Free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter, does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews?

[Josie]

561+8=569.

Math is hard.

The word "employees" must be hard too.......

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The word "employees" must be hard too.......

I already pointed out that that number is not the total number of Twitter employees, let alone the number who moderate Twitter. You were trying to argue that "we know what their political bias is". You don't, neither does the NYPost.

 

[HangLow]

Shaun King
@shaunking

Ask ANY conservative this question and watch them STRUGGLE to answer it.
Since you say free speech and ALL speech needs to be allowed on Twitter,
does that mean you believe that should included targeted hate speech against Jews?
Should that be allowed? Be specific and clear.

I love your threads...
-Peace

​

 

[Josie]

I already pointed out that that number is not the total number of Twitter employees, let alone the number who moderate Twitter. You were trying to argue that "we know what their political bias is". You don't, neither does the NYPost.

We do know. Jack Dorsey has told us, the political contributions have told us, they’re collective outcry at the takeover has told us.

 

[Rexedgar]

We do know. Jack Dorsey has told us, the political contributions have told us, they’re collective outcry at the takeover has told us.

Your collective celebrations have told a story, as well.


Why do you think that right slanted social media has not enjoyed the success of Twitter?

Parler
Truth-Social
GETTR
……….……
…………….


Flocking should mean success, right?

The Far-Right Is Flocking To These Alternate Social Media Apps — Not All Of Them Are Thrilled

While some platforms are cheering on the influx of far-right users, others have vowed to step up moderation.

www.forbes.com

 

[Josie]

Your collective celebrations have told a story, as well.


Why do you think that right slanted social media has not enjoyed the success of Twitter?

Parler
Truth-Social
GETTR
……….……
…………….


Flocking should mean success, right?

The Far-Right Is Flocking To These Alternate Social Media Apps — Not All Of Them Are Thrilled

While some platforms are cheering on the influx of far-right users, others have vowed to step up moderation.

www.forbes.com

I don’t know anything about these sites.

 

[Rexedgar]

I don’t know anything about these sites.

I included a link. Isn’t it a fair question?

 

[Josie]

I included a link. Isn’t it a fair question?

I suppose. I’ve never been to any of them so I have no knowledge of who is there, how it’s moderated, how user-friendly it is, etc. Start-up social media sites would all have a very difficult time getting off their feet since we already have several very popular ones to choose from.

 

[Cardinal]

Is hate speech against Jews free speech? Should this be allowed on Twitter?​

The question is something of a misnomer, because Twitter banning it would itself be free speech. This gets to the heart of the problem with Elon Musk’s claim that free speech on Twitter under his rule would not deviate from American law.

 

[Rexedgar]

There are stories out that question whether this deal ever becomes finalized. The right leaning members here certainly threw a party. Time will tell if it was premature. I am not understanding how any one thinks that going from a board of eleven to a “board” of one is a good idea. What is it about good manipulators and the US citizen, or a sizable percentage?

But I also think that “they” think giving wide power to one leader is a good idea.

 

[What if...?]

It’s not about speech.

It’s about free propaganda distribution.

No way the founders would have protected the primary tool used to establish and maintain every modern tyranny.

You know, like Putin telling his people the Ukrainians are nazis to justify his invasion.

 

[Josie]

There are stories out that question whether this deal ever becomes finalized. The right leaning members here certainly threw a party. Time will tell if it was premature. I am not understanding how any one thinks that going from a board of eleven to a “board” of one is a good idea. What is it about good manipulators and the US citizen, or a sizable percentage?

But I also think that “they” think giving wide power to one leader is a good idea.

Well, it's a social media platform that was being run almost exclusively by left-leaning people. Why wouldn't right-leaning members "throw a party" when a right-leaning person takes over that left-leaning company? Some might think that Musk is going to create a right-learning echo chamber. I don't think he will (unless he wants to completely tank the company). I and most people wouldn't be interested in that.

