So you accept that the Dope can restrict your ability to speak to that issue? Why aren’t you outraged at the SDMB?
I thought you didn’t believe in cancel culture? Ask @k9bfriender and he’ll tell you the guy wasn’t fired, so it doesn’t count and it’s nbd.
You didn’t really think only people you disagree with would be affected, did you?
So you actually don’t understand his point.
Greenwald started his career defending Nazis, and protested when the Brazilian government tried to censor a right-wing outlet that routinely insults him. He reported on the Vaza Jato - which helped the very left-wing PT - and also on the Hunter Biden laptop. So I’m pretty sure he does care about free speech.
Trump has proven that this statement is not correct.
I don’t, but you claim to. The fact that you completely gloss over so-called “cancel culture” when it’s targeting someone you disagree with, in your own cite, clarifies what you really object to.
Hmm. I wasn’t alive in the 70s, so obviously I don’t know what things were like then, but I do have the impression that things have got worse in the last 10 years. Do you think there have been no changes at all, or might there be cycles in popularity?
“You’ve heard?” Are “people saying” this, too?
But, have you not heard of businesses being boycotted for allowing unpopular flyers? If someone came by and wanted to put up a flyer for an upcoming pro-legalization rally, a view that I agree with, I would probably refuse, as that would probably lead to losing clientele.
If I put up such a flyer, would you like to come explain to my customers that if they decide to go somewhere else due to the views I have chosen to make public, that they are actually engaging in censorship, and that “true free speech” means that they are not allowed to take their patronage elsewhere?
And you dodged the question. Is my refusal to put up a flyer for an unpopular cause that I agree with like legalization, or one that I disagree with like a white supremist march, censorship? Yes or no, simple as that.
And it is this which is most revealing of intent. The Hunter Biden laptop is such an obvious lie and propaganda that I would suspect Project Veritas is behind it (due their history of ineptness). No serious free speech proponent would defend its inclusion in the public discourse. Free speech only works when people are honest actors arguing in good faith. Now some people might claim you can defeat lies with truth, and as an ideal that might be true, but here in the real world is not remotely true. Evidence for this abounds.
This is a good point.
A couple months ago, there was a fervent campaign to have Netflix stop showing the movie “Cuties” because of how it sexualized young girls. I don’t think Netflix took it down, but if it had? There is nothing about this action that would bother me. There were legitimate arguments against promoting this content. It was debated all over the internet.
I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Unless that’s your idea of True Free Speech.
And the point is is that he was “canceled” over his call to deplatform a POV. You and Greenwald are really talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
No, I really think that it’s just your impression that it has changed.
People often discover something, and since it is new to them, they think it is actually new.
It’s not just hers. This has become a major Republican stalking-horse over the past couple of decades, and their pursuit of trivialities under the guise of “cancel culture” is used to conceal their major assaults on free speech through means like defunding academic departments that engage in research they don’t like. I’d hold her blameless in falling for this shell game, except that her OP’s approach (and its primary cite) seem to further the game itself.
What’s funny is that I think the exact same thing. But we no doubt disagree quite strongly on what that higher calling should be.
I admit I don’t feel half so indignant when it targets someone who seems to be all in favour of cancelling, and there weren’t any actual consequences. But hey, I’ll add it to the list.
No, I don’t think so. Your business is not about informing people, and you have very little power. It’s when your business becomes the means by which ordinary people learn about things and share information - a virtual market square - that it becomes significant.
Greenwald used to have principles, at least by all appearances. But that’s changed. Now he goes on white nationalist TV with Tucker Carlson to attack liberals. Now he’s just driven by rage at progressives, at least by all appearances. He constantly defends Trump – somehow he’s been convinced that because these attacks against Trump come from liberals, they must be false.
He’s driven by grievance and nothing else.
But in any case, Greenwald is a very small part of this issue. It’s clear that this isn’t about free speech – it’s just about certain types of speech, and certain instances of speech. I suggest that you focus on those types and instances of speech that you think are being treated unfairly, since platforms have been picking and choosing what media to allow, promote, review, etc., for as long as media platforms have existed. There’s nothing new here except which instances and types of speech are affected.
Informing people and telling the truth are at the top of my list. What’s your idea of a higher calling?
So if you’re in favor of telling then truth, then you are in favor of removing (or at least identifying) obvious lies and propaganda? Not allowing the Hunter Biden laptop propaganda to be posted/tweeted/published was the right call, right?
Harm prevention. Reduction of violence. That kind of thing. You know - tangibles.
No. Report it and show the evidence that leads you to believe it’s not true. Otherwise it just looks like a coverup.