Silencing Opposing Speech

unsung said:

There is no need to be an ass.

I actually didn't qualify anything, I did ask for clarification.

No private company should be subsidized by taxpayers.

Clear enough?

unsung said:

Case in point.

I didn't say anything about the First Amendment and the fight against govt.

Yeah, a private company can decide what is on its platform, but it doesn't change the fact that anything right of Elizabeth Warren is often deleted.

And not one of you even bothered to have a discussion, instead you all go mob style to discredit and silence instead of attempting any meaningful conversation.

No surprise though.  The alt-left are the real fascists.

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

There is no need to be an ass.

I actually didn't qualify anything, I did ask for clarification.

No private company should be subsidized by taxpayers.

Clear enough?

I wasn’t the one not understanding you but whatever. So you’re back to your original position of no subsidies. Does that include Israel?

And yes, I realize Israel is not a private company but since you’ve eliminated every private business, I figured we’d move on to foreign assistance. So?

Of course.

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Unless he says something false about an individual or makes threats on YouTube, I'd have to say a ban is not a good idea.  But who watches that creep anyway?  If he were ignored, he would go away.  Just don't  watch dumb shit. 

Brian,
Not sure why, but I found your comment fascinating. I was reading a book recently that proposed that businesses looking to innovate operate on a “meritocracy of thought” (a term I immediately loved). Your comment struck a chord where it feels like you’re suggesting that should be applied in society, and I’d tend to agree (and forgive me if I misread it).

It’s our right and responsibility to update thinking in the citizenry. Unfortunately, an abundance of ignorance, ego, and uneducated/miseducated people make this kind of “societal oversight” necessity. If those traits were diminished, people wouldn’t need the explicit conversation to make up their own minds on what is true and what holds value vs. the opposite. I still feel at the end of the day, education and the ability to participate in logical debate to opine based on that logic are the missing ingredients to combat Alex Jones. A societal focus on logic-based debating remove divisiveness by exposing people to varying opinions and where they come from (which promotes empathy), and would result in a wider acceptable spectrum of thoughts, I feel.

unsung said:

Case in point.

I didn't say anything about the First Amendment and the fight against govt.

Yeah, a private company can decide what is on its platform, but it doesn't change the fact that anything right of Elizabeth Warren is often deleted.

And not one of you even bothered to have a discussion, instead you all go mob style to discredit and silence instead of attempting any meaningful conversation.

No surprise though.  The alt-left are the real fascists.

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Case in point.

I didn't say anything about the First Amendment and the fight against govt.

Yeah, a private company can decide what is on its platform, but it doesn't change the fact that anything right of Elizabeth Warren is often deleted.

And not one of you even bothered to have a discussion, instead you all go mob style to discredit and silence instead of attempting any meaningful conversation.

No surprise though.  The alt-left are the real fascists.

silencing someone often has the adverse affect anyway. it can only embolden his supporters and strengthen their resolve and justify their thought processes. let someone have their say (as long as its legal), and don't give them a reason to be vindicated in their views. 

he probably secretly would love to be banned. he'd make headlines all over the country. his ratings would skyrocket, at least in the short term. 

they aren't fascists. they are sick and tired of people like alex jones. but censoring/silencing him would be a mistake. 

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Unless he says something false about an individual or makes threats on YouTube, I'd have to say a ban is not a good idea.  But who watches that creep anyway?  If he were ignored, he would go away.  Just don't  watch dumb shit. 

Brian,
Not sure why, but I found your comment fascinating. I was reading a book recently that proposed that businesses looking to innovate operate on a “meritocracy of thought” (a term I immediately loved). Your comment struck a chord where it feels like you’re suggesting that should be applied in society, and I’d tend to agree (and forgive me if I misread it).

It’s our right and responsibility to update thinking in the citizenry. Unfortunately, an abundance of ignorance, ego, and uneducated/miseducated people make this kind of “societal oversight” necessity. If those traits were diminished, people wouldn’t need the explicit conversation to make up their own minds on what is true and what holds value vs. the opposite. I still feel at the end of the day, education and the ability to participate in logical debate to opine based on that logic are the missing ingredients to combat Alex Jones. A societal focus on logic-based debating remove divisiveness by exposing people to varying opinions and where they come from (which promotes empathy), and would result in a wider acceptable spectrum of thoughts, I feel.

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

brianlux said:

Unless he says something false about an individual or makes threats on YouTube, I'd have to say a ban is not a good idea.  But who watches that creep anyway?  If he were ignored, he would go away.  Just don't  watch dumb shit. 

Brian,
Not sure why, but I found your comment fascinating. I was reading a book recently that proposed that businesses looking to innovate operate on a “meritocracy of thought” (a term I immediately loved). Your comment struck a chord where it feels like you’re suggesting that should be applied in society, and I’d tend to agree (and forgive me if I misread it).

It’s our right and responsibility to update thinking in the citizenry. Unfortunately, an abundance of ignorance, ego, and uneducated/miseducated people make this kind of “societal oversight” necessity. If those traits were diminished, people wouldn’t need the explicit conversation to make up their own minds on what is true and what holds value vs. the opposite. I still feel at the end of the day, education and the ability to participate in logical debate to opine based on that logic are the missing ingredients to combat Alex Jones. A societal focus on logic-based debating remove divisiveness by exposing people to varying opinions and where they come from (which promotes empathy), and would result in a wider acceptable spectrum of thoughts, I feel.

what you say sounds good, in an ideal world.

in the US. now , kids are taught to take standardized tests. very little by way of critical thinking seems shown in schools because of that.  this goes back 30 years although the testing has increased since. so acritical piece is missing in your premise, critical thought. we are a lazy people on the whole, its easier to jump to conclusions and base judgement on emotion rather than thoughful consideration.

as always , I appreciate your contributions here.

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Well I’m glad he hasn’t mentioned my name or business because Alex and I have had our share of issues.  I threw a stack of his infowars mags onto the hood of his pickup and exchanged vulgarities and middle fingers with him at 5am several years ago after he kept dropping his shitty propaganda off at my restaurant even after I told him we didn’t want it.  He still comes in and acts like it never happened, but I haven’t seen him the last few months