Hide Techdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Ex-Googler Recently Held Up As A 'Whistleblower' And 'Proof' Of Anti-Conservative Bias At Google, Actually Supported Richard Spencer, Racist Skinheads

from the maybe-slow-down-in-picking-your-heros dept

When we recently wrote about the myth of anti-conservative bias at the various internet platforms, we got a lot of angry responses from people who insist (very loudly, often with lots of insults and anger, but rarely with any facts or data) that we’re full of shit. We’d be open to believing it if there was any actual support for these claims. But none is ever forthcoming. Indeed, amusingly, some people pointed out that a recent WSJ article about an alleged fired “conservative” engineer at Google, described as a “whistleblower,” was more “proof” that the company has it in for conservatives. Tucker Carlson even had the engineer, Kevin Cernekee, on his show last week to continue to feed the narrative.

And, of course, other Fox News characters, such as Lou Dobbs, played up Cernekee’s claims as well, which even got President Trump to retweet Dobb’s segment about Cernekee as “proof” that Google is trying to influence the 2020 election.

However, as we’ve pointed out concerning most of the “conservatives” who have had content removed or been banned from social media platforms (as is true in similar situations with liberals and other non-conservatives) there is almost always more to the story — and that “more” is often that these people are not banned or fired or otherwise held back because of their general political views, but because of something much worse. And, in the case of Cernekee, people finally realized that maybe it wasn’t that he was a conservative, but that he wanted to fundraise in support of one of the US’s most well known white supremacists, Richard Spencer.

?[A] well? known conservative activist was sucker punched on camera in DC while giving an interview,? Cernekee wrote on the Free Speech listserv in January 2017, referring to Richard Spencer, probably the most famous white nationalist in America.

Two days later, he posted to the same listserv to suggest that members of the free speech listserv at Google should raise money for a bounty to find Spencer?s assailant. The bounty was offered on WeSearchr, a site founded by Charles Johnson.

To be fair to Tucker Carlson, who had Cernekee on his show and played up his claims, it was also his Daily Caller that exposed Cernekee’s actual internal postings.

But, yeah, the guy who Trump is holding up as proof that there’s anti-conservative bias at Google is maybe not the best messenger if you’re trying to convince the world that “conservatism” is not the same thing as “white nationalism.” Oh, and it gets worse. The Daily Caller article shows that, despite Cernekee claiming in the WSJ that he was a “mainstream Republican” who “disagrees” with white supremacy, within an internal Google listserve, Cernekee suggested that racist skinheads consider rebranding:

The term ?skinhead? has a lot of unfortunate baggage and allows members to be painted as aggressors even in cases where the opposite is true. Why not rename themselves to something normie?-compatible like ?The Helpful Neighborhood Bald Guys? or ?The Open Society Institute? instead of trying to change the near?-universal negative perception of their old label (which is futile)? This would make it much easier to form alliances with other supporters of liberty and civil rights. The only thing I could figure is that they value having an edgy badass image over mainstream acceptance.

Meanwhile, another “conservative” engineer who was also fired from Google, Mike Wacker, has written a barnstormer of a blog post detailing the fairly typical trollish behavior by Cernekee. It’s pretty damning:

I will say, though, that there is more to Kevin than his troubling posts. Another aspect of Kevin is his willingness to play dirty: his willingness to act manipulatively, tell half-truths, and sometimes outright lie. (For whatever influence he had, he certainly did not achieve it by winning over the hearts and minds of Google?s conservative employees in a free and fair exchange of ideas.) Both aspects of Kevin ? his questionable viewpoints and his questionable tactics ? are necessary to understand his story.

As one example of his questionable tactics, in a discussion about Richard Spencer, one Google employee wrote, ?I don?t think that assaulting someone is justified, but why on earth would we want to *help* him?? In his response to that person, Kevin deleted that sentence, and then he wrote, ?Interesting argument, so are you saying it is OK to sucker punch somebody because you disagree with their politics?? Kevin claimed in an op-ed that he is ?merely opposing Antifa violence,? when in reality one of his postings fabricated a claim that his coworker supported Antifa violence.

There’s a lot more in there demonstrating rather trollish tactics (some of which will be familiar to people who read the comments here — because they’re used by lots of trolls on the internet).

Google, as a company, almost certainly employs a lot more people who identify as liberal than who identify as conservative (as I’ve noted in the past, I don’t count myself among either group — though plenty of others have lumped me into both at times, usually whenever they disagree with me and feel the need to align me with those they disagree with). But if you’re going to claim that there’s “proof” of anti-conservative bias at these companies, it probably helps to show up with actual proof, not the trollish behavior of a guy who has talked about fundraising on a platform that once tried to raise funds for The Daily Stormer, and to have done so in support of an infamous white supremacist, and who appears to have engaged in trollish tactics.

So here’s a challenge to anyone rushing to jump into the comments here and call me names. For every insult you want to throw at me, how about you balance that out with actual evidence? And that is not just an example of someone who identifies as conservative being banned or limited in some way, and not quoting someone out of context, but actual proof of someone being limited for actual conservative views. I’m still waiting to see it.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Ex-Googler Recently Held Up As A 'Whistleblower' And 'Proof' Of Anti-Conservative Bias At Google, Actually Supported Richard Spencer, Racist Skinheads”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
217 Comments
Gary (profile) says:

Skinheads

So anyone anti-skinhead is obviously hostile to the KKK, Proud Boys, Neo-Nazi’s and all the other Very Fine Trump supporters.

