Twitter

[JohnRoberts]

I’ve tried. I even edited. He has not. He insists on analyzing me to help putting me in a box and prefers to thinks he’s the expert because he did stay at a Holiday Inn last night and wants to know if I did. When I finally decide to start pushing back on the personal-side, just a tiny bit, that’s when you say something?

that includes don't get personal with me....

everybody take a time out...

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Asking questions about common life experiences (e.g., jury duty) is now offensive. Trying to understand how someone else reaches certain conclusions is off-limits. Mild rebukes are major attacks. What a crazy world.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So maybe ask less personal questions...

People are easily upset and this is likely to get worse for the next month or so...

we are all more alike than different.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

So maybe ask less personal questions...

Why bother interacting with a person. Might as well chat with an AI bot.

People are easily upset and this is likely to get worse for the next month or so...

Self-control. I'm not going to be responsible for someone else's overly sensitive feelings.

we are all more alike than different.

In many ways, yes. In other ways, hardly at all.

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

People are easily upset and this is likely to get worse for the next month or so...

Self-control. I'm not going to be responsible for someone else's overly sensitive feelings.

Either of these pointed my way?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Either of these pointed my way?

I would say NO...

AP looks like he is responding to my comments... (asking him to lighten up).

I wish you guys would chill, I have better things to do with my time than herd cats on the WWW.

JR

 

[boji]

Why bother.

Indeed the rub.
If we've decided to mistrust each other in advance of each other's arguments, no amount of evidence or rhetorical strategy is going to make for fulfilling conversation. We all know persuasion is nearly impossible when (subconsciously or not) we reply as though our opponents don't have our best interests in mind. I've been trying to proofread for this lately, as it seems to help reduce my tendency to doom scroll / doom-post.

 

[Recording Engineer]

This is why I usually try to be as vague as possible and try not to use you comments as much possible, but all that didn’t seem to have any consideration and where we’re at when I very mildly pushed back the tiniest bit.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Who's side are you on , the terminators or the people ?

If you're asking, I'm on the side of individual liberty and personal responsibility. I'm against tyrants, be they oligarchs, bureaucrats, or supporters of the Nanny State.

the political illegiance thing is only a ruse, to keep us fighting amoungst ourselves , the real long game agenda keeps going no matter whos in power

Which is why I've never belonged to a party and feel free to vote for candidates who are 1) more supportive of individual liberty than their opponents and 2) capable of actually winning their election. Pragmatism and realism trump naive ideology all day, every day.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

This is why I usually try to be as vague as possible and try not to use you comments as much possible, but all that didn’t seem to have any consideration and where we’re at when I very mildly pushed back the tiniest bit.

What is the point of a discussion forum if we can't speak human to human (flaws and all)? What purpose is served by being vague and obtuse?

"Words can be meaningless. If they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusions can be drawn."
--R. Feynman

 

[Recording Engineer]

What is the point of a discussion forum if we can't speak human to human (flaws and all)? What purpose is served by being vague and obtuse?

"Words can be meaningless. If they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusions can be drawn."
--R. Feynman

I understand your sentiment and agree. Still, I’ve gotten my points across no problem. Some people just sometimes choose to ignore them; probably for various reasons. So, as usual, I see both sides. Apparently, life would be so much easier if I didn’t? Ah to be blissfully naive… Ha!

 

[JohnRoberts]

What is the point of discussion?

IMO it's not about convincing other people that our ideas are superior or more correct than theirs, it is about learning what other people think so we can better understand them. Life should not be a never ending argument.

Repeating myself, for the next few weeks there will be a lot of political persuasion going on across the WWW, so brace for that.

Be well and enjoy a peaceful sunday, at least peaceful for most of us.

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

So this Kanye and Twitter suspension thing? Is this a free speech thing or a company deciding to refuse service for hate speech? Both?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

So this Kanye and Twitter suspension thing? Is this a free speech thing or a company deciding to refuse service for hate speech? Both?

