darq

… capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn’t part of the culture war.

I’d urge you to try and read my comments again.

But how can I hear “diverse opinion” if X opinions are banned/blocked/moderated in the first place?

There is no space where all opinions are welcome. It simply does not exist. Some opinions are going to force out others.

If you run a space where Nazi opinions are okay to speak, you can’t really expect to hear Jewish opinions. Or opinions of PoC or queer people or disabled people and so on and so on.

So most places do the calculations. You can ban this one view. And in return an entire spectrum of views becomes more welcome.

Bigotry is a painfully simple, painfully shallow, and painfully boring viewpoint. It is almost completely one-dimensional, simplifiable to the idea that the “other” is inferior or dangerous and is to be shunned or feared. It is a viewpoint that we all already know, one we have all already heard. Banning it loses us almost nothing, and in return we gain so, so many more valuable insights.

Is it the fault of the principle of free speech, or the legion of stupid people being allowed to talk freely?

I’m not talking about “the principal of free speech”. I’m pushing back on the foolish assertion that moderation leads to echo chambers for lazy and dull minds. When exactly the opposite is true.

I’m saying that if you want to hear diverse opinions, a free-for-all is a bad idea. Because that free-for-all leads to echo chambers.

You probably want restrictions because it would never apply to you. Denying you talking about stuff that doesn’t phase you, is easy.

No no, don’t make stupid assumptions about me so that you don’t have to confront my point.

What if that platform bans opinions that you happen to have?

Most of them do. Your assumptions are wrong.

Sure, if you point at 4chan or similar…free speech attracts shitnuggets and end up being an echo chamber. But that’s the fault of us humans being crap, and not free speech being inherently bad.

I never said free speech was inherently bad. Try responding to what I wrote, not what you imagined that I wrote.

I personally prefer spaces where everyone can voice any shit. Censorship is for lazy minds and a dull audience. IMHO.

I always find this take to be remarkably short-sighted.

Because if you actually want to hear diverse opinions, you have to cultivate a space where diverse people, with diverse experiences, feel free to speak.

Pretty much every space that tolerates open bigotry becomes deeply unpleasant for the targets of that bigotry. Which means those people tend to leave.

Which in turn means that those spaces soon turn into the dullest echo chamber, populated only by people unaffected the bigotry. Sure no views were censored. You just harass everybody different off the platform. The net effect is the same.

You can’t just block someone doxxing you. And it’s a lot different when it’s not one person, or even a handful of people, but thousands of people who are sincerely furious with you because of things they’ve convinced themselves that you have done.

There is a difference between simple prejudice, and prejudice that is backed by systemic power.

Both are bad of course. But one has the ability to ruin your day, while the other has the ability to ruin your life.

In most progressive theory, racism is explicitly about power, not merely individual prejudice. That isn’t a new definition of racism, but it is a different definition than most of us learn when we are younger.

It strikes me as wild but so much of the opposition towards LGBT rights in Japan is, effectively, a paperwork issue. Backed by bigotry, but fronted by paperwork.

The koseki system, or family registry system, basically cannot handle same-sex couples or parents. The system only allows for one male partner and one female partner, one male parent and one female parent. So Japan can’t register same-sex marriages or parents.

But this might also be why sterilisation is required for trans people. Because the requirement for recognition of gender isn’t actually just to be sterilised. The requirements are to be unmarried, have no children, and be permanently sterile. Because anything less than that could lead to a system where a marriage involves two same-sex partners, or a child has two same-sex parents. Which is impossible using the current paperwork, so it is forbidden.

So trans people have to be sterilised, and if they have children already, they can never be recognised by the current system. Because bureaucracy.

That’s just because you’re struggling to parse :)

I’m not insulting you, I’m saying your comment is pathetic. Sorry you are struggling to parse :)
That said: Bloody hell, how pathetic.

Bloody hell, how pathetic.

Bloody hell, how pathetic.

Buddy every time someone responds to you about the things you said, you condescendingly respond with “sorry you’re struggling to parse”.

You’re being a jackass. Go on, report me. Prick.

Removed by mod

If you understand, then why do you say that people are “supporting Hamas”?

Like, you prop up a strawman argument, then the other commenter clarifies the actual argument, and you say that you understand the actual argument…

Who cares? Like genuinely who cares? It’s a chunky laptop. Big whoop.

日本語土手

(?) No… It makes no difference to me if there was labour involved or not, what matters to me is the value.

Then you should be opposed to landlords. Because rent-seeking extracts profit without producing value.

About the public housing thing, how would that help? Isnt that just everybody (the public) paying for everybody else’s housing? How would that make any difference?

Then housing is built for people to live in, not as an investment vehicle that is expected to generate profit. That brings down the price for everybody.

It also solves other social ills by drastically reducing homelessness.

Exactly, as is the case with any investment.

So you are admitting that comparing it to farming was a stupid thing of you to say. Good. Glad we agree.

So should nobody be able to own any land OR should one not be allowed to rent out one’s land?

Sure. Those are options. Or limited ownership where one may own land they live on, but not additional land. Or make rates and taxes on additional land ownership higher potential rental profits. And then direct public funds into public housing, as well as fixing zoning laws to allow for denser housing.

Im asking for the reason why not having a choice (according to you) would mean, if that was the case, that they dont deserve money.

That’s not my argument.

I don’t thing parasitism is healthy for society. That’s why landlords shouldn’t exist.

The fact that we don’t have a choice was in response to your assertion that people choose to pay landlords.

That isn’t comparable, and you know it.

The farmer produces food. I am paying for the labour involved in creating the food I consume. The farmer works.

The landlord collects my rent because he owns the house. Not because of any labour they do. And you admit that.

I have the impression that with landlords, people are just envious because they dont have to actively do labour even though that doesnt change anything for you…

Extracting profit without working to create value is parasitism.

It does change things for me. It makes living expenses higher.

And I’m not envious of landlords, I don’t think they should exist.

… and because you dont really have a choice, you shouldnt have to give them any money?

In your previous comment you said “You choose to give them money”.

So you know what you are saying is utter horsecrap, and you are deliberately being a disingenuous dickhead.