Therefore, proof of bias! Quasi-State!! Respect my anecdotal account!!!

Seriously anyone that keeps repeating this "Liberal Bias" theory needs to re-evaluate their talking points. Like it or not, online services have ToS that often leads to the ban hammer falling on skinheads. (As well as swatting random targets, because automatic filters suck.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Skinheads

I am not predjudiced. I have sometimes hated the gangsta hiphop for its predjucice and call for violence when I hear it. But I have made friends from allover the world and color of skin never entered my mind when making friends or working together on a plethora of jobs. But I hate it when people strike down someone’s right to feel or believe a certain way even if it includes bias or predjudice. Politicians in my opinion do not have the right to take others’ rights away for those beliefs or feelings. Only when a person acts out physically against people through violence or harm should those rights even be investigated.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Skinheads

But I hate it when people strike down someone’s right to feel or believe a certain way even if it includes bias or predjudice.

‘Not on our platform’ is not ‘striking down someone’s right to feel or believe a certain way’, it’s simply telling them that if they act in a way that violates the site’s TOS or otherwise is objectionable to the site owners they will be shown the digital door.

You can feel whatever you want, doesn’t mean someone owes you a platform or audience to voice your opinions about it.

Politicians in my opinion do not have the right to take others’ rights away for those beliefs or feelings.

Politicians, no, as they are members of the government and as such bound by the first amendment against penalizing speech beyond very narrow limits. Even then however they can still voice disaproval of speech that they object to and those engaging in it.

Platforms on the other hand? They are much less limited, and they don’t have to wait until someone actually acts out violently before telling them, ‘Not on our platform’.

Anonymous Coward says:

And that is not just an example of someone who identifies as conservative being banned or limited in some way, and not quoting someone out of context, but actual proof of someone being limited for actual conservative views. I’m still waiting to see it.

If there were statistics that showed openly conservative users of Twitter are punished at a higher rate than openly liberal users, would that suffice?

There have been experiments where identical resumes are sent out to companies – one with a name probably belonging to a Caucasian person and one with a name probably belonging to an African American. The resume with the black sounding name was less likely to garner any interest.

Would you be unlikely to believe that some companies are racist even when they don’t have an explicitly racist policy in their corporate handbook, or are you willing to consider that someone’s perceived skin color (or political beliefs) can result in unfair treatment?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Not every ToS or CoC violation is acted on, right? What if a user’s perceived political background influenced the decision to hand down some punishement?

That is, say two users posted similar comments that violated the terms. One is named @pretend_liberal and the other is @pretend_conservative. If, over a bunch of cases, the conservative posters were punished more severely than the liberal posters, would that be enough for Mike to concede that yeah, there may be anti-conservative forces in play?

If Mike is looking for somebody being banned for arguing that we would be better off with a balanced budget, that’s not going to happen. I would hope he’s open to looking at this topic with a little more nuance than that.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m not Mike, but my answer to your little theoretical query would be “no”. You’d have to present statistics about how many posts were made by each poster, how many of those posts were reported (and by how many people), how often Twitter punished both posters, and how long those punishments lasted. You’d also have to show me what the exact posts were that triggered the punishments, because there is such a thing as a false positive (thanks, reportbombers!). Besides, the posts for which either user (or both users) received a punishment may not be overtly political in nature.

If the whole point of your claim is that conservatives are being punished—or punished more severely—either for expressing “conservative values” or identifying as “conservative”, you must prove that they’re being punished specifically for those reasons alone. So, uh, good luck with all that, then. ????

(While you’re at it, perhaps you can be the one to tell us what specific values and ideas are explicitly “conservative” and why they’d be more likely to run afoul of Twitter’s TOS.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Perhaps I’m being obtuse, but it seems the burden of proof you’ve outlined is quite high. Not only that, but it depends on the subjective classification of "conservative."

While I understand that the burden of proof rests with the party making the complaint, when the burden of proof is so high is not a bit disingenuous to demand such proof before taking seriously the complainant’s case? Or are we to throw our collective hands up and declare that the entire thing is too murky to make any definite claims (as it seems it the status quo around here)?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Perhaps I’m being obtuse, but it seems the burden of proof you’ve outlined is quite high. Not only that, but it depends on the subjective classification of "conservative."

While I understand that the burden of proof rests with the party making the complaint, when the burden of proof is so high is not a bit disingenuous to demand such proof before taking seriously the complainant’s case? Or are we to throw our collective hands up and declare that the entire thing is too murky to make any definite claims (as it seems it the status quo around here)?

The lack of proof is not proof of a lack.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

it seems the burden of proof you’ve outlined is quite high

Yes, it is, and for good reason: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim “conservatives are being banned for being conservative” and offer only the fact that conservatives are being banned because they’re violating the TOS, you’re not proving your point — you’re hoping I’ll think you are and drop the argument.

it depends on the subjective classification of "conservative."

Yes, that is the broader point many of us have made before and will continue making when the subject comes up. When people who think “conservative values” are being banned from social media, what values and beliefs are they talking about? If said values and beliefs are rooted in cruelty and hatred towards others (e.g., “fuck those fucking f⸺ts”), the argument of “conservatives are banned for being conservatives” receives an addition: “…and those values and beliefs are part and parcel of modern conservatism”. That argument could damn well be true, but is that the argument you want to make?

when the burden of proof is so high is [it] not a bit disingenuous to demand such proof before taking seriously the complainant’s case?

