Agreed, as a society we need to increase our resilience to opinions we may find uncomfortable.
I don't know if you were implying that Twitch ought not remove this content, but I just feel like sometimes the conversation gets taken to an abstract space, the conclusions of which then get applied to concrete space e.g. Twitch. It's important to recognise the rights we give private companies to decide what they provide airtime to.
I believe this argument holds water on some level, when it regards a small private company, but it is much less compelling when that "private company" is Amazon (who owns Twitch), Google, Twitter, Facebook or another behemoth with hundreds of millions of users. At that point, it becomes a very chilling attack on free speech, which is why I think that many big tech platforms should be designated at common carriers.
What if the private company is Visa or Mastercard? What if it is your only ISP?
When the companies are generating revenue through selling advertisements, and the advertisers decide "yeah we actually don't want to buy a pre-roll on the stream where the guy is making racist comments", it's another level of difficulty to navigate. Should these companies be required to host someone's content at a loss, given that they have some way for advertisers to "block" certain content types from being associated with their brands?
It is simple enough to add flags to streams that enough people report as "offensive" and let advertisers choose which streams their advertisements appear on. Advertisers (and others) who insist that everyone that find offensive is completely banned off the platform should be given the bird and told to take a walk. I think one of the problems is that advertising has (like big tech) become an oligopoly, dominated by "the big four" ad agencies. It is one thing for a company that represents .001% of the ad market to pull their ads from a website or a platform because they find something offensive, and a massive conglomerate to pull 25% of all ads from a platform (let alone act in concert with the other 3 ad agencies who control the entire ad market). The reality is that far too many of our "markets" are controlled by far too many corporations, many of which act in concert and otherwise coordinate in ways that are legally questionable, at best. Unfortunately due to our largely corrupt government that is heavily influenced by corporate interests and regulatory agencies that are mostly staffed by a revolving door of industry cronies things are very unlikely to change.
The sea-lion cartoon has stuck around for a reason.
It can appear this way, on the internet, but it could be that the individuals asking the question are entertaining it for the first time.
I know this is what happened to me, with unrelated topics. You can’t reason with the mob. They aren’t interested.
When someone reaches the conclusion that a socially unacceptable thought is correct, the vast majority will try to stop thinking about any at all.
Eg. suggesting oppressed group struggling with validating their own existence and massive suicide rates coming from that struggle to entertain a though that validy is not there may not be what an educated mind would do.
Which no, we don't. We will continue to take efforts to prevent and mitigate a harmful person's ability to cause harm. This is obvious to any reasonable person but unfortunately not to the chronic thief. You cannot win over him with argument, only with unilateral action such as garnishing his bank accounts for restitution and making theft culturally unacceptable.
the channel in question is literally a bot that strings together semi-coherent sentences from chat gpt with little to no object permanence. there is no person or harmful intent to mitigate here, it is just a bunch of words in a blender.
FYI, certain prominent political leaders said they’d outlaw certain minorities and make the lives of people living hell.
Personally i am not fond of seeing friends and family suffer at the hand of fascists.
@Dang, since when is paraphrasing Popper and restating the statements of people without a sliver of modification or strawmans worth flagging?
Don't you think there is a problem with abuse here?
Misrepresenting positions and arguments to a rabid “fanbase” is not asking questions.
It’s time the charades stop and the fascists drop the pretences, oh wait their supreme leader has PUBLICLY said he will ensure that trans people will be outlawed.
No amount of science and evidence is ever enough for these people either.
Transsexualism is not a new thing and to claim it is is either wilfully ignorant when you act as a host and don’t do due diligence, or maliciously intentional.
I am not asking people to have correct opinions, i am asking that they listen to those who did the science and the research, i am asking that they talk to actual trans people about their experiences.
Perhaps asking for some empathy (not sympathy) as a fellow human is already too much.
- Wears a maga hat
- Supports forced pregnancies
- Is evangelical christian
- Is proudly unvaccinated
- Considers him or her self a "pureblood"
- Is proudly uneducated and complains about "overeducated" women.
- Complains about drag shows - which nobody forced them to go to - while not batting an eye for beauty pageants for children.
- Complains about HBO Max's The Last of Us showcasing a gay couple (but they obviously loooooove watching heterosexual "couples" on shows)
Anecdotes aren’t required for this.
I know that it makes perfect sense in your ideology and that use of this term is common there, but for the rest of us, it's a bit of a hard sell to connect the word "fascists" with a low-poly poorly-animated Jerry Seinfeld facsimile who emits strings generated by a language model, about thirty seconds of which happens to be politically incorrect, yet, all told, quite mild.
it's kind of on par with talking about "satanism" in the context of Dungeons & Dragons play—I can definitely see how that connection could be made, but doing so would require me to subscribe to an ideology that I simply don't subscribe to, so instead, repeated use of this term has caused it to become, in my mind, and likely the minds of many others, a sort of humorous non-sequitur.
In your overly condescending and infantilising response, you missed context from parent comment:
> there are actual Nazis out there who want to put people in ovens, so it's taboo to make jokes about how they may have a point.
> similar thing with trans people, you mention them and trolls come out of the woodwork saying they should kill themselves.
Now, you may be okay with a small segment of the population dying at the hands of definitely-not-fascists who have attempted to murder certain officials at their homes, but I do not subscribe to your morally deprived and bankrupt view of the world.
Anyway, what's the difference between Putin's regime, Iran, and GOP besides the religion? It's quite eerie to see how many parallels one may draw from GOP, Iran and Russia.
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-transgender-database-dr...
I was merely attempting to convey that use of the word "fascist" in a context such as this can and will be taken by many as extreme hyperbole bordering on abject nonsense, because I suspect that many people who still casually use this term don't realize that it has lost any weight or gravitas that it once had through sheer overuse, and as a result, use of the term elicits immediate dismissal for many.
also, to everyone else: isn't it curious how some issues such as this one cause people to go off about myriad completely unrelated political topics, wholly unprompted?
> Anyway, what's the difference between Putin's regime, Iran, and GOP besides the religion? It's quite eerie to see how many parallels one may draw from GOP, Iran and Russia.
what could any of this possibly have to do with language-model Seinfeld making a transgender joke?
I'll just uh.. reiterate my comment from above in hopes that there's some level of introspection possible here:
> The problem I'm seeing is that with some regularity, people are being designated as "intolerant" for simply asking questions, deviating slightly from the most up-to-date acceptable opinion, or just not keeping up with what is the correct opinion to have now. Applying nuance and assuming that others _might_ have good intentions isn't really in vogue
If you wish to ask questions, there are places where you can very much do so, like r/honesttransgender. You can read papers on the topic, you can read experiences, and you can pose questions in a manner that isn't antagonizing people.
If you wish to blame somebody for the "intolerance" towards the "just asking questions" rhetoric, there are plenty of "news" anchors that cause mass hysteria and purposefully misrepresent information to push their ideology.
Matt Walsh "just asked questions", while supporting, and condoning violence against trans people. Shapiro "Just asked questions", and so does Carson or whatever that guy's name is.
So now trans people have to justify their own existence as people and live in fear because of said people who "just ask questions".
You see, if you wish to learn, there is a time and place for it, antagonising people who genuinely fear for their life by using the same rhetoric the above people used to fuel a rabid and bloodthirsty base you are showing that you don't actually care about people, or at least that's the impression that you are giving.
Because the internet's been around for more than a minute and everyone knows you can't give people the benefit of the doubt on these platforms. If you genuinely wish to learn, there are plenty of socially acceptable ways to do so. It's like urinating - everybody does it, but everybody also knows there are places it's socially unacceptable to do it.