vs right is being considered, since the traits of the spectrum have changed over the decades.
Perhaps the issue is many consider only the economic models as the indicator, whereas many others consider the entirety of policy with regards to equality and rights.
If we're only looking at economic policy, then sure, Mao and Stalin are left wing.
If you look at it socially, then I'd argue they were not because they violently impugned on the freedoms of people to install totalitarianism.
Maybe one could argue they're far left, or alt left in todays vernacular however. But even that would be eschewing much of the social aspects of leftism. Mostly because their aspects of "equality" only applied to the people they deemed equal. Which was unequal to start with.
It sucks if you're on the left or right and are more on the pro freedom end when someone drags up the authoritarian cohort of your respective side.
I'm right of centre ( pro private industry ) but anti fascism. I'm pro private industry because I don't like a concentration of power. So a mix of small government with the power to provide basic services and break up monopolies seems the best way to keep everything free. So slightly left wing social policies such as free medical care aren't my first choice but much better than giving the government more surveillance powers. So I think I'm further away from fascism than I am from socialism. Yet as I'm right of centre people throw Hitler is on your side at me.
That's certainly a level of mental gymnastics to paint things favorably for your political beliefs.
Left and right are all on board with the same system. And this is increasing a fascist system, run by corporations.
But whatever the case - if people purport to have a constitution that allows for free speech - but that a lot of people do not have meaningful ability to exercise it, well its not surprising that places like Gab spring up. And that all those de-platformed views make their way there. People need to be able to have their say.
It used to be that it was a left position to say 'I don't like what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it'. Those days are long gone - de-platform the hate speaker!
It only protects against retribution by the government. It doesn't extend to society accepting any and all speech was acceptable.
Its also one of the reasons that the SA was purged.
> We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood.
> We demand... that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
> We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
> We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
> We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
> We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class; the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople
> We demand...the abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
> We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
> The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health
https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points...
Edit: I'm not surprised that these inconvenient facts are being downvoted. Why acknowledge facts when you can attempt to suppress them instead? Why read history in the very words of the people of the time, when you can rewrite it instead?
Much of the Big Business that invested in the Nazi party were tentative at first because of socialist name and were convinced by Hitler et al that it was in name only..
No, the 25 point plan was announced by Hitler in 1920, including all of those socialist ideas.
And the night of the long knives was in 1934. For over 14 years, socialists like Strasser were an important part of the Nazi party, working side by side with Hitler.
Then Hitler consolidated power and eliminated all rivals - not only socialists like Strasser, but people with many ideologies. His primary target was not the socialists, but his most dangerous rival, Ernst Roehm, the leader of the brownshirts.
Even after that purge, the socialist programs continued, such as Volksgemeinschaft (people's community), Deutsche Arbeitsfront (the German Labor Front), and Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (National Socialist People's Welfare).
> The NSV [National Socialist People's Welfare] was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1935, second only to the German Labour Front. It had 4.7 million members and 520,000 volunteer workers.
> The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes and interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People%27s_...
I'm not contesting that.
Here's what the book I'm reading has to say about the 25 points:
> A good many paragraphs of the party program were obviously merely a demagogic appeal to the mood of the lower classes at a time when they were in bad straits and were sympathetic to radical and even socialist slogans. Point 11, for example, demanded abolition of incomes unearned by work; Point 12, the nationalization of trusts; Point 13, the sharing with the state of profits from large industry; Point 14, the abolishing of land rents and speculation in land. Point 18 demanded the death penalty for traitors, usurers and profiteers, and Point 16, calling for the maintenance of “a sound middle class,” insisted on the communalization of department stores and their lease at cheap rates to small traders. These demands had been put in at the insistence of Drexler and Feder, who apparently really believed in the “socialism” of National Socialism. They were the ideas which Hitler was to find embarrassing when the big industrialists and landlords began to pour money into the party coffers, and of course nothing was ever done about them.
I think that's fair, but I would characterize it this way:
The Nazis started out "socialist" in the traditional sense of collective ownership, and ended up "socialist" in the modern sense (popularized by Bernie Sanders) of a strong social safety net.