That’s the point, yes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you cannot produce viable proof to back up your claim, you’re not entitled to having it taken seriously. The claims of “conservative bias” in social media require a hefty amount of proof for me to take seriously. Nobody making the claim can produce that proof. For what reason should I take it seriously when nobody can offer enough proof for me to take it seriously?

are we to throw our collective hands up and declare that the entire thing is too murky to make any definite claims[]?

The bar for proof of the claim is high. If someone making the claim can’t clear it, that is their problem. I have a different problem: I’m wondering why conservatives want to align themselves with the kind of beliefs and values that would violate a site’s TOS (e.g., homophobia, racism) for the sake of complaining about “anti-conservative bias” on social media.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 IF your aunt had a dick she’d be your uncle

LOL! As a conservative Bible-believing Christian who espouses traditional views I often post my thoughts on Twitter, FB, and occasionally here. I haven’t had the banhammer fall on me because I don’t go out of my way to behave offensively even though I often argue with those people I disagree with.

I’ve been blocked, indeed, pre-emptively blocked by many people but I don’t make a fuss about it, I move on.

If you don’t want comments hidden or to be banned from any given platform, don’t go out of your way to offend other people. It’s really that simple.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Eh, while I find it harder every day to argue this I don’t think it’s particularly conservative to be racist; you get that in every part of the political spectrum.

Yes indeed, liberals and actual lefties can be horribly racist.

Let’s agree on some terms, shall we?

Conservative: believes in traditional values including a strong work ethic and self-reliance. Some sympathy for the welfare state idea but skeptical that this will do much beyond creating reliance on the state for meeting people’s needs. Usually desires for welfare to be coupled with some kind of work requirement. Often religious. Racism tends to be protectionist.

Liberal: believes in freedom in all areas. When coupled with progressivism this means a bit of a free-for-all in all areas and ridiculous efforts to avoid offending people which are often inadvertently (and hilariously) offensive. See "James Melville Safety Pin" for details and lulz. Often atheist. Racism tends to be paternalist.

Socialist: believes in the need for a welfare state and government intervention in All The Things. Egalitarian and collectivist. Often atheist, but this philosophy does appeal to some religious groups. Racism tends to be protectionist.

These are very basic definitions and they work for me.

ladyattis (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Socialist: believes in the need for a welfare state and government intervention in All The Things. Egalitarian and collectivist. Often atheist, but this philosophy does appeal to some religious groups. Racism tends to be protectionist.

I’m going to take issue with your definition of socialist for a couple reasons. First, socialism doesn’t necessarily entail a welfare state. In fact, welfare states were and are criticized by socialists as they’re half-measures that are employed to prevent any attempt to socialize or otherwise convert capital to common ownership. Second, collectivism isn’t also baked into socialism either. For anarcho-communism/collectivism sure. But more often it’s an individualist ideology. And I speak as a syndicalist with mutualist leanings on this.

But otherwise, I agree that racism isn’t inherent to most strains of modern conservatism which is why I tend to argue that what is occurring is the resurgence of fascism in the manner that Umberto Eco would write about (Look up Ur-Fascism, it’s pretty easy to get a summary of it online that gives you the telltale signs of fascism). So many of these folks that claim to be conservative only say so to get sympathy from conservatives as much as some will claim to be liberals as well for the same effect. But in the end they’re fascists and reactionaries by definition.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Ah, I got my information from Britain’s Labour party, which is led by one Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, who has been repeatedly categorised as a dangerous lefty socialist-type thingy by the right wing press here in the UK.

Racism is very much alive in these circles, and tends to go along the lines of, "I suppose I ought to paint myself black, then see if there’s any social housing, etc., available." The Other is always presented as "Front of the line for taking things meant for ourselves." That’s what I mean by "protectionist" in that context. Right-wingers’ protectionism tends to go along the lines of "They’re intent on replacing de white folks!"

By "collectivism" I meant unionisation and nationalisation. See the Labour Party’s platform for details.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Socialist: believes in the need for a welfare state and government intervention in All The Things.

I was unaware that the GOP was socialist, but they do desire a welfare state for businesses and they do desire government intervention in all the things that the commoners do.
The GOP is not conservative according to your definition.
Our present government seems to be a kakocracy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Conservative: believes in traditional values including a strong work ethic and self-reliance.

I’m having a hard time lining that up in my head with support for capitalism.

Capitalism doesn’t reward a strong work ethic; it rewards "already having money."

If you wanted to reward a strong work ethic, the profits of a company would go to its workers; that way, the workers themselves would be rewarded when the company performed better, and so they’d be incentivized to work harder. Capitalism, by contrast, is generally defined by profits going to whoever contributed money/assets (capital) when the company was founded (or who purchased shares of the company from someone who did).

