Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[Dennisch]

Here's a slightly different take on the Sarah Jeong "controversy".

Come to think of it, isn't her apology worthy of a standing ovation?

That's the same message as is posted by the NYT in the article I linked. Apologise and keep your job at the NYT.

Or when your excuse isn't good enough, perhaps not

And as for the ballplayer, we can probably bombard each other with examples of this discussion. The fact remains that social media holds double standards when it comes to moderating messages. As I'm on my phone and it's a pita to work the keyboard with my fat fingers, as soon as I'm back on my laptop, I will search those pictures of the double standards.

 

[TexRex]

The fact remains that social media holds double standards when it comes to moderating messages.

The question remains; is it a simple matter of bias?

On paper, Alex Jones and Mike Cernovich appear to be nearly the same person and yet Cernovich wasn't punted from social media like Jones was. What gives?

 

[SagarisGTB]

That's the same message as is posted by the NYT in the article I linked. Apologise and keep your job at the NYT.

Or when your excuse isn't good enough, perhaps not

So why not apologize? Jeong apologized and promised to never do it again, and she got to keep the job. Norton was defensive and didn't apologize, and she lost the job. Do you not see the difference?

The same applies to the three baseball players who had old racist and homophobic tweets unearthed. They apologized, only got sensitivity training as "punishment", and the "mainstream left" (for lack of a better term) was/is fine with that.

Gunn's situation was a bit different as @TexRex pointed out, but even then, it was the far right that uncovered the tweets and a lot of the "mainstream left" defended him and bemoaned him getting fired, so it doesn't serve your point either.

I don't think these examples contribute to the point you are trying to make.

edit: clarifications and grammar

 

[Mr Tree]

Who gets to decide whose views are abhorrent and whose aren't?

The owner of the platform you're using. Be it facebook, twitter, any other form of social media or the university or the organiser of the venue you're trying to give a speech at.

I suspect some members of neoliberal authoritarian (i.e. fascist) tendencies when they grandly announce social media should practice censorship in catering to the neoliberal tastes of ownership like Zuckerberg and a loud neoliberal fanbase. This only contributes to our problems of extreme polarization. What is needed is open dialogue leading to eventual reconciliation and convergence somewhere near the center. Remember, if it comes to civil war, it is the conservatives who have the guns.

I agree open diagolog is what is important.
But open dialog is only possible when we are trying to have a conversation. Something Alex doesn't do. All he wants is to spew is bs and then muddy the water by claiminh every rebuttal you have is a cover up for the cobspiracy.

This is one of the things I've been thinking about lately. We consider a conversation as the best way to try have a peacefull exchange of opinions and or facts. But I'm starting to think this is only usefull when both sides will listen to each other and actually adress the other sides concerns something Alex jones doesn't unless he starts using a new consipracy to just talk away any rebutal.

So in that case is it a matter of left or right is it a slippery slope to be ok with those people not being given a platform?
Just in case someone is wondering, I think the same thing of people dismissing any idea due to the person bringing up that idea is male and/or white or any other form of discrimination.