Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

FEATURED Elon Musk Purchases Twitter for $41.39 billion, Elon becomes first person ever to lose $200 Billion Dollars

test
BlackRain said:
I never denied that there's non racist things that have gotten banned. I'm just saying your all or nothing approach actually doesn't address the issue because it's ignoring that all things aren't actually created equal in terms of what's offensive or ban worthy and what isn't. So to say someone has to be 100% for or against censorship or else they're being hypocritical is intentionally distorting the argument. It's leaving out the details of certain shit that genuinely shouldn't be given a public platform. It also would leave you defending the right to produce and put out some pretty out there things because according to your pov theres no middle ground. To say someone is a hypocrite because they don't think someone should be able to publicly shout certain bigoted or harmful views is a wild leap to take
Click to expand...
The middle ground is ever changing, fluid, and usually determined by who is in control.

People who agree with that middle ground rarely find fault when those they disagree with are censored.

If the literal exact thing happens to them they're a sore ass about it.

That's all I'm saying.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
The middle ground is ever changing, fluid, and usually determined by who is in control.

People who agree with that middle ground rarely find fault when those they disagree with are censored.

If the literal exact thing happens to them they're a sore ass about it.

That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and that's never going to change because that's how human beings are in general. They tend to support shit they like and not support shit they don't like. What I'm saying is an all or nothing approach isn't a good idea and to say someone has to be 100% for or against censorship lest they be deemed a hypocrite, as if holding conflicting views is some new phenomenon, does far more harm than good. And would further push those already on the edge where society gives no fucks about them even further away.
 
BlackRain said:
I get what you're saying and that's never going to change because that's how human beings are in general. They tend to support shit they like and not support shit they don't like. What I'm saying is an all or nothing approach isn't a good idea and to say someone has to be 100% for or against censorship lest they be deemed a hypocrite, as if holding conflicting views is some new phenomenon, does far more harm than good. And would further push those already on the edge where society gives no fucks about them even further away.
Click to expand...
I feel u but it's not about holding conflicting views. Ofc that's gonna happen. It's the being all for suppression of it only when it works your way that I'm talking about.

I was going off dude post where his grey area was defined as right wing saying "out right false or close to hate speech"

As if that's solely a right wing thing. Do we care when non right wing say outright false or "almost" hate speech shit? Cuz if u don't, then yes you're a hypocrite.

That definition is also open to interpretation in certain instances so it's usually only enforced with the bias baked in.

Unless we talking something straight up criminal in which case yes I do have a grey area so you're right in that regard.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
Again, consistency.

*Musk tries to buy Twitter*
View attachment 818116


*Vanguard swoops in to save the day*
View attachment 818118




And yet
View attachment 818119



U can't make this dumb shit up
Click to expand...

Playing right in everyone's face but "Elon musk wants to buy twitter" like so? Outside of if there's any possible potential for me to make money off it I don't care.

But who are these motherfuckers buying everything and why is everyone just sitting back watching like some fucking npc's?!?!
 
ChicagoFigure said:
I feel u but it's not about holding conflicting views. Ofc that's gonna happen. It's the being all for suppression of it only when it works your way that I'm talking about.

I was going off dude post where his grey area was defined as right wing saying "out right false or close to hate speech"

As if that's solely a right wing thing. Do we care when non right wing say outright false or "almost" hate speech shit? Cuz if u don't, then yes you're a hypocrite.

That definition is also open to interpretation in certain instances so it's usually only enforced with the bias baked in.

Unless we talking something straight up criminal in which case yes I do have a grey area so you're right in that regard.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking criminal things or right/left politics but certain things that we as a society have all just kind of mutually agreed that the shit is foul and shouldn't be given a platform to be promoted. An all or nothing attitude about what can or can't be said is how history literally gets rewritten to be false. For instance there was a book released to Texas public schools that referred to slaves as "workers" and said they were basically volunteering their "services". Once the news spread that book was pulled. Now that's not a criminal act but it does violate a certain agreement that society has made to at the very least a base level teach kids that slavery is wrong. But going by your all or nothing stance that book should be allowed to be used in schools because if you ban that book and pull it but don't ban everything else then that's a bad thing.
 
