>>393261>>But the point is, if you don't go out of your way to engage in retributive cancel culture, then you get cancelled, and they don't - even though they are hypocrites regardless.>And so are you.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or feel free to tell me how you think I'm being a hypocrite.>I've never seen you post political stuff on your YouTube channel, you mostly talk about uber and play political strategy games. The last one i saw you were trying to create a more liberal government to inspire more people to immigrate to beat the game mechanics.
I have 2600+ videos. They've been scattered in between, and the most recent one about China and censorship was deleted. But I will be posting explicitly political videos starting soon (pending a new camera).>Also, a few posts ago you were saying i have a ton of influence haha, so which is it?
You have influence, but you're less likely to be cancelled.>Putting words in my mouth, im not saying one is more important than the other, simply making a comparison with the assumption that they are equally important.
No; I don't think they're equally important.>>doesn't negate my concerns about a different issue>They are both amendments to the bill of rights, so they are comparable.
comparable, yes.>You have expressed opinions that you are pro second ammendment and dont think reatrictions should be put in place just because of misuses of the freedom, have you not?
I rarely talk about the second Amendment, so I think you probably have me confused with someone else. I am not a "shall not be infringed" = "zero restrictions" advocate. In large part, I don't care one way or the other.>>I do agree, but that doesn't mean I dismiss it.>Theres one right there.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.>>the direct impact is much smaller, but the cascading impacts are much wider.>Elaborate.
A murder has a massive impact on the immediate family, close relatives, the immediate community, and close friends. Unless the murder is politicized, it will have little impact outside this group, and life will go on, with no one's perceptions outside of this group being changed as a result. Restricting speech in a coordinated manner impacts the perceptions of everyone who would have otherwise come into contact with that speech, and those impacts will in turn impact the perceptions of anyone who would have come into contact via second order, and so on, and so on. As an example, when Facebook deletes a viral video of a liberal who says they will be voting for Trump (this just happened IRL), they do so because a lack of positive messaging impacts the perceptions of others, and removes the possibility of swaying others who might be on the fence. Removing positive messaging leaves negative messaging, and thereby sways votes. Whether you think this should
be the case or not in a perfect world is irrelevant, because this is the case in the real world.>>wrong, they ban people who offend either a) the platform/mods/staff or b) the vocal users>Wrong? So they don't ban people who offend the majority?
correct. they ban people who offend the wrong group(s).>>this is objectively false, unless by "people" you mean the ones doing the thing itself.>I dont understand what you mean by "the ones doing the thing itself". Rephrase or clarify, please.
i.e. if you offend a moderator, expect to be banned.>>this whole "let them build up the town square and then pull the rug out from under everyone they disagree with" by virtue of being a "private company" is disingenuous BS.>Is being disingenuous illegal? I dont think he was under oath.
Suddenly you don't care about principles. Can I believe anything you say to me if you aren't under oath?>If he wasnt under oath, then its free speech, and shouldn't we salute him for excercizing his rights?
the right to... lie to congress? sure, that's some next level free speech.>Or is it just the people who shit post "niggers need to die" that deserve our admiration and protection?
You don't have to admire something to protect it.>Agian, i dont see you fighting to lift rules banning doxxing, which we agree is also free speech, rules banning violent and racist rhetoric get criticism though.
because the "right" to dox people is not as important as the "right" of people to express opinions which are unambiguously legal? Because edge cases are less important than the general rule? because you ignored what I said previously about my take on doxxing?>It varies by jurisdiction.>https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2018/01/is-doxing-illegal.html
good to know.>>yes.>See >>393255
see >>393262>>>393255 The former.