(That safety net being restricted, of course, to those the Nazis deemed worthy.)
When people say “the nazis were socialist” they are trying to draw a line from the modern left to genocide. But this is just not a functioning argument.
Yeah, that's true of their early platforms, but even on paper (and much more in practice) socialist elements were progressively deemphasized as Hitler consolidated power within the party.
> Why read history in the very words of the people of the time,
You should definitely read their words, but you should read all of them as they change over time, and track the objective external facts of who held more power as they changed, and also check words against actions. Because just because something was at one point the words tied to a faction doesn't mean:
(1) that it represented that factions immutable view for all time across changes in internal power dynamics, or even
(2) that it was ever anything more than cynical, opportunistic manipulating propaganda.
1. national-socialism seams to have equality as a target. But this equality accounts only for a small group of superior people. In case of Hitler that was the aryan, german race.
2. Those points and the reality are two completetly different things
In fact Nazi-Germany was not socialist but capitalist. Rich people and companies became richer. The only people that were expropriated were jews, political enemies and minoritys. The jews were working as slaves until death to provide wealth for a capitalist upper class. Siemens for example increased their turnover by a factor of 5. Single persons became incredible rich. At the same time, the normal citizens of germany had to live under the worst circumstances because of the war. (You would not believe what my grandma experienced...)
The core idea of national-socialism is inhumane. Who ever was not productive like disabled people, or people with mental illnesses(which includes homosexuals etc.) got killed. The Nazis propagated the rule of the strongest and racism. They propagated social darwinism.
That stands completly against everything the left parties in Germany , even socialism, stands for. The main target is equality and equal oppurtunities for everyone. The main target is a humane society. One of the main points of our left wing, is to fight any form of facism to prevent anything similiar to Hitler from happening ever again.
The right wing partys are the Heirs of the Nazis. They want to exclude minorities and restrict their rights. They propagate racism.
The role of the left in the rise of the worst governments of the twentieth century should be remembered, so that nothing like Hitler ever happens again.
Many horrible governments start with promises of equality and a humane society (not the Nazis, who promised revenge, but certainly the communists), because that much concentrated power is a catastrophe waiting to happen. A government big enough to give equality is also powerful enough to impose tyranny, as we saw far too many times in the 20th century.
Even the Nazis only rose to power because of the horrible mistreatment imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Germans saw themselves as the oppressed people.
Hitler himself was, I think, a megalomaniac who wanted nothing but his own power, and a delusional madman intent on killing almost everyone. He doesn't belong on the left-right spectrum, because he was motivated by nothing other than his own madness.
Despite that, the Nazis did gain support from many socialists, and ultimately, like so many other governments that rose to power with socialist promises, failed to live up to those promises.
But I don't think Hitler himself was a socialist, and I agree that Hitler was using the socialists just as he used everyone else who supported him. I just think people should acknowledge the role that socialists played in helping him rise to power.
I think practically everyone, including myself agrees with that. And I pointed that out in my original posts. Power doesn't occur in a vacuum and the Nazi's capitalized on peoples (mostly unfounded) fears and anger to grow their base. My original point was that the Nazi's themselves were not socialists. Referencing a name they came up with and their published propaganda was not a convincing argument to say otherwise.
Their brand of Nazism survives to this day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism
So I don't think it's accurate to say "the Nazi's themselves were not socialists", as if none of them were.
I never said that.
> I don't think it's accurate to say "the Nazi's themselves were not socialists", as if none of them were.
I never claimed that none of them were.
Making it sound as if I and others are talking in absolutes and manufacturing talking points around that is a waste of everyones time.
I joined this discussion because you said "The Nazis were socialist only in name."
Only.
That sounds fairly absolute to me.
I'm going to give this thread a break since it seems as though you're simply looking for arguments where none exist.
But if you don't consider it an important claim, then let's move on. I'm satisfied that I've shown a fair amount of evidence that it's untrue.