Twitter is an American Company. Mr. West is an American citizen. In the US we thankfully do not have "hate speech" laws. While it may offend some or many, speech should not be limited because of it. Libel, slander, and incitement to violence are the only exceptions and even those limitations should be held to strict standards so as not to be abused.

Twitter, being a major platform, one of a very few "public square" social media outlets, has no business editing legal speech, IMO. If they do, they are a publisher and must be treated as such. There is not, and should not ever be, a right to not be offended in a free society. If you don't like what someone else says, you can argue with them or simply ignore them. You cannot silence them simply because your feelings were hurt.

 

[cyrano]

In the US we thankfully do not have "hate speech" laws.

Yes you do. Try saying something that doesn't please the Jewish lobby, for instance.

 

[Recording Engineer]

I agree on where you’re coming from. On the other hand, what about a business’ right of refusing service to anyone they choose, should it not violate any protected rights? Even then, there are more state or localized laws that allow skirting of those rights. How does this free speech / business line support work one way but not the other with a business refusing to make same-sex marriage cakes? Because it’s a public square? How is it a public square when it’s a company making profit?

What makes Twitter any different than moderators here having power to boot anyone off the platform they deem are not playing by the posted rules, that everyone agrees to when they sign up?

 

[Matador]

Is this a free speech thing or a company deciding to refuse service for hate speech? Both?

When people crow about "free speech", you can substitute "free-from-consequences speech" nearly every time, as the two are often conflated together. One has the right (with few exceptions) to say whatever they want to whomever they want, but they aren't free from the consequences of that speech.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I agree on where you’re coming from. On the other hand, what about a business’ right of refusing service to anyone they choose, should it not violate any protected rights? Even then, there are more state or localized laws that allow skirting of those rights. How does this free speech / business line support work one way but not the other with a business refusing to make same-sex marriage cakes?

Because a small private business is not "a platform" with near monopolistic control that has largely superceded other traditional means of interaction between people.

Because it’s a public square? How is it a public square when it’s a company making profit?

Profit isn't the determining factor. The combination of huge near monopolistic scale in exchange for immunity from normal publisher consequences are the issues. A cake baker has plenty of competition. Refusing service does no real harm.

What makes Twitter any different than moderators here having power to boot anyone off the platform they deem are not playing by the posted rules, that everyone agrees to when they sign up?

Do small hobby forum sites have monopolistic control over discussion of the particular hobby? No. They are not subject to the same laws as the huge social media platforms. Now if some company were to slowly acquire all such hobby forum sites (ahem) then maybe there would be an argument to be made.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

When people crow about "free speech", you can substitute "free-from-consequences speech" nearly every time, as the two are often conflated together.

When someone argues for the reduction of free speech you can guarantee they aren't a liberal, but an authoritarian.

One has the right (with few exceptions) to say whatever they want to whomever they want, but they aren't free from the consequences of that speech.

Except that the consequence cannot include the termination of free speech rights (or any other right) unless the person is found guilty of felony crimes. This is the problem with the new left. They think they can dictate any "consequences" they see fit to people who refuse to abide by their made up rules. Cancel culture is one result of this way of thinking. It can get much worse if you bother to look at relatively recent history (Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Myanmar, most former Eastern Bloc nations, etc.).

 

[Recording Engineer]

Because a small private business is not "a platform" with near monopolistic control that has largely superceded other traditional means of interaction between people.


Profit isn't the determining factor. The combination of huge near monopolistic scale in exchange for immunity from normal publisher consequences are the issues. A cake baker has plenty of competition. Refusing service does no real harm.


Do small hobby forum sites have monopolistic control over discussion of the particular hobby? No. They are not subject to the same laws as the huge social media platforms. Now if some company were to slowly acquire all such hobby forum sites (ahem) then maybe there would be an argument to be made.

Got it. So it’s not really a public square thing (government owned), it’s a monopoly thing? Is it really a monopoly by legal definition? There are solutions if it is. So it’s not a free speech thing with monopoly taken out of the equation?