When an investor can earn several orders of magnitude more money just by sitting on their ass than, say, an anaesthesiologist does through hard work, or really, more than anyone can earn through a lifetime of hard, physical labour, I have to question whether conservatives truly value a strong work ethic the way they say they do.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Particularly when they tell you that you’re worth what the (rigged) market says you’re worth. This is why I mock the big "L" libertarians. They want us to pretend that the market is a fair and balanced, and therefore the best and most efficient system for distribution of wealth and resources. No, it’s not. If that were trued we’d have no homeless people.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

While the idea that if you work hard enough you’ll succeed can be a good motivator for some people it has a rather toxic counterpart, wherein you get the idea that if someone isn’t successful it’s not because the market’s bad, or bad luck, or something else that they have no control over is stacked against them, it’s because they aren’t trying hard enough.

‘You’re working two jobs and still struggle to make ends meet? Well clearly you aren’t really trying, because if you were you wouldn’t have a problem.’

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

the assumption that if someone is wealthy, it’s because they merit it through hard work

I ran the numbers a while back. Using my anaesthesiologist example again, which is about the highest-paid salaried job you can have, and one where having such a high salary is actually justifiable… it would take about 1,700 years for such a person, working forty-hour weeks, to earn a billion dollars.

It is literally impossible for a person to earn a billion dollars (or even a hundred million) through "hard work."

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

It is literally impossible for a person to earn a billion dollars (or even a hundred million) through "hard work."

No, it’s impossible to do that by a salary. The way it can be done through hard work is to start, build, and then sell a business. I’m sure anyone who’s done that (or tried) would agree it takes a lot of hard work. The thing is, to make hundreds of millions or billions of dollars at it probably requires a pretty good dose of good luck too, even ignoring the sort of good luck like being born into a middle class family that values education in an affluent nation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

The way it can be done through hard work is to start, build, and then sell a business. I’m sure anyone who’s done that (or tried) would agree it takes a lot of hard work.

I disagree that that’s "earning hundreds of millions of dollars through hard work."

Not that it doesn’t take a lot of hard work to build a business up from nothing. I absolutely agree that it does. But if you add up all of that work done by the entrepreneur, multiply it by what each of those tasks are worth… the numbers don’t work out to earning that much money. They don’t work out to "every day, you’re putting yourself through the education/work/stress/risk/responsibility of a hundred anaesthesiologists."

That’s what it amounts to, the idea that starting a business and selling it for hundreds of millions of dollars is "earning that money through hard work." It’s saying that the job you’re doing is that much more valuable. And, frankly (if I haven’t made it obvious already), I find that idea ludicrous.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

But if you add up all of that work done by the entrepreneur, multiply it by what each of those tasks are worth… the numbers don’t work out to earning that much money.

Earning money means obtaining money in exchange for labor or services, so it seems to mean that yeah it does work out that way. You’re just judging that the rate of pay is not justified by the work being done. But back to my original point. I was very careful not to use the word "deserve". I’m not claiming someone who sells a business to become a billionaire deserves that kind of money. I’m just saying it probably took a ton of work to do it, in addition to some good ideas and luck. Just like someone who is poor doesn’t deserve to be poor.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Earning money means obtaining money in exchange for labor or services

But the owner is not earning money in exchange for labor or services.

The company earns money in exchange for labor or services.

The owner is just the one who gets to pocket it.

I’m going to make a distinction here between a corporate entity and a sole proprietorship/partnership.

With the latter, the owner(s) probably takes the profits in lieu of a salary. But that’s probably not going to be all that much (unless you’re a partner in a law firm, but even that tops out at about $3mn per year, gross revenue). You’re not going to see very many people selling $100mn companies that aren’t corporations.

So, what about corporations? Well, in that case, the owner is either in an executive role, already being (probably over-) paid for their labor or services, in the form of a salary, or they’re not in such a role, and thus they’re not providing any labor or services. Either way, the profit of the corporation, or the profit from selling a corporation, isn’t "earned" in any sense.

Finally, three of the five listed definitions of "earn" on Dictionary.com feature some form of "deserve" or "merit." If you want to exclude that concept from your definition, you should specify it in advance.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

I was referring to a sole proprietor selling his business, which was created in part from his labor. That’s when they get really rich most often, rather than in the process of actually running the business.

If you want to exclude that concept from your definition, you should specify it in advance.

Fair enough.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

I may have used "sole proprietorship" too strictly – I just mean a business he has the ability to sell, rather than a corporation that’s owned by stockholders. Here’s an example of someone who sold his business for 25 million:

https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-startup-riches-myth-selling-for-millions-and-being-rich/

In this case, he had investors who owned a stake in the business, so maybe not a sole proprietorship? I’m not sure.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Yet, they’ll be told they’re not working hard enough when they complain.

Or told that they shouldn’t be buying [X], where [X] is a necessity for their job (car, phone), a coping mechanism for being overworked (alcohol, vacation), or a way of bettering themselves (school, gym membership), or escaping from their poverty (lottery tickets).

Are these always financially prudent choices? Of course not. But sometimes you have to weigh financial prudence against the ability to make it through tomorrow, and blaming someone for choosing the latter, when you’ve never had to make that choice yourself, is condescending and cruel.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Such a study would be interesting. The problem is the issue that unlike the resume study, you have to generate radically different social media footprints. The interesting thing about the resume study (both white vs minority or male vs female) is that you can control for the rest of the resume. You only change a name or a head shot. So now you just have to get enough HR people involved from a broad geographical pattern to average the bias of the HR people. Then you can see a statistical pattern emerge.

But you can’t apply that methodology directly to existing individuals on social media, because you can’t control for wide varieties in presentation of ideas, eloquence, combativeness, ect. So when you perceive bias against an idea, you might actually see bias against the presentation.

