Zachary Amaranth said:
[
Yes, it's an echo chamber on the subject of accusing people of committing illegal acts in bad faith. This is quite possibly the most horrible thing ever. Or least. Yeah, probably the least.
You may have noticed it's not the anti-gays who are being warned, it's the anti-gays-who-make-tacit-allegations-of-child-molestation who are being warned. And if that's the position you are complaining about not being professed here, all I can really say is "good."
Love speech, hate speech, positive speech, negative speech, it's all supposed to be protected.
Actually, hate speech isn't "supposed to be" protected. We also have numerous other restrictions, including defamation.
But, of course, this is a moot point because this is a privately run website that can set its own rules for entry, as you know. They could set a rule in effect tomorrow that prevented us from saying "I like pie" and it wouldn't violate your rights to free speech. I mean, people could complain about it (though really, who would stand up for a pie-loving lifestyle?), but in the end, that's their determination.
Pretending this is about free speech may make you feel more noble in your struggle, but it's not even remotely true. Free speech in no way insulates you from someone saying you have to get off their property.
You know, one thing that kind of gets me on this site is how a lot of people jump into ongoing conversations without bothering to read what was already said. I believe I already covered this with Vault101.
I never claimed I was protected by Free Speech here, indeed I've commented numerous times, through many threads, that as a private site The Escapist, and other private platforms, have the right to engage in censorship. I've also commented, that it's because the laws were designed at a time when modern technology and communications were never envisioned. It was believed only a government could wield the power to censor people on a large scale or control free speech. One group of people being able to silence others, especially on social matters or those related to politics, is anathema to everything the country and the spirit of such laws stands for. On a lot of levels the idea of private citizens wielding over the speech rights of other citizens than officials elected by the people is ridiculous. The government wasn't supposed to have this kind of power, never mind some website. For the moment though, you are correct, which is why I talk about the issue, make issue of the abuses, and push for reforms.
I actually find it both sad and ridiculous when I see liberals start screaming about "consequences for speech" when decades ago when liberals happened to be more of a minority "fighting against the establishment" this was one of the big things they opposed in principle and more or less won. Of course now that your seeing the left wing control the media and a lot of the platforms they have become worse than the people they were criticizing.
Let me be brutally honest, if there are "consequences" for free speech then it's not free speech. In England for example you could also have said anything you wanted if you were willing to face the consequences too.
As far as the rest goes, screaming about the inherent unquestionable justice of social liberalism and how wrong it is to criticize groups of people or have different beliefs about them from you is just another socio-political position, not anything else. Censorship is being used to silence those that disagree, because there are of course so many of them, and being able to shut down the other side is a big step towards political control and bringing your ideals into society. There is nothing inherently righteous about either of our positions, we simply disagree on some very big matters, the major difference is that your saying you have the right to censor people that disagree with you. I'm sure the Redcoats felt the same way about colonial propaganda. Sure it wasn't a social issue, but it was just as important and all encompassing to them at the time as any major issues are to the people at the time when it's relevant.
Face it, you might disagree with me and find what I say is repugnant, but what is going on is morally and ethically wrong. What's more coming from liberals who fought the battles they did to get this far it's also totally hypocritical, representing arguments about the right of everyone to speak, until a degree of power is achieved and it becomes inconvenient.
Given that you are dealing with major social issues with millions and millions of people on either side, all with their own little variations on whatever ideal they signed up with, there is no way to justify this simply by the numbers. Once the sides get big enough it's not crackpotism or some insane person ranting.... and let's be blunt at the end of the day the reason for the censorship is because this is a nasty level through all levels of society and being able to control information and lock out the other side represents an incredibly powerful advantage in eventually winning. The thing is that in the US things are intended to change slowly, and what your supposed to do is convince people like me that you are right in great enough numbers to succeed within the system without causing major tensions throughout society, if you can't, you hope you can sway things generationally. Right now the left wing wants everything right now, so it's been ignoring the rules, principles, and system, just like every other group of tyrants (who almost always start out idealistically). The sad thing is people rarely see that the pendulum swings back, and everything done out of self-declared righteousness now will come back on you later.
NOTE: I've been online quite a while. I'll be offline for a while, and not sure when I'll be able to post regularly. RL calls. I was mostly on while I was not feeling well.