The reality is that communism as a movement spans a wide political range, and both Stalin and Pol Pot had diverged significantly from any form of leftist Marxism in their hunt for power.
Even stalinist supporters decry Pol Pot https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/khmerrouge.html
Looking at simple party names is a red herring at best. It's best to look at the policy choices of the dictators in question.
Stalin and Mao would only be left wing if you prescribe to the thought that communism by nature must only be left wing. I assume your train of thought on Hitler is similar because you're likely equating the socialist word in the Nazi party to left wing socialism.
At best this is dishonest and ignoring actual policy.
One reason the Marxist kind of thought pattern is dangerous is because of something like that. The ideas in and of themselves can sound good and appealing - who wants poor people to live in squalor and so on? But if we look at what natural and sexual selection ingrains in biological life - it is by necessity kin-preferring, competitive and in non-eusocial social creatures, status seeking, for example. Things that prefer non-kin and don't compete just die out.
In that light, a sound philosophy would understand that those things can't be eradicated by human will, take the impulses and hone something constructive out of them. But Marxist thought is rationalist in the sense that it thinks doctrine and reason can mold human nature to whatever shape, and then achieve their utopistic ends. That, of course, cannot happen because we're built from competitive, kin-preferring, status-seeking genes, not utopistic ones. Marxism is incompatible with biological life, and to get biological life to comply for any length of time, it must be forced constantly, or the utopian society degrade into tyranny, which has thus far happened every single time these things have been tried. But it's never done properly, so we should try again.
I'm asking for people to delve into the so called left wing policy of the people they're claiming are left wing dictators.
So far people have only been listing people by their party names. Which would mean that North Korea is a bastion of democracy. I'm asking for substance to back up their assertions.
I have to add that "no overlap at all", may not be correct, as those points were shared by different political spectrums in the history. The point is: The core idea, is completly different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...
Censorship is a product of political extremism though, it has no basis in one political ideology, only in how aggressively it is applied to society.
On the HDI, the first majority Muslim country is the UAE, at 31, and that's probably highly skewed by its limited population, extreme natural wealth, and slavery. And considering it's involved in a human rights catastrophe in Yemen, it fails any human rights record-based index directly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
On the contrary, I'd say that Islam is stuck in the past, which doesn't help Muslim nations thrive and develop, and those that do, do it based on "luck" ( natural resources).
I'm not sure this demonstrates a deep understanding of the shifting patterns within Islamic culture.
This is obviously just selection bias. Everything that changes is a loss for "conservatism"; ignore everything that stays the same, which is the majority of everything.
Here are some "conservative" (i.e. longstanding existing) policies: Due process, separation of powers, warrant requirements, freedom of speech. They are currently under attack. But the attackers are the ones on the wrong side of history -- even if they succeed, they lose, because then the monsters these policies were established to vanquish return and the polices get reinstated once the current generation has had a taste of what happens without them. But that route is a lot harder and bloodier than learning from history.
This depends on is being cancelled. It's not the left that cancelled Kapaernick or the artists formerly known as the Dixie Chicks or howled with rage that the Supreme Court - with the exception of three conservative justices - ruled their longstanding practice of cancelling gay people unconstitutional.
Kaepernick kneeling during the pledge of allegiance can only parse as an antiracist gesture if the thing being disrespected (flag/country) is presumed to be intrinsically racist, i.e. it's accusing the whole country of racism. There are a lot of non-racist patriots who would take offense to that. The answer still shouldn't be censorship, but calling any opposition racism is accepting the very premise that the people opposed to the gesture are opposing it over.
Moreover, the implication that everyone who has been canceled was a racist is contrary to evidence unless you're making some heavy tribalist assumptions about anything vaguely conservative automatically implying racism.
And you're still not addressing the original point, which was that the left going around canceling people over speech is inconsistent with freedom of speech. Nothing anyone on the right does can make that untrue.
Libertarians making money.
Gab looks like a version of Facebook that's mostly populated by Christian conservatives. Parler looks like a version of twitter that's mostly populated (or was, before) by Christian conservatives with a small side of some conspiracy theories.