Additionally, you can’t control for which ideas that bias is presented against. For instance, a common refrain from the right over accusations they were supporting racists by voting Trump in 2016 was that while his racial commentary was horrible, they were in it for the economic and fiscal policy, not because of his racist rhetoric. Similarly, rhetoric around white nationalism, the white supremacy, Neo-Nazi propaganda, and the talk of the great replacement can be used by those with otherwise solid conservative values. No matter how well reasoned your conservatism, the Nazi shit might lead to deplatforming, rather than because of conservative values. Unless you want to claim the nazi shit as being conservative, but I thought the current narrative was that the left were the real Nazis, so….

A study to identify conservative bias in social media would need to identify all content which lead to moderation, as reported by the social media company, and classify presentation and content, show that the content was primarily responsible, and then you could assess the content classification and determine bias****.

*Self reporting by the moderated individual can lead to narrative crafting. social media reporting would hopefully have logs and copies of the moderated content.

**In this step you would have to establish what conservative ideas are, and if the post was indeed primarily an expression of conservative ideas.

***Even if the content is conservative, it might not be the conservative ideas that were at issue, but presentation including language and the way the content is directed at an audience.

****The previous steps are just the bare bones necessary to try to control for presentation and conflation of bad rhetoric with social and fiscal conservatism. A good sociology researcher would probably have more.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"If there were statistics that showed openly conservative users of Twitter are punished at a higher rate than openly liberal users, would that suffice?"

Only if the reasons why they were "punished" were because of "conservative" viewpoints that break the TOS that "liberal" posters got away with. If the ban is because, say, they crack down on white supremacist hate and only "conservatives" espouse such things, that only proves that more conservatives are white supremacists, not that they’re biased against conservatives.

"someone’s perceived skin color (or political beliefs)"

If you’re equating those two things, you don’t understand the issue.

Bloof (profile) says:

Has anyone ever been kicked off social media for supporting lower taxes, smaller government, looser labour laws, deregulation, privatisation and corporate subsidies? No?

It’s not conservatives being kicked off social media for being conservatives, it’s bigots being kicked off for being bigots who then turn around and cry out about bias because they enjoy being victims and they’re incapable of any sort of introspection. It can’t be their fault, it has to be the fault of the people they persecute somehow or some other enemy.

David says:

Re: Re:

Well, in words like "anti-conservative bias", "conservative" appears to be used synonymously with "despicable". What I find irritating about this is that employing "anti-conservative" as a pejorative apparently is enough to get the conservatives on board or at least not have them object to this use. Assuming that there actually are any conservatives left, of course.

I mean, just labelling someone as "anti-white" should hardly work for getting the vocal or silent support of every white person: I’d want to think that enough of them would see through that cheap ruse. But with "conservative", this seems to work pretty well.

JdL (profile) says:

What about James Damore?

What does the author say about the firing of James Damore, or isn’t he "conservative" according to the author’s definition? I certainly haven’t heard of Google firing anyone for saying that we must be inclusive and be sure that every population or belief group is represented according to their numbers in the general population. Google is apparently steeped in this kind of BS. Is this somehow not what the author is talking about?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

I certainly haven’t heard of Google firing anyone for saying that we must be inclusive and be sure that every population or belief group is represented according to their numbers in the general population.

Kinda says a lot about you when you’re conflating this with liberalism and the opposite with conservatism, even if you did so by accident.

Gary (profile) says:

False Argument

I really think it’s missing the point if we try to point out the lack of bias. The trolls feel persecuted and no one will ever change their mind.

More to the point – if companies have a liberal bias – so fucking what? So they believe in inclusion and healthcare. So what is the problem? You aren’t going to regulate Gab, so why does Twitter need the government to step in to protect the Proud Boys? Asshole’s bragging about "Scientifical Facts" on Reddit to "prove" their white-power viewpoints get downvoted. What is actually stopping the skinheads and assholes from voicing their opinion?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: False Argument

Here’s the thing that I can’t seem to fathom about radicals like you. You can’t seem to distinguish between someone’s argument and their character. Instead of engaging an argument, your communication focuses on character, a character that you imagine and may not be real at all. That is, conservatives want to debate and you radicals want to debate imaginary issues. People might not have hair for a lot of reasons, for example.

I would debate a "skinhead", no problem. What are his views? I feel competent enough to listen to his views, consider his views, rebut his false assumptions, and offer an alternative view. For example, in the early 1900’s, my grandfather was a big fan of Eugenics, it was kind of like the Climate Change argument of today. It was loosely based on science, but came to a lot of crazy conclusions, just like Climate Change does today. Today very few people believe we can "improve" the human species by selective breeding and culling, it sounds (and is) crazy talk. But it’s the talk that’s crazy, not the people. Same with Climate Change. Crazy talk. America represents a very small fraction of what happens on Planet Earth. We should turn our society upside down and hope others will follow? Crazy talk.

Can you comprehend that? As Americans, we have learned to accept the differing beliefs of our neighbors. We listen to them, we respect them, we consider them, we even sometimes learn something new from them. That’s American. You have a different view on Climate Change? That’s fine with me. You have your view and I have mine. No one is evil.

This practice you radicals have of condemning someone by saying they are "white supremacists" or "racists" or "homophobes" or "islamaphobes" or etc. and on and on just sounds stupid and un-American.