BlackRain said:
I wasn't talking criminal things or right/left politics but certain things that we as a society have all just kind of mutually agreed that the shit is foul and shouldn't be given a platform to be promoted. An all or nothing attitude about what can or can't be said is how history literally gets rewritten to be false. For instance there was a book released to Texas public schools that referred to slaves as "workers" and said they were basically volunteering their "services". Once the news spread that book was pulled. Now that's not a criminal act but it does violate a certain agreement that society has made to at the very least a base level teach kids that slavery is wrong. But going by your all or nothing stance that book should be allowed to be used in schools because if you ban that book and pull it but don't ban everything else then that's a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Lol I was telling u my criteria as far as criminal shit. This shouldn't have taken up these many posts but I think I'm not being clear enough and I blame myself.

In the specific context between me and that poster, if u only tryna ban right wingers for shit that left wingers do, you're a hypocrite.

Either you're 100% for banning mfs for the same "offense" (which would be censorship) regardless of the "side" they're on or you're only about silencing anyone with a diff opinion than the group u adhere to.

I'm done on this.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
Lol I was telling u my criteria as far as criminal shit. This shouldn't have taken up these many posts but I think I'm not being clear enough and I blame myself.

In the specific context between me and that poster, if u only tryna ban right wingers for shit that left wingers do, you're a hypocrite.

Either you're 100% for banning mfs for the same "offense" (which would be censorship) regardless of the "side" they're on or you're only about silencing anyone with a diff opinion than the group u adhere to.

I'm done on this.
Click to expand...

Your problem isn't your explanation your problem is trying yo equate certain things as the same when they're not. You can't equate people not wanting racist right wing trolls like Clay Travis that you just so "happened" to find a tweet that supports your opinion vs someone wanting to ban someone over a blog post they just don't like because it's not nice. One is something society, at least they pretend it is, actually wrong. The other is just somebody not liking something. The actual content itself matters not just the action following said content being produced.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
Exhibit A
Click to expand...

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but between you trying to once compare Aaron Rodgers to Martin Luther King to trying to say people wanting Joe Rogan being penalized for racist jokes was an overreaction to now trying to say that it's hypocritical for me to call Clay Travis what he actually is you too often have found yourself defending racist shit and people under the guise of "free speech" and "freedom". Nowhere in my post did I say Travis should be banned I just called him a racist and that for some reason struck a chord with you. It's only so long you can claim that as a blind spot before you might want to analyze why you keep finding yourself defending certain things.
 
BlackRain said:
You can't equate people not wanting racist right wing trolls like Clay Travis that you just so "happened" to find
Click to expand...
Idk what u insinuating but idk who clay Travis is. I thought the tweet was interesting hence the smilie underneath. If what he's saying is relevant and factual should I bury my head in the sand bc of other fucked up shit he's said that has nothing to do with the tweet?

a tweet that supports your opinion vs someone wanting to ban someone over a blog post they just don't like because it's not nice. One is something society, at least they pretend it is, actually wrong. The other is just somebody not liking something. The actual content itself matters not just the action following said content being produced.
Click to expand...
This totally isn't my point which I'm failing to make clear to u..which is also why I won't continue bothering with that line of discussion
 
BlackRain said:
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but between you trying to once compare Aaron Rodgers to Martin Luther King to trying to say people wanting Joe Rogan being penalized for racist jokes was an overreaction to now trying to say that it's hypocritical for me to call Clay Travis what he actually is you too often have found yourself defending racist shit and people under the guise of "free speech" and "freedom". Nowhere in my post did I say Travis should be banned I just called him a racist and that for some reason struck a chord with you. It's only so long you can claim that as a blind spot before you might want to analyze why you keep finding yourself defending certain things.
Click to expand...
U overanalyze way too much fam. U seeing Boogeymen that aren't there.


I'll tell u this tho, I def appreciate the rare cosigns cuz I know they had to be genuine 🤣🤣🤣

Enjoy your Fri fam
 
ChicagoFigure said:
Idk what u insinuating but idk who clay Travis is. I thought the tweet was interesting hence the smilie underneath. If what he's saying is relevant and factual should I bury my head in the sand bc of other fucked up shit he's said that has nothing to do with the tweet?


This totally isn't my point which I'm failing to make clear to u..which is also why I won't continue bothering with that line of discussion
Click to expand...

You not knowing who Clay Travis is but trying to equate my dislike of as an instance of hypocrisy instead of asking me why I said that is all on you. Maybe ask why somebody says something before assuming the reason why
 
ChicagoFigure said:
U overanalyze way too much fam. U seeing Boogeymen that aren't there.


I'll tell u this tho, I def appreciate the rare cosigns cuz I know they had to be genuine 🤣🤣🤣

Enjoy your Fri fam
Click to expand...

There's no boogeyman. You should've just asked if I know who Clay Travis is, which I do and know his work, instead of assuming me disliking him means I think he should be banned which I never said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top