What are your opinions on this reddit chain calling it hypocritical for right wingers to be pro free speech yet creating "safe spaces"?

[FrancineCansMcGee]

I tried to argue with liberals on r/politics and other neutral spaces. I like to argue online. It’s fun for me.

I’m banned eventually when I try. I ended up on places like r/conservative not because I want the safe space but because that is the only place I’m allowed to talk.

Being in an echo chamber is not a choice for me. I am in the venues the left permits me to exist in, not my venues of choice.

I want to make clear, I have no problem with democrats having a safe space on r/democrats and Republicans having one on r/thedonald.

THE PROBLEM IS R/POLITICS IS R/DEMOCRATS. The problem is that EVERY LOCAL SUBREDDIT NO MATTER HOW CONSERVATIVE THE LOCALITY is r/democrats. EVERY FANDOM SPACE NO MATTER HOW CONSERVATIVE is r/democrats. That is always missed in these dumb complaints about conservative echo chambers.

What do you think of the last point he raised - " No, no one is censoring you for advocating for ….a strong family, or even traditional views around family.

Is this not exactly what they are trying to cancel KC Kickerman for?

 

[Johnny Salami]

What about on a pro Trump site like Truth Social or Patriots.win (maybe parler too but I haven't used it before)? They actively ban any criticism of Trump.

twitter litteraly banned reporting of Johnathan Yaniv after his topless swimsuit event

 

[mindlessobserver]

I’m banned eventually when I try. I ended up on places like r/conservative not because I want the safe space but because that is the only place I’m allowed to talk.

Being in an echo chamber is not a choice for me. I am in the venues the left permits me to exist in, not my venues of choice.

That incidentally is how this place eventually came to be known as a "conservative" location. There was nowhere else left to have meaningful discussions from a right wing perspective, so many people ended up on a Gossip forum dedicated to watching Chris-chan.

 

[potato in mah painus]

It's exacerbated by the upvote system, which makes the most popular opinion the most commonly seen, making it more popular.

It used to be controversial opinions got filtered to the top as well, it used to encourage people to state dissenting opinions. Now the whole fucking thing is gamed.

 

[Abimelech]

That incidentally is how this place eventually came to be known as a "conservative" location. There was nowhere else left to have meaningful discussions from a right wing perspective, so many people ended up on a Gossip forum dedicated to watching Chris-chan.

Yes, and sadly the autistic weirdos who frequented this place in the past would prefer to obsess over their join dates and shit on anyone who wants to discuss politics, rather than acknowledge that we all came here because this might be one of the final bastions of free speech on the internet.

But that's a different thread I guess.

 

[Android raptor]

All echo chambers are retarded

 

[Drip Torch]

There is no such thing as a "safe space" on the internet. Always a troll standing by. As it should be.
Cant take the bant? Then dont sperg out.

 

[AMERICA]

i don't want the government or corporations to censor the speech of citizens. i don't care if the citizens themselves decide to make private groups with rules regarding what speech is allowed within that group. i also probably wouldn't enjoy being part of a group with strong restrictions on speech but i don't really care what other people do

 

[AgendaPoster]

The reddit user opens by asking why conservatives value free speech when "White supremacists" are banned on twitter but not when conservative beliefs are being challenged. He then points out how a lot of right wingers supposedly live in echo chambers in relation to events like the capitol riot or covid and that right wingers are "100%" acting like snowflakes they claim leftists are. He also states right wing beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny if they are unable to challenge facts and have to censor. Further down the chain he states that right wing votes based on "lies" negatively impacts his and that a feedback loop is created by the way ATS is moderated.

Leftoid is mostly correct.
Most rightoids are incredibly fragile, weak, obese and pathetic.
Trump supporters share those characteristics, 90% of them.
Where the leftoid is wrong is where he thinks that right wing beliefs cannot withstand scrutiny. Tell him to come here and open an MD thread, and we'll see about that.
Conservative opinions cannot withstand scrutiny, cause conservatives are a flavor of shitlibs.
Most actually right wing beliefs can easily withstand scrutiny. You just have to get far enough to the right for that.

 

[Drip Torch]

That incidentally is how this place eventually came to be known as a "conservative" location. There was nowhere else left to have meaningful discussions from a right wing perspective, so many people ended up on a Gossip forum dedicated to watching Chris-chan.

Funny as hell when they discover it's not a complete right wing hugbox and have a breakdown. Many cases.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

"Without hate" is the part of this argument that makes it impossible to engage with. Everything is hate to the bugman freaks on reddit. The definition changes minute to minute, depending on the person you ask, and depending on the context.

"free market, lower tax rates, individual rights, more police, a strong family, or even traditional views around family"

It's possible to advocate for those things without pointing at or to populations who stand or are perceived to stand in the way of those things.

Sure, you could be accused of "hate" for not acknowledging this or that consideration or subculture, but if someone actually cares about advancing a real position, they should be able to make the advocated point on its own merits. Especially on things like the above, which have powerful and persuasive arguments available to be made.

There's no guarantee of a win in an online debate,.writ or not, because your opponents (in whatever direction) are very likely to be allergic to facts and to enjoy the low-value win of having a crowd of supporters. But it is possible to have higher standards.

There is no such thing as a "safe space" on the internet. Always a troll standing by. As it should be.
Cant take the bant? Then dont sperg out.

You say that as though occupational trolls give one fuck whether someone is reasonable, sperging, or something in between. Trolling is sometimes political, sometimes not, but it is inherently contrary. And 98.7% of the time dedicated to the troll above all else, regardless of the sperginess or non-sperginess of anyone else.

Do you think trolls are, or trolling is, worthwhile and/or worthy? If so, why?

 

[JamusActimus]

The only safe space here is the Man hate thread.