America leads the world because we respect ideas, not tyranny. We respect intellect and accomplishment, not intimidation, mob-rule and name calling.

Try it sometime. Maybe your life would be better.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: False Argument

Well, come back to the argument, and not the character (that you imagine).

The argument is that everyone in America enjoys the freedom to leave America. This is unlike many other countries, and offers our citizens a lot of choices. That’s worth loving.

For those Americans that feel that they suffer at the hands of American Society’s practices, an available alternative is to just move to another society that they like more. That would be a lot less intrusive on the rest of us.

Love it or leave it, I think it has been said many times to many people. That’s the argument.

I love America. Do you love America? Do you live in America? Why do you love it or not love it? Are you an American Citizen? Were your parents? Do you have any family history? These are the questions behind the argument. What forms the basis of your opinion?

And by the way, the mobs do not rule in America. Sometimes they chant. They do it at football games, baseball games, Trump Rallies, music venues, lots of places. It’s just for fun. Be calm. No one was hurt by the words.

Except lunatic leftists, of course, They are hurt by everything. A country of their own, that would be good, right? Would you agree that founding the United Leftists Union of Free Everything would be a noble cause?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Love it or leave it, I think it has been said many times to many people. That’s the argument.

And it’s a shitty argument, because it belies an important point: We can love our country and still criticize it. (“My country, right or wrong — if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right.”) If anything, the people pointing out America’s issues and still fighting to change it are more patriotic than the people who leave the country only because they don’t like who was elected president¹…or the people who refuse to criticize the country because they believe patriotism means seeing the country as perfect no matter what.


¹ — Exception: When people must flee the country because their lives are in legitimate danger because of potential governmental action (e.g., a gay person leaving their country because they’d be executed by the government if they stayed).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Yeah, but I listened to that Omar lady, and I didn’t like what she said, on many occasions. She sounded like she hated America, even though she was happy to come here from Nigeria. For her, I agree with Trump, why not go back to your own country and effect the changes that you think are important there? Why come to my country and lecture me about how my country is bad and my country’s history is bad? What makes you superior? Go fix your own country, that would be good, right? Show us how it’s down where you have some history and relevance, that’s what Trump said, right? A very reasonable and rational comment, given the circumstances.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Truth be told, I get a little tired of his rough words too. But Bernie? I don’t think so, he’s way out there. Biden? His son took too much money from the Chinese. Kamala? She laughs about smoking dope while putting people in prison for it.

Who do you like as an Alternative to Trump, Stephen?

How about you?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Well, I like some things about her. She’s not sexy like that Gabbard lady, her lips are thin and tight, and she always seems to look angry. But, some of her policies are interesting and ambitious, if you go for that sort of thing. She’s a thinker, I saw some things that really looked pro-American and pro-Nationalistic, but to tell the truth, I did’t look too closely. She looks like a screechy under-sexed angry professor to me. But if you like her, I can respect that. Good luck.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Two things.

  1. Your rhetorical gimmick will not work on me.
  2. If I had to choose between Ilhan Omar (a woman unafraid to criticize the United States for all its flaws and foibles, yet willing to work towards making the country a better place for all people despite the threats of violence sent her way) and Donald Trump (a philandering, sexist, racist asshole with possible signs of dementia who can only ever give a damn about himself and what others can do for him to represent this country), I’ll take Omar every time.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Yes, Stephen, it is clear that your decision making process is firmly rooted in your imagination, and untethered to any bothersome facts, figures or likely outcomes.

He Bad! She Good! Why? You’re a RACIST if you ask that question! You’re a SEXIST if you ask that question. You’re an ASSHOLE if you ask that question.

Sad, no? Do you feel sad? We all feel sad for you. You so quickly ran out of argument and fell back to the idiocy of fanatical bullshit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Even though you know the fake Indian story?

"5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 9, 2019

“Hands up, don’t shoot” became a national rallying cry — until the Obama Department of Justice comprehensively and thoroughly debunked it in a lengthy report published on March 4, 2015. Writing in December of the same year, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler called the slogan one of “the biggest Pinocchios of the year.”"
https://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-elizabeth-warren-kamala-harris-103000461.html

You haven’t had enough incitement yet?

Trump wants to improve healthcare by importing patented drugs from other Countries (Canada), but Bernie is radical, he wants to do it the way Canada does it…
Like, rad man, rad.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Can’t you google anything?

Citing sources is basic practice and very easy. Don’t be a lazy jackass.

As to the article, I wonder what the angle is. I suspect it’s "Import cheap drugs and sell them for a huge markup."

An alternate solution is to stop profit-mongering in healthcare and force reasonable prices, especially on drugs that were funded by public money, not private money. Has a whole lot more promise of stopping abuse in the long-term.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Don’t be a lazy jackass.

There was already one link to news I thought may not have been seen yet, which seemed to need to be backed up. I didn’t think Trumps plan was new news, so didn’t clutter post anymore than it was.

Not to mention, I have heard "I am not clicking on some random link" one too many times.

Don’t be so lazy and expect everyone else to teach you everything. I provided enough info for you to research further IF you desired.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Don’t be a lazy jackass.

You asserted the claim, you were asked for a citation, which is standard when someone has doubts about your claim. To your credit, you provided a citation, which is the correct response to a request to show your source. "Can’t you google?" just makes you a jackass.

