Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 4

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I have to take a step back here, it's incredible what's going on here.

Rather than be genuinely shocked at what Mark's has just conveyed, instead those that find the views too confronting and against their agenda are using the need for "direct evidence" to strawman the content.

Perhaps it may not be "undeniable" but it provides more than sufficient confidence for a reasonable person to form their views on the matter.

absolutely wild!

He’s making a play for MAGA. Right down to him putting a UFC wife basher on the board.

He’s another slimy **** billionaire.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Gralin]

I always find it funny that the current status is based on left are censors and right are free speech advocates

Twitter Has Complied With Almost Every Government Request For Censorship Since Musk Took Over, Report Finds

The social media platform has not reported denying any government requests since Musk bought it, a change from its previous ownership.

www.forbes.com

Twitter has more censorship under Musk that previously



Of course what they really mean in they should be able to say what they want and punish those opposed

It's why mr free speech made cisgender a slur but let actual nazi accounts back on the site

Zuck is now supporting what the incoming US government wants and blaming the outgoing government for doing different prior

He'll blame Trump in the future if Dems get in again and he stops

It's really cool though how apparently Biden made meta stop people say being gay was a mental illness and now you can say it because "free speech"

 

[Gethelred]

This is not a court of law, this is an internet forum where a degree of trust will be required for a basic level of discourse.

... and Christopher Hitchens was not a lawyer.

.. In the context of Mark's standing and the platform which he makes these statements provides more than sufficient confidence to form a position on until there is some new information from a reputable source of equal standing to suggest otherwise.

Two things.

What does standing have to do with truthfulness? Do you think everyone who has achieved a level of wealth or owns something of sufficient size is honest all of the time or makes statements to do with their business that always contain all the facts? Because if you believe either of those things, that would be contrary to a rather significant amount of evidence.

Second thing - and again - Hitchen's law applies because the claim is unsupported by anything save Zuckerberg's statement.

But based on the content that's posted on these forums, perhaps your desired burden of evidence in the form of 'direct evidence' only applies when the position/discourse doesn't align with yours am I right?

... dude, d'you really want to try mod bashing on with me?

Absolutism applies to quite a few things, particularly when it comes to matters that affect civil rights. Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

An absolute statement is not a reference to absolutism but a formal logic term. What you originally said was this:

Bottom line and undeniable fact is that censorship is abhorrent no matter which way you vote

... which is an absolute statement, and had nothing to do with absolutism.

That you missed this implies one of two things: that you didn't understand the post and/or don't know the term, or you deliberately ignored it to bounce back into your ivory tower concerning the ills of absolutism. If it's the former no harm no foul (we've cleared up that little misunderstanding!) but it's the latter it's a rather disingenuous way to argue.

 

[Gethelred]

I have to take a step back here, it's incredible what's going on here.

Rather than be genuinely shocked at what Mark's has just conveyed, instead those that find the views too confronting and against their agenda are using the need for "direct evidence" to strawman the content.

Perhaps it may not be "undeniable" but it provides more than sufficient confidence for a reasonable person to form their views on the matter.

absolutely wild!

... this is not what a strawman is.

No-one has made his argument weaker by misrepresenting it. Asking for evidence of a claim is not a misrepresentation of a presented argument.

This is very silly.

 

[Gethelred]

Nor is any of this hypocrisy, let alone of the left.