darq

A massacre, or a genocide, is more than just “one’s” life ending. It is one’s own life, the lives of one’s loved ones, and the lives of one’s people.

I’d urge you to try and read my comments again.

But how can I hear “diverse opinion” if X opinions are banned/blocked/moderated in the first place?

There is no space where all opinions are welcome. It simply does not exist. Some opinions are going to force out others.

If you run a space where Nazi opinions are okay to speak, you can’t really expect to hear Jewish opinions. Or opinions of PoC or queer people or disabled people and so on and so on.

So most places do the calculations. You can ban this one view. And in return an entire spectrum of views becomes more welcome.

Bigotry is a painfully simple, painfully shallow, and painfully boring viewpoint. It is almost completely one-dimensional, simplifiable to the idea that the “other” is inferior or dangerous and is to be shunned or feared. It is a viewpoint that we all already know, one we have all already heard. Banning it loses us almost nothing, and in return we gain so, so many more valuable insights.

Is it the fault of the principle of free speech, or the legion of stupid people being allowed to talk freely?

I’m not talking about “the principal of free speech”. I’m pushing back on the foolish assertion that moderation leads to echo chambers for lazy and dull minds. When exactly the opposite is true.

I’m saying that if you want to hear diverse opinions, a free-for-all is a bad idea. Because that free-for-all leads to echo chambers.

You probably want restrictions because it would never apply to you. Denying you talking about stuff that doesn’t phase you, is easy.

No no, don’t make stupid assumptions about me so that you don’t have to confront my point.

What if that platform bans opinions that you happen to have?

Most of them do. Your assumptions are wrong.

Sure, if you point at 4chan or similar…free speech attracts shitnuggets and end up being an echo chamber. But that’s the fault of us humans being crap, and not free speech being inherently bad.

I never said free speech was inherently bad. Try responding to what I wrote, not what you imagined that I wrote.

I personally prefer spaces where everyone can voice any shit. Censorship is for lazy minds and a dull audience. IMHO.

I always find this take to be remarkably short-sighted.

Because if you actually want to hear diverse opinions, you have to cultivate a space where diverse people, with diverse experiences, feel free to speak.

Pretty much every space that tolerates open bigotry becomes deeply unpleasant for the targets of that bigotry. Which means those people tend to leave.

Which in turn means that those spaces soon turn into the dullest echo chamber, populated only by people unaffected the bigotry. Sure no views were censored. You just harass everybody different off the platform. The net effect is the same.

You can’t just block someone doxxing you. And it’s a lot different when it’s not one person, or even a handful of people, but thousands of people who are sincerely furious with you because of things they’ve convinced themselves that you have done.

A bare keyboard attached to a screen, that I could plug my phone (possibly running Phosh) and use it as a hardware for a laptop experience

Those exist!

They’re called “lapdocks”.

Who cares? Like genuinely who cares? It’s a chunky laptop. Big whoop.

(?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.

About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.

It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.

Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say. Good. Glad we agree.

So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?

Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.

Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

That’s not my argument.

I don’t thing parasitism is healthy for society. That’s why landlords shouldn’t exist.

The fact that we don’t have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.

That isn’t comparable, and you know it.

The farmer produces food. I am paying for the labour involved in creating the food I consume. The farmer works.

The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.

I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…

Extracting profit without working to create value is parasitism.

It does change things for me. It makes living expenses higher.

And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.

… and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.

So you know what you are saying is utter horsecrap, and you are deliberately being a disingenuous dickhead.

Yes, people are hating the game. That’s the entire point.

Except there really isn’t a choice. You pay rent or… What? Sleep on the street or in a car? Which is illegal in many places already.

“Just find a cheaper house” isn’t actually an option available to people who you know… Want to have a job. It’s just a glib thought-terminating cliche that doesn’t engage with the actual issue.

It literally is no problem if you already have assets to use as collateral. The problem is that most people don’t.

This is a misunderstanding though. People aren’t complaining about individuals who happen to be landlords being nasty. They’re making a systemic complaint about rent-seeking.

A landlord can be a perfectly polite and pleasant person. They’re still engaging in rent-seeking. And that’s the complaint.

Except nobody is saying that.

They’re saying landlording shouldn’t be possible. That the provision of shelter should be done by some other means.

Every political opinion has a reasoning and differences in political opinions are usually based on differences in the morals or ideals of people.

That is very vague. Because sometimes those “differences in the morals or ideals of people” are that certain demographics of people are inferior, dangerous, or otherwise shouldn’t exist in society. That isn’t something we should pretend is reasonable.

It’s also not true that every political opinion has strong reasoning behind it. Some people just do not live in the same reality that we do.

Refusing to debate a topic (aka refusing to hear the other side’s arguments) just leads no narrower-minded people. You cant have a reasonable opinion if you have only heard one side’s (your own) arguments.

But we HAVE heard them. We have heard them for decades. We have heard them over and over and over again until our ancestors had to fight multiple wars against them.

We have heard the racism and the sexism and the homophobia and the transphobia and every other little bigotry. Stop pretending we haven’t heard them out. We have.

And after decades of listening and trying to have these conversations people eventually say “enough”. That’s not being narrow-minded. It’s the opposite.

The more room you make for bigotry, the less room you make for people affected by that bigotry. And if one wants to hear diverse views, then one should listen to diverse people. Bigotry leads to echo chambers.

That is fortunate. Bigotry is sadly very popular in a lot of places at the moment.

Some “challenges” are completely without merit though. Conservatives like to “challenge” the human rights of women and minoritised groups. The rights of people to exist within society and pursue happiness are, to progressives, axiomatically true. These challenges aren’t something to be argued, they are something to be rejected as abominable.

If conservatives want to challenge tax policies or foreign relations or other such issues, sure! That’s a discussion we can and should have. But that’s not the same as challenging the ability for certain demographics to exist within society.

This is a bit of an unrealistic position, especially if trying to generalise past the boundaries of your friend group. Your friends trust you, so by all means, talk to them and try to educate them. But trying to change a complete stranger’s mind is almost impossible.

And many of the positions the left refuses to “debate” are that certain groups of people should not be able to exist within society. Like, the left isn’t refusing to debate tax policy, it’s always about bigotry.

And let’s just be perfectly blunt. The vast majority of conservatives screaming “groomer” at visibly LGBT+ people aren’t going to have their minds changed. You can’t educate someone who does not want to be educated. And demanding minorities stand in the firing-line and fruitlessly try to educate the people who hate them, sometimes to the point of hate-crimes, forever… You have to question the priorities of such a demand.

Sometimes caring for minorities means giving up on convincing hateful people.