"I’m not clicking on random links" isn’t a reason not to provide a link. The grand majority of people who say that are complaining about links that hide their source – bit.ly for example – so that they can’t tell what they’re going to.

The arstechnica article doesn’t have that problem, so reasonable folks won’t have an issue clicking and reading – those that hide being "random links" can be dismissed as disingenuous.

Don’t be so lazy and expect that you will never be asked for sources. You provided enough info for someone to ask you for a source. "Do your own research" is not a valid response when asked for a source.

Roy Rogers says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

I always provide a source if asked.

Already explained myself regarding my original comment. For further clarity, in my eyes, the comment was regarding Warren. I provided a link regarding my claims about Warren

And I don’t think I have the same writing style as Hamilton or Jhon or little boy Blew. I’m the one who told Blew you were "Timothy Fuckinwityou Geigner."

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

I always provide a source if asked.

Then you’re a step up from the average jackass.

And I don’t think I have the same writing style as Hamilton or Jhon or little boy Blew. I’m the one who told Blew you were "Timothy Fuckinwityou Geigner."

I’m not the one who said you were Hamilton. Incidentally, TFG stands for "That Fucking Guy" – you’re welcome to come to your own conclusions as to why.

For anyone who would take the lack of rebuttal as proof of truth – I am not Timothy Geigner.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

"Not to mention, I have heard "I am not clicking on some random link" one too many times."

If you’re posting links, for people to take them serious you have to provide a) context (what the purpose of posting the link is), b) credibility (who the link goes to and why they’re a good source) and c) value (why should someone click on the link, what extra does it provide that you cannot provide?). Sometimes the work is done for you to a degree (e.g. if you provide a link to a known credible source you have to support it less than you would if you link to some random blog), but if you’re not going to explain why someone should click through, many people won’t do that.

"I provided enough info for you to research further IF you desired."

No you didn’t. You provided a random link in a context that suggests that you just posted the first thing that came up in a Google search. There’s not reason to take that seriously, nor should anyone else need to research your claims. If you can’t provide evidence for your own claim, it will be rejected, as it should be.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

"You provided a random link in a context that suggests that you just posted the first thing that came up in a Google search."

The Warren link from Yahoo news, whom was subject of conversation, or the Ars link? Which one do you think is random?

Going to attack me for reading Yahoo news? Maybe it should be tried to stay up on news since everyone here seems to be a few weeks behind, which I am supposed to know, apparently. I guess healthcare in the States isn’t as an important issue as I thought(I know you aren’t American, my original comment was made to one)
Going to Canada by the busload to buy meds must be fake news.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-aug-1-2019-1.5231686/canada-has-no-reason-to-support-u-s-plan-to-import-prescription-drugs-expert-says-1.5232787
That is the first thing that comes up in a search for me regarding the requested cite. Ars isn’t on first page, did not look to see where it is. [see cite below in other comment]

I was wondering when you would chime in. Sounds like you are feeling defensive about TFG saying your argument about not clicking on random links is disingenuous? LOL

I’ve had enough incitement. Warren is just Trump all over again whom identifies as a different gender[the Obama Department of Justice comprehensively and thoroughly debunked it in a lengthy report published on March 4, 2015]. Warren obviously wishes to continue the racial tensions. Who do you think she will identify as next?
Bernie for President!

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

"The Warren link from Yahoo news, whom was subject of conversation, or the Ars link? Which one do you think is random?"

The ArsTechnica link. I was apparently wrong, but the impression you gave is that you did a quick Google search and picked the first result, which is hardly a good way to vet sources.

"Going to attack me for reading Yahoo news? "

No, but know the biases inherent in the sources you use. If you use a single source, you’re not getting the whole story, no matter how reputable.

"That is the first thing that comes up in a search for me regarding the requested cite. Ars isn’t on first page, did not look to see where it is."

So… the link you used to accompany you mocking people for not Googling your claims is one you couldn’t find on Google? Hmmm…

"I was wondering when you would chime in. Sounds like you are feeling defensive about TFG saying your argument about not clicking on random links is disingenuous?’

I don’t see any such comment from him, or any at all that are in response to me. Strange…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

"Can’t you google anything?"

If one were to pay attention, they might have seen the comment that was replied to contained a statement which is most definitely false. Said comment is included below for your edification. Do you see the part where Trump wants to improve healthcare? Yeah – LOL huh.

"Trump wants to improve healthcare by importing patented drugs from other Countries"

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

The one who makes the claim is the one with the burden of proof to provide evidence, and while you provided a link to a source after being prompted ‘Go find it yourself’ is a fairly well known tactic for some people to dodge having to back up their claims, as they send people on snipe hunts with any result that doesn’t back up their claims dismissed as the person just not finding the ‘right’ source.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

People make claims in almost every comment, yet not all comments contain links

I must be the only one who hears of new things and does some research

It is better to let others feed you?

Re-read the original comment that my original comment is responding to. Who is the topic about? Who did I post a link about?

Do we need a citation for my claims about Bernie too? How do I know what you know or don’t know?