 

[Drip Torch]

Do you think trolls are, or trolling is, worthwhile and/or worthy? If so, why?

You are correct in that trolling is a rarely a win-win in a debate. There isnt a over reaching reason for wanting to troll another subculture. Trolls sometimes act with no logic, or just to interrupt. This lack of logic can be exploited though. People tend to be guarded when they are annoyed, but will tell you everything when they are angry. The more angry someone gets, the more personal information they will give. Their anger over powers their filter. Todays online culture of being as much of a shithead as you can be to each other ,is not the best for learning and researchs. But get some mad enough, they will tell you anything you want to know. The trick is to learn what they are avoiding saying. The closer you get to the hurtful truth of the matter, the more unhinged they become. Its a feedback loop.

 

[rrtyui]

"free market, lower tax rates, individual rights, more police, a strong family, or even traditional views around family"

It's possible to advocate for those things without pointing at or to populations who stand or are perceived to stand in the way of those things.

Sure, you could be accused of "hate" for not acknowledging this or that consideration or subculture, but if someone actually cares about advancing a real position, they should be able to make the advocated point on its own merits. Especially on things like the above, which have powerful and persuasive arguments available to be made.

I'm not doubting any of this, I agree. My point is that "without hate" serves as a pressure release valve. Even if I took the time to corner any given person in a debate they could pick something out of what I said and deem it "hate", then bam, to 90% of people my position is now null and void and the whole conversation becomes a gigantic waste of time.

I'm not going to engage with "hate" rhetoric. Especially in a world where facts and statistics are deemed hate depending on who they concern and where they lay on the progressive stack. If you can not handle a critical judgement of every aspect of your world-view then you are not worth talking to, at least to me, literally ever. You provide no value. If your reasoning is in ANY way based on unquestionables then you are intellectually worthless.

 

[AgendaPoster]

"free market, lower tax rates, individual rights, more police, a strong family, or even traditional views around family"

What sane person would ever bother arguing for the most boring, milquetoast status quo slop

 

[LeChampion1992]

Okay I believe in free speech, No one says you have to say it in our group. It's pretty funny how porn is a free speech issue but criticism of immigration or the idea we should have zero immigration is automatically hate speech.

Like free speech wasn't about advertising pickles, nor was it even about the worlds oldest profession. It was so that people could say heretical things about religion and politics and not be imprisoned or killed.

My problem with nearly everyone on the left is they want free speech for thee but not for me.

There's some legitimate basis for these arguments, a lot of right-wing places are echo chambers every bit as much as the left. Beliefs that aren't debated or challenged get weird, just look at some of the shit people say on sites like ZeroHedge.

I mean with the right wing no on the left engages online with the right thus right wing echo chambers seem to be more as a result of censorship and natural effect.
Take Hate speech the idea of hate speech is a nebulous concept. 25 years ago outside of militant democracy Germans and insane commies almost no one would support hate speech laws. Now you've seen a cultural shift to censor people.
When I look at the left wing echo chambers there seems to be an immediate push to ban/censor/mute/shut down anyone mildly critical of progressive talking points much less talk to the right.
With right wing echo chambers the same things were said in the 1990s it's just now they're more mainstream as they don't have to compete with left wingers for as much of an audience.
In short the right wingers echo chambers are more natural where the left wing echo chambers are more socially enforced from the top down.

Right wing echo chambers are democratic where left wing echo chambers are authoritarian.

 

[Abimelech]

Here is another example of this same leftist "we aren't censoring you but we are" mentality: The teachers union kicked out a member for disagreeing with them on transgender nonsense:

Although the association recognized that individuals “are free to think whatever they want about LGBTQ+” issues, it stipulated that “viewpoints are not free from consequences..."

 

[Odd Opossum]

When right-wing people talk about "free speech online", all they mean is "safe space for me and people like me to cry and pout about modern society being mean to us". It's never been about anything other than that and that should be clear by now.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to people who do not fundamentally believe in it you have no obligation to give freedom of speech rights to communist leftist socialist or wannabe totalitarians

the only reason I'm a reactionary because I realize liberals are too ******* **** to do what's necessary to safeguard liberty from totalitarian leftists

 

[Chuck McGill]

After a platform reaches a certain size, you'd hope they'd be politically neutral as to what you can and can't say. The large platforms are so integrated into our larger lives that they're a sort of digital public square. And shitlibs have absolute and total control of all the major ones. They have control of reddit, they have control of Facebook, they had control of Twitter(subsequently X) until Elon got it, something they're still awful damn sore about. And every single one of them flexes their political authority to control the narrative to their liking, control what you can and can't say. Oh sure thing chud, you can absolutely discuss low taxes and individual liberty and our pre-approved conservative talking points, but don't you dare do a heckin' hate speech or you're outta here! Oh and the definition of hate speech expands every single week.

Then some retard like you sees some tiny conservative splinter community that's you probably had to go out of your way to find, and you barge in there and yell "ENJOY PRISONERINO FOR THE HECKIN' INSURRECTERINO CHUDDIE", they tell you to get fucked and you come on here and go "WOWIE ZOWIE, I GUESS CONSERVATARDS ARE THE REAL CENSORS HERE RIGHT GUYS? I THOUGHT YOU GUYS SUPPORTED FREE SPEECH I GUESS YOU'RE ALL JUST HYPOCRITES HURR HURR HURR".

Never take a liberal at face value when they try to invoke a concept or value you hold dear. Free speech, the free market, journalistic freedom. They don't actually understand what makes these things good, they only understand them as tools they can deploy in the hopes of manipulating you into doing what they want. They unironically see it as a Bethesda RPG where you say the right words and people do your bidding. They think that little of you.