Christian conservatives don't subscribe to the beliefs you think they do.
After rallying against liberals being "snowflakes" and needing "safe-spaces", Parler ironically enough ended up being just that for the extreme right.
I have seen discussions there from people on both sides of the political spectrum where neither side was downvoted to oblivion, which is more than you can say for most of Reddit.
That's the point: they complain about everyone else except when it happens to them, and then suddenly it's totally just and necessary. As though the reason women, gays, lesbians, transgender, black, mexican etc. communities don't have their own spaces for the exact reason that otherwise they would be brigaded by no end of people who felt just overly necessary to drop in and talk about how they think none of their problems are valid.
/r/conservative isn't ridiculed because it's moderated aggressively, it's ridiculed because it's moderated aggressively by people who continuously argue that moderation anywhere else is an assault on free speech and wholly unnecessary.
Truth isn't welcomed there. For instance, you will be banned for simply stating that Trump lost the election
In contrast, /r/politics claims to be about general politics but most content to the right of AOC/Bernie gets downvoted or deleted.
As Reddit has a user base that comes from the US less than 50%, this might have to do with the fact that the Overton window shifted so far to the right there that the opinions of AOC or Bernie would count as center-right pretty much everywhere else in the western world, with the Republicans being off the charts lunatic extremist right.
But that's not the only relevant dimension of policy:
Culture matters, and they are not remotely rightwing on culture.
The direction they want to move the country in matters, and they definitely don't want to move the country rightward either.
The centrist view, the average American, would be considered a leftist by conservatives. This is why they think they're getting brigaded everywhere. They are. Their beliefs are unpopular.
The only reason the US Republican party is viable while being so far right is structural voting advantages. That's why they've lost the popular vote almost every time for 30+ years. That's why 50% of senators are Republican when only ~43% of the populations votes R.
On the internet where these artificial advantages aren't present it's much more obvious that Republican policy is broadly unpopular, and conservative opinion is the minority. Or more accurately, the moderate left is actually the center, and the average Republican is substantially far right.
But I'll have to disagree, since the comment above me suggests that there are a significant number of non-American Reddit users who lean more left than the average American, skewing the upvoting patterns. I'd argue that there are a different set of "artificial advantages" on the internet, such as that.
And when I browsed r/politics during the 2016 and 2020 election seasons, it was clear that Bernie Sanders was the favored candidate by Redditors. However, more moderate politicians like Clinton and Biden actually won the nominations.
And the popular vote count is a reflection of the Electoral College process...if elections were actually decided on the popular vote, campaign strategies would be focused more on cities than rural areas shifting the results.
But it's also undeniable that the average American leans left. That's why Republicans lose the popular vote in both chambers of congress and the presidency nearly every election. Their positions are unpopular, that's why they get down voted on "mainstream" sites where the user base is large enough to revert to the mean.
And campaign focus outside of urban cores would mean that the average American is even farther left than they appear to be.
Biden is farther right than the average Democrat because he needed to be to win. The structural advantages to Conservatives means the Democratic party needs to run centrist candidates.
In comparison, the same advantages mean the Republican party can still win with extreme right wing candidates. For example, Trump was the first president that never hit 50% approval rating but it was still high enough for him to win and do okay during his second campaign.
If 2/3 of US internet users are left of conservatives, that's why they get downvoted to hell anywhere outside their safe spaces. IMO the crazy moderators on reddit are a result of the left lean, not the cause.
Reddit leaned a lot more right/libertarian before nearly all coservative subreddits were systematically banned under spez and Pao. Spez also enacted more subtle censorship like algorithmic tweaks to keep t_d out off the front page and eventually the creation of /r/popular to keep similarly "undesirable" subreddits from the front page.
The truth means nothing to those that wont listen. The Republican party is a far right monstrosity. The democrats in US are a right leaning party for all practical purposes. Hell, Biden said he would be fine running with a Republican VP.
I might have missed that obviously during my five minutes of browsing there, as a result, if they really call for murdering Jews, could you provide a link to such resource - calling to murder someone is a crime in the US, so such link would be a good evidence for prosecution.
