And then there is heavy handedness where satire can’t be distinguished from the real thing.
1 Like
I’m so tired of being lectured on building bridges and threatened with the loss of would-be allies.
I’ve been around the block enough times to know that at the end of the day, the people focusing on identies as limitations in political discussions or “mindful” messaging aren’t interested in changing things because they don’t agree with the message in the first place.
Edit: missing words
18 Likes
I’m going to venture that although the people who have expressed prejudiced words against me for what I am were not actual nazis in any way, shape or form.
1 Like
Same here; if someone can be ‘lost’ based on such supercilious bullshit, then they were never a true ally in the first place.
If doing the right thing is in any way ‘conditional’ for someone, then they are being opportunistic, not altruistic.
14 Likes
In this particular case the law is not the problem, Twitter and its bots are.
Or maybe it’s just bad satire.
… and lost, after healthy and lively public debates in the courtroom. How’s that bad?
4 Likes
But it is.
-
They wouldn’t have said bots with out the law.
-
The bots are overzealous because they don’t want to risk a multi-Million Euro fine.
Though to be clear, I am 100% for self policing on private sites. Legal rights of free speech from government intrusion, doesn’t mean private sites don’t have the right to remove unwanted speech based on their Terms of Use. Twitter SHOULD clean up it’s shit.
2 Likes
You can’t blame the law if a private company don’t want to put the means and efforts to enforce it properly in my opinion. Because they can deal with this shit, they just don’t want to pay humans to do it.
About self policing, I agree. Social media platforms on the internet like twitter don’t want to deal with the bad part of being a media.
1 Like
Yes you can, because even with people at the helm, you are going to be overzealous to prevent possible fines. It behooves you to nix everything that might be an issue, because it costs NOTHING to do so, and lost of money if it turns our the government thinks what you OKed violated the law.
1 Like
They ain’t no ally of mine. Allies support us, not feed us conformist bullshit. “Moderates” are just as bad as reactionaries; both deny us agency and justice.
And loli can take his What abouuuut meee whining and shove it. He has limited perspective on the issues and lived experiences. Why the FUCK should people listen to him when attempting to redress the institutional wrongs of society?
(Only conservatives deal in absolutes)
7 Likes
Indeed.
Moreover, hierarchy of speech is integral to oppression.
If those in positions of power are allowed to dictate who gets to speak and which language is appropriate, they will continue to elevate and impose their own perspectives onto marginalized people.
Advocates must speak explicitly, define the terms, take the lead, and challenge the existing worldview that validates the powerful and erases the oppressed. You cannot further a cause by reimposing the very things that we are trying to dismantle. Asking us to do it in the name of building bridges is ridiculous and damn insulting.
Attacks on identity politics are identity politics aimed at recentering white straight enabled male perspectives-aka the status quo.
10 Likes
Therein lies the irony; to people of privilege, identity ‘shouldn’t’ matter, unless it’s the only identity that really matters to them - theirs.
10 Likes
9 Likes
4 Likes
Yep, you got me, not literally all anti-semites or racists identify as National Socialists, that’s the whole point of the argument, wrap it up people.
I was actually going to edit that to say, “And this is not stating that everyone who expresses racist views is literally a nazi,” but figured, nah, nobody would be that worthlessly pedantic. Guess I was wrong.
5 Likes
It’s called a chilling effect.
The Catholics have sued Charlie Henson 14 times, and, as far as I know, lost all of them. That still means Charlie Hebdo had to hire lawyers and defend themselves in court every time, for exercising their rights to free speech, because some religious extremists had a law they could use as a backdoor blasphemy law.
Any law that could ever force someone to defend themselves in court for mocking or ridiculing someone’s religion is antithetical to free speech and separation of church and state.
The very fact that anyone would try to sue them over blasphemy shows that said mocking is still necessary.
1 Like
I don’t agree.
The law is not responsible for incompetence at the implementation level, of either the coders or those who commit to lazy policy at Twitter.
1 Like
And yet I don’t see much mocking of this nature in American media (except maybe in South Park). There’s a tradition of restraint in the USA that may be even more hampering than those laws.
1 Like
Whereas in Oz, we have anti-villification laws that include religion, and yet we also have things like these:
4 Likes
In the US, they don’t have the authority to say we can’t blaspheme, so we don’t have to do it in order to contest that authority.
If I wanted to work on making the top google hits for the world’s two biggest religions be a porno/comedy in which their prophets swap witty repartee and crass religious jokes while having steamy man-on-man sex, I could, so I don’t have to do it.