 

[Rexedgar]

Well, it's a social media platform that was being run almost exclusively by left-leaning people. Why wouldn't right-leaning members "throw a party" when a right-leaning person takes over that left-leaning company? Some might think that Musk is going to create a right-learning echo chamber. I don't think he will (unless he wants to completely tank the company). I and most people wouldn't be interested in that.

It begs the question that I asked earlier. Why aren’t right-leaners supporting right-leaning platforms?

Whay hasn’ Trump used his new platform?

 

[Josie]

It begs the question that I asked earlier. Why aren’t right-leaners supporting right-leaning platforms?

I honestly don't you. You'd have to ask someone who knows more about those platforms.

Whay hasn’ Trump used his new platform?

I didn't know he hadn't. No idea.

 

[coyote505]

I assume

Yes, it should not be tolerated at all. They will lose their job and have to go away. It will show them to stop being racist scum if they want to be productive members of society.

I assume the Leftist Thought Police would be doing this harassment anonimously so as to avoid reciprocity, correct? In that case, the victims would need to retaliate against the most likely suspects. That would seem to be a certain rabid ruminant, would it not?

 

[mrjurrs]

Is it your position is that it just does not matter where the speech happens, or when it happens despite this question of yours "... Can those workers step off site and say the things they want? If yes, I don't see that as a free speech issue. " An employee really ought not feel free to speak or protest on his own time, about the issues. He really ought to check with Human Resources, and his supervisor and ask permission before he marches for civil rights, or for climate change, or writes a letter to the editor of the local paper to make sure his political activism is not 'inconsistent with the company values" or potentially embarrassing to the corporate brand. We will live in a world where a worker gets to choose between feeding her kids, and her husbands heart meds, and standing up for social or political change. All those morals clauses sitting in employment contracts, are really about extending the employers' authority over the lives of their workers, long past quitting time, miles away from the premises of work.

See I remember having to make that very choice. Back in the days when gay rights were far more controversial than now, I took a serious risk by marching for gay rights in my local community. I had to worry how it might impact my wife and I, knowing my employer was none to keen about that annual march. I chose to march in the years before my wife got pregnant, but not afterwards. She needed the health care, and my check made a huge difference in the security of my family. Now maybe my employer would have respected my personal private life, as just that and decided that in order for free speech and assembly to thrive in this country, people should not have their activism punished by govt levying a fine, or by employers deciding to reduce their hours or fire them because both have a chilling impact.

In direct answer to your question above, I do not at present support including anti-discrimination language in civil rights statutes protecting workers from discrimination in employment based on their political affiliation, or personal political activity or speech. But if businesses keep blurring the lines between what it is to be on the clock, on the premises and at work , with what it means to be on your own time, off work premises, and free, I could imagine changing my mind. If they want me to be a good little corporate soldier 24/7, then they ought to pay me wages 24/7!

No, I'm saying that based on current legal standards, a private employer has the right to restrict an employees speech, and to fire that employee for using protected speech in a way that the business feels is detrimental to the company. The employer is not forced to employ a worker any more than an employee can be forced to work for a company.

I agree with your sentiment, but not your argument.

 

[btthegreat]

No, I'm saying that based on current legal standards, a private employer has the right to restrict an employees speech, and to fire that employee for using protected speech in a way that the business feels is detrimental to the company. The employer is not forced to employ a worker any more than an employee can be forced to work for a company.

I agree with your sentiment, but not your argument.

I recognise what current law represents. We don't disagree about what is or even necessarily what law ought to be because I prefer a less litigious formalized and structured response . Curious though, Does what I highlight above, represent your stance to what policy ( in the broad sense of the word I am using) ought to be, and does your stance also include opposition to existing protected classes in civil rights statutes governing employment discrimination based race, religion, sex, orientation and disability.