Unfortunately you have to sign up to see comments, I wonder why...
The court documents (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-a...) from their case against Amazon contain other examples of hate speech.
I have no problem with platforms allowing any and all speech, since it actually just allows stupid speakers to beclown themselves.
Free speech is the most liberal idea there is - as Voltaire famously said, "I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Things should be said based on the inherent merit of what they say, not be said just because it's not literally illegal to say them. If the only reason you can find for justifying what you say is that nobody has made a law yet to stop you (and we do have laws to stop some things from being said), then perhaps you need to find a better thing to say.
You're comparing an entire polluted pool that is unfit to swim in with a single floating turd in the ocean.
For example, today's trending topics include the "cancellation" of Dr Seuss (with many tweets giving examples of why he should be cancelled in the author's opinion) and the use of the words "latinx" and "womxn" to avoid offending people by using gendered language.
Hell kpop shows up on the trending as often as leftist stuff but I don’t claim kpop controls Twitter.
You've gone from complaining that twitter is consumed by the left to complaining that the left is allowed on twitter at all.
> For example, today's trending topics include the "cancellation" of Dr Seuss (with many tweets giving examples of why he should be cancelled in the author's opinion) and the use of the words "latinx" and "womxn" to avoid offending people by using gendered language.
Right-wingers post about that stuff 10:1 compared to anyone on the left. You're posting about it now.
I'm not complaining about anything though - are you confusing posts from different HN users? I really don't care who uses Twitter or for what purpose. I'm pointing out that it's unlikely someone could use Twitter and be unaware of left-wing posts on the platform given that Twitter themselves amplify such content daily.
far left far right
<---------------------------------------->
[Overton Window]
perceived perceived
far left far right
far left center far right
<-------------------|-------------------->
[Western O.W.]
[US Overton W.]
[ Gab users* ]
[ Twitter users* ]
There aren't nearly enough leftist talking points on Twitter as it appears to your rightist brain, and there's plenty of homophobia, "feminism has gone too far", "it's okay to be white", worldwide anti-immigration sentiments, and (still!) Trump supporters. Maybe they're bots or whatever, but the talking points are there.
If a person thinks that perhaps, maybe, there's 2 genders and not 700+, they should be prevented from civic discourse? That maybe we should not be providing chemical treatments to toddlers for gender reassignment, that's hate? If they believe that math isn't actually racist, but is an objective way of making sense of reality, are they racist? How about people who criticize Islam and argue that it is a fundamentally violent ideology? That lockdowns and "scientific" COVID-19 recommendations were harmful because Florida had fewer deaths per capita than NY or CA
Today, merely speaking any of these positions gets a person called a "transphobe" or a racist or a science denier. In addition to not convincing anyone and unfairly slandering the speakers, it destroys our ability to think as a society.
Socially "acceptable" speech has never needed legal protection (in any society, liberal or authoritarian). It's the offensive things that need protection from the book burners.
If we look at racist hate speech, people literally lecture that people who happen to look like me are "born into not being human", say the lives of people like me don't matter. We are told we should not speak and yet that our silence is violence. Trainings for "diversity" across a wide range of institutions have started segregating along racial lines, and the list goes on. During the Grievance Studies hoax, for example, one of their papers was sent back because it was too sympathetic and not sociopathic enough. Said paper advocated making white students sit on the floor and putting them in chains as a learning experience.
Yet open racism is fine, because the target ethnic group and sexual orientation are acceptable to the activist class.
Likewise, people who get kicked out for "transphobia" will often not be people who hate transpeople in any proper sense, but have policy disagreements where there are no win-win solutions. Yet anything but being completely on board with the activist class's 100% no limits pro-trans policy agenda is "phobia". The claim holds up as well as wet paper.
How about gender affirming treatment for kids who cannot physically know what sexuality properly is because they haven't been through puberty? Someone's a bit off their gender role? Tomboy, nah, they're a boy, time to stuff them full of hormones. Concerns that this just might be insane are again, labeled hate.
