Again, terribly sorry that I’m not going to be naive about it.
People joke about leopards eating people’s faces for a reason. We don’t have to act like these leopards eating people’s faces are worth letting in because this time they totally won’t eat people’s faces even if they have done that every single time they have been let in anywhere else.
Oh we’re replacing a shitty strawman with another one now?
Yes, congrats. If I repeatedly say they shouldn’t be given a platform that’s pretty much the same as me saying we should ban them.
That’s really not the point. The point is that you are trying to claim that I want to ban anyone who disagrees with me when what I am saying, also quite explicitly, that we should ban people who are intolerant. Those are certainly two circles in a Venn diagram with some overlap, but two seperate circles nevertheless, and I’m only advocating for one of them. (The intolerant one, just to be very clear.)
That’s literally what you wrote. It’s your entire premise:
No, what I actually wrote was
I’m sorry, but there is no need or benefit to be found in tolerance for the intolerant. Nobody has to give them a platform. Nobody should.
I already called you out for being dishonest in your argument, why continue? Address what I actually said instead of the shitty strawman you try and fail to create.
You don’t like the name of the magazine and you want it banned, even though it hasn’t broken any rules. You just don’t like what the name implies.
I’m not in the business in being naive about it, terribly sorry. Show me a community that labels itself as “antiwoke” that isn’t a racist cesspool and I’ll entertain the argument.
Believe it or not, ne neither!
But this is also not something I have said. This is a strawman argument you created, consciously or not.
What I actually said was that we shouldn’t provide a platform to the intolerant. Because they will seek to undermine and destroy our tolerance. There’s a bit more nuance in my argument than “ban people just because they disagree with me”. You kinda missed that.
I mean, Reddit very much controls who enters. Not so explicitly as to have a survey or something, but they very much have mechanisms against bots and people who try to circumvent bans for example.
I’m sorry, but there is no need or benefit to be found in tolerance for the intolerant. Nobody has to give them a platform. Nobody should. And if you seriously believe a community called “antiwoke” has anything positive or useful to bring to the table, I have a very nice bridge looking to get rid of.
Let’s not waste our breath pretending a place called “antiwoke” is anything but a racist right wing cesspool. There’s literally no other purpose it could serve.
And of course you have censorship on the internet. You need to censor, literally every platform out there that has existed for a reasonable amount of time on the internet has to censor even if it’s just to comply with local laws.
In other words, if you don’t censor you open up your doors to hosting child porn, it’s that simple. So I hope people can see that censorship is a necessary evil and not some binary choice you can make.
So the question is what you censor, not if you censor. And of course there will be things that people straight up don’t want. You don’t have to be accepting of everything. In fact it’s actively detrimental to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I’m not gonna blame anyone if they want to kick out communities like “antiwoke” because it’s quite clear what’s gonna come out of them.
It’s not actually about the money in that sense. Don’t be fooled.
No, they want to kick out third party apps because that cuts costs and the first party app is way better for pushing ads onto users. That’s the real investor pitch, they just aren’t saying it out loud.
If it was about being profitable, why charge such outrageous prices?
If it’s about covering costs created by these apps, why suddenly drop such a huge change on them with an timeframe that can’t possibly be met? Why don’t they work together with app developers, communicate things well ahead of time and give them some leeway when necessary?
They just want to kill third party apps without outright saying it and the easiest way to do that is to charge costs they can’t pay.
You mean the conspiracy theory that somehow the World Bank isn’t there to do it’s real job, provide loans to poor countries to aid their development, but instead part of some grand scheme to rob poor countries of their resources?
Because what you claim to be well documented isn’t actually objective fact. It’s more construing mistakes these institutions definitely did make to be something they very much aren’t.