You are not alone. Whether we are talking drug testing, or morals clauses, progressives are not very interested in working to protect that boundary deliniation between on the clock, and off the clock, on the premises, and off the premises, in uniform, and out of uniform, I am less than enthused by traditional progressives response to this issue. I get the impression, that they have forgotten the power differential between an employee trying to keep the lights and heat going, and a corporation, trying not to be inconvenienced and that same statement of yours emboldened, is a complete and concise summation of every anti-worker piece of propaganda I have ever read. I frankly am not sure I see the value in you sharing my 'sentiment' , without a passion to do something say something whenever a company tries this shit. What's missing in your answers here is outrage, shock and an insistence that Businesses, mind their own business, and not the private personal behavior and opinions of folks who clocked out so they could enjoy and celebrate the fact that they are not actually an extension the intellectual property rights of their employers.

 

[mrjurrs]

I recognise what current law represents. We don't disagree about what is or even necessarily what law ought to be because I prefer a less litigious formalized and structured response . Curious though, Does what I highlight above, represent your stance to what policy ought to be, and does it also include opposition to existing protected classes in civil rights statutes governing employment discrimination based race, religion, sex, orientation and disability.

You are not alone. Whether we are talking drug testing, or morals clauses, progressives are not very interested in working to protect that boundary deliniation between on the clock, and off the clock, on the premises, and off the premises, in uniform, and out of uniform, I am less than enthused by traditional progressives response to this issue. I get the impression, that they have forgotten the power differential between an employee trying to keep the lights and heat going, and a corporation, trying not to be inconvenienced and that same statement of yours emboldened, is a complete and concise summation of every anti-worker piece of propaganda I have ever read. I frankly am not sure I see the value in you sharing my 'sentiment' , without a passion to do something say something whenever a company tries this shit. What's missing in your answers here is outrage, shock and an insistence that Businesses, mind their own business, and not the private personal behavior and opinions of folks who clocked out so they could enjoy and celebrate the fact that they are not the intellectual property of their employers.

My stance is that a healthy relationship between govt and business is the best scenario. That healthy relationship has been trashed by both sides. If I had to choose one side to be the dominant player in these cases, I would choose government.

That power differential is real, and I hope that the current tilt towards more employee power continues. Imo, if a business can't afford the labor costs of providing a living wage, they should be allowed to fail. There is no constitutional right to make a profit by paying your employees wages that require them to have a second job or receive government assistance.

 

[Excon]

Killing in self defense is still killing. He killed a man.

Your position on Rittenhouse is one of absurdity. He didn't murder.

He wasn't supposed to be there.

Wrong, as well as irrelevant.

He wasn't supposed to have the gun

Wrong, as well as irrelevant.

... and he was pretending to be a medic.

He was there to render any medical aid he could if needed. Generically, that is called acting as a medic. Nor is it relevant to his use of deadly force in self defense.
So saying he was "pretending", just speaks to your own bias.

His actions led to another person being killed by his hands.

No, their actions lead to them being justifiably killed in self defense.

Therefore he is a killer. He will be forever remembered for killing someone just like Zimmerman is.

Irrelevant to your initial claim of "murder".

 

[Spunkylama]

Your position on Rittenhouse is one of absurdity. He didn't murder.

Wrong, as well as irrelevant.

Wrong, as well as irrelevant.

He was there to render any medical aid he could if needed. Generically, that is called acting as a medic. Nor is it relevant to his use of deadly force in self defense.
So saying he was "pretending", just speaks to your own bias.

No, their actions lead to them being justifiably killed in self defense.

Irrelevant to your initial claim of "murder".

Your post made me laugh several times. Good show

 

[Excon]

Your post made me laugh several times. Good show

So you do have delusional thoughts. Good to know.

 

[Spunkylama]

So you do have delusional thoughts. Good to know.

Hands you a mirror.

 

[Excon]

Hands you a mirror.

No thanks, I am not in need of one like you are.

 

[Spunkylama]

No thanks, I am not in need of one like you are.

oh ouch! Pee wee herman come backs are very adult like.

 

[Excon]

oh ouch! Pee wee herman come backs are very adult like.

Is that why you employ them?
Thanks for letting everyone know.