Said cultists insist on mantras of trans(wo-)men are (wo-)men in an explicit denial of biology that the best of our medicine can't alter: We just craft a facade that eases dysphoria to care for our fellow human beings. As Buck Angel put it: "I use testosterone to masculinize myself so I feel more like me." He's routinely called a transphobe.
This is basically the biology equivalent of flat eartherism or young earth creationism, but not subscribing to the creed is stamped hate speech. The mantra wouldn't even be necessary if its claim was actually true. Hell, it's arguably even worse than flat eartherism, since a human can't at a glance confirm that the Earth is indeed round, but TWAW/TMAM asks us to baldly deny the input of our eyes in everyday life.
It's not one side that has gone insane: Good chunks of both are open lunatics. Q at least is thankfully fringe, but even they've managed to get representatives elected.
> How about gender affirming treatment for kids who cannot physically know what sexuality properly is because they haven't been through puberty? Someone's a bit off their gender role? Tomboy, nah, they're a boy, time to stuff them full of hormones. Concerns that this just might be insane are again, labeled hate.
Trans girls have horrible anxiety about going through puberty. It's not them being "a little off their gender role". It's a fundamental dread about being given an irreversible treatment of hormones that will change their voice and secondary sexual characteristics.
Puberty is far more irreversible than HRT. The percentage of people who detransition is tiny; far more people who transition are much happier for doing so. It is also incredibly difficult to actually get HRT. The therapy is beyond the reach of most children. It's a total boogieman that this is happening left and right and all of the children are getting stuffed full of synthetic hormones.
Please educate yourself more.
Anti-trans positions are up there with "gay people are going to sexually assault my children" or "being gay is disgusting 'cause I don't like thinking about anal sex". Complete and utter bullshit based on unfounded fears.
Non-degenerates know that long lasting liberty comes with responsibility, and that responsibility is moderation and correction.
The far right operates in degeneracy. They may fly the banner of freedom but they fly it alongside nazi flags so what do symbols and ideals even mean for them.
Generally the argumentation presented is a dogwhistle for fringe elements (nazis, other unpleasant people, etc). Sadly they are currently dominated by far-right ideologies (and ofc the inevitable sexual predators).
Free speech: I don't think America should engage in an open immigration policy for reasons X, Y, Z that disadvantage us in A, B, C ways.
Hate speech: BUILD THE WALL TO KEEP OUT THE RAPISTS.
If you can't see the difference then that is why will get banned from platforms that allow free speech but ban hate speech.
This is a perfect example of two major issues going on:
1) America is catering to the lowest common denominator of who is offended and therefore creating a race to the bottom for societal norms (i.e. you considering your example to be hate speech, but I don't...but society currently feels the need to make sure you feel comfortable in your safe place)
2) 95% of the platform discussion may be in the form of your "Free speech" example, but if there's any occurrence of your "Hate speech" example, the entire platform is labeled a "Hate speech" platform....and this feeds back into issue #1
I do agree with 1. America goes too far to cater for people having "safe spaces". This cuts both ways though though and I would say the American right go much further to create and enforce safe spaces where their views won't be challenged. (r/conservative and TD before that).
2. I don't think this is true at all. Reddit definitely has its share of hate speech and nonsense but it's not considered a hate speech platform. It's only when the overwhelming majority of content is hateful garbage that you get to that point. Gab/Parlor being the 2 main current examples.
To me your argument is like many others, trying to find a way to excuse hateful, racist, homophobic nonsense as "free speech" as if in some way this speech should be protected because it provides some value to society (it doesn't).
Many also argue it's a bias against conservatism but that isn't true either. Conservatism isn't meant to be any of those things and if they could drop all of that they might find people much more receptive to their ideas.
There are constructive ways to push conservative views, I myself would measure myself as a centrist. I see both sides of many arguments but I am definitely tired of the right wing rhetoric. Just because I think fiscal conservatism is a good idea and small-ish government can be a good thing in certain areas doesn't mean I should need to read/tolerate all the crap currently being pedled.
Parler and Gab certainly aren't free speech platforms, so curious what you're referring to here.
Usenet is a free speech platform to some extent, and nobody gives a shit. Parler and Gab censor lots (and lots and lots) of content, far more than legally required, they just leave racism, homophobia, transphobia and incitements to violence up specifically.
Liberals are being called racists and anti-democracy as a way of attacking and deplatforming anyone who disagrees with the leftist tribe. This isn't about values, it's about tribal allegiance.
If you actually believe that these people are far-right racists then there is a strong chance that you are being fooled by tribal manipulation.
The center and left in the US are normally not in favor of hate speech, while the right is more supportive of it.
What happens then is people who want to discuss hateful topics and post hateful speech can't easily do it on the current popular social media platforms, so they need alternatives. That's the market for Gab and Parler mostly.
At this moment, it happens that the far-right in the US has a very "hateful adjacent" messaging. They generally support and promote populist, nativist, collectivist authoritarian, and conspiracy-minded ideas. Those often overlap with hate of immigrants and non-white Christians, as well as hate of liberals and social democrats due to believing in their participation in demonic conspiracies. They also tend to suggest violent and authoritarian methods to get what they want, like killing their opposition or storming the capitol, and other forms of violent insurection. Thus they fall in the market category of Parler and Gab pretty strongly.
It's mostly the far-right aka radical right, the regular right in the US does not all prescribe to these and don't all have "hateful adjacents" messaging.
Also some more extremist current left movements also have "hateful adjacent" messaging, though maybe less so, when they do it's often targeted specifically at the far-right, most likely as a reactionary measure.
Also, there are reports of such left-leaning accounts being banned and censored on Parler and Gab, hard to say how true this is, but even if a rumor, it keeps the less radical right from trusting them. And so they are often considered to falsy upheld free speech.
The left is very supportive of hate speech, it just has to have the right target. There's abject, open racism against whites all day. Black people attacking Asian people is white supremacy nowadays.
I'm personally more centrist overall, but I've tried as much as I could to give an unbiased summary, though being unbiased in those cases is hard. I'm trying not to judge the behavior, just observe it.
One thing I have observed is that the current moderate left in the US does seem to align more with Canada/UK/France style of free speech, with a broader definition of what is considered hate speech and stronger enforcements against it. Where as the right seem more aligned with the traditional American view on it, where hate speech is limited only if it can be shown to have directly and immediately caused lawless action.
This seems to be the crux of the issue as well. With the big social media platforms available today, it has enabled hateful speech to have more reach at a wider scale than ever before. It also enabled not only Americans to reach others, but even non-Americans can promote and propagate hateful messaging in a targeted and strategic way. The question is what if anything should be done about this, could it lead to instability and divide and throw the country in turmoil, or maybe it's actually a good thing and will allow more voices to be heard and considered.
It's the age old trade off of free speech and restricted free speech. Where do you draw the line? What risks are there on either side of it?
And my observation has been the right leaning Americans seem to still consider that there should be no regulations on this, and everyone everywhere, even non Americans, should be allowed to freely share, promote, upvote, and target any message they want, even hateful, no matter the intent behind it, because upholding the right to speak up and against the government is more important and so we should stay as far as possible from threading water or any slippery slope.
And my observation is the left leaning Americans seem more cautious, and think some regulations might be needed, to make sure that no bad actor takes advantage of this, or that discourse doesn't rely purely on emotions and hate targeted reasonings. And that not doing so would actually bring more instability and chaos, and the risk of threading the line between restricted but still free speech and non free speech is worth it, or maybe an exagerated concern, where they don't think in practice it would be difficult to distinguish dissenting views from hateful ones or those with bad actors behind them.
It's liberal in the same way it would be liberal to have a party where you walk around naked and smear feces on each other.
Definitely a liberal party, but not one that most people want to participate in. Most people would rather have moderation where you're not allow to scream the N word at blacks. Which concentrates N word screamers and similar onto these free speech forums
For a non-American, could you explain how this is far right? Sounds pretty liberal.