Maybe Mr Stone could have said "Hey! That is news to me, where did you hear that? I can’t be bothered to google it" or "My google-fu is on the blink, got a link?"
Instead I get responses like I am full of shit. The only ones full of shit are the ones calling me who don’t have a clue what they are talking about. How can you call someone on something when you know nothing of the thing in question? Tell me I am full of shit, there is nothing in the news about that. Wouldn’t that be easy? Instead I get that I am full of shit and have to prove otherwise. You can’t fix ignorance

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

Ah, but I did. Weren’t we talking about Warren?
If you and others can’t be bothered to do a little research, don’t call others an asshole because you are ignorant, makes you sound like a nazi

Tell me again how I know what you do or do not know?

"If you can’t be bothered to offer a citation for a claim of fact that isn’t widely known"
[citation needed, news two weeks old]

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

"If it’s that important, it can’t be hard to find actual evidence."

Not necessary. See above quote. If it is important to you, you will investigate, if you don’t investigate, it isn’t that important to you, like healthcare in USA. I mean seriously, how hard would it have been for you to google my quote and then tell me I’m full of shit?

Better to default to you knowing more about your politics than I do, save me a lot of time. If, for some reason, you couldn’t find info, I will provide link.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

"If it is important to you, you will investigate"

No, if it’s important enough to you then you will back up your own arguments. It’s not up to readers to investigate every wild claim presented without evidence.

"I mean seriously, how hard would it have been for you to google my quote"

Harder than it would be for you to provide the source you used to get it in the first place. The fact that you refuse to do this and end up in a pointless argument about how everyone else should be researching your claims for you tells me you’re full of shit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Why the hell would Trump want to import patented drugs from other countries?

Isn’t the whole reason why he engages in trade wars precisely to increase the value of American-produced goods like steel?

What, are glorious American patented medicines suddenly not to scratch?

(Anyone else surprised that Hamilton continues to not think his arguments through?)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

This makes your argument look good… how? Trump decides that the solution to expensive drugs at home… is not to drop prices of local drugs (made artificially expensive by his boi Martin Shrekli), but to poach them from other countries on the cheap?

This is the same "bigly" genius who, after winning his election campaign on the idea that he’d get Mexico to pay for his pet wall, ended up funding the damn thing by cutting military budgets.

Fucking tactical mastermind you got in the White House there…

Roy Rogers says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

Bernie for President

Listen to Joe Rogan experience #1330, Then tell me how radical Bernie is
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190808/12261042744/white-house-once-again-circulating-draft-executive-order-social-media-bias.shtml#c1406

"scrambled to find the first Trumpsucking article you could link to"
Link is about Warren
Quit opening your mouth, you have made your point loud and clear

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

tell me how radical Bernie is

He’s so radical that he’s pushing for the same kind of nationalized healthcare that you can find in literally every other developed country in the modern world. Wow.

The problem with calling Bernie a “radical” lies in framing his positions as “extreme” only (or primarily) because they’re the opposite of what you believe. As an example, look at the idea of same-sex marriage: One side wanted to keep gay people from getting married, and the other side wanted to allow same-sex marriages. The first side painted the other side as “extremists” for that. But in reality, the true “extremes” would be in wanting only people of one sexuality to have marriage rights — be it heterosexual or homosexual. The people for same-sex marriage weren’t aiming for that; they were aiming for a neutral stance.

Need another example? Let’s go with the separation of church and state, then. Let’s say that one side is angling for the government to endorse one specific religion and its beliefs as much as it can. The other side is angling for the government to remain neutral — i.e., to stop promoting any religion or religious beliefs. But the second side’s opposition isn’t “extreme”, it’s merely an opposing position. It’s also a position that asks for a show of neutrality. The true “extreme”, then, would be in calling for governmental promotion of atheism.

Bernie’s ideas about healthcare (among other things) aren’t “extreme” if you consider what he’s calling for (nationalized healthcare) in light of what extremes he could be arguing for (healthcare being expensive as hell for poor people or healthcare being expensive as hell for rich people). What he wants is something in the middle: A healthcare system that everyone can access without going bankrupt. If you consider that “extreme”, I am left to wonder why.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

Exactly! Pretty radical isn’t he? Yet, you prefer Warren who wants to keep tensions high using 4 year old debunked material?

Chomsky BRILLIANTLY Dissects Trump, Democrats & RussiaGate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llzoItQgLOQ

"How would they know anything about it?"
George Carlin on gays
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjVeWvdogMw

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

You chucklenuts keep posting the same alt-right bitching and use TOR to change your IP addresses. It’s hardly my problem if you all get tarred with the same brush. I’m certainly not losing any sleep over it.

Personally I think it’s funny as fuck that his solution to escalating drug prices isn’t to make them more accessible. Why, patented American medicines are immune to cheaper prices and better accessibility?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Crybaby Bitch Hamilton rides again.

And then we sell them back to you cheaper than you can buy them yourself, that makes perfect logical sense, doesn’t it? Good thing fuel and labor is dirt cheap

Maybe you should check out some of Bernies radical ideas that would put you in the same boat as Canada regarding healthcare

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"And it’s a shitty argument, because it belies an important point: We can love our country and still criticize it. "

I often wonder at the personal relationships these people must have. If something isn’t perfect in your view, you should just up and leave? No point in trying to fix what you don’t like, and to hell with compromise, you should just run to the next best thing? Yeah, that sounds like a health family…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 False Argument

Love it or leave it, I think it has been said many times to many people. That’s the argument.

Y’do realize that Trump’s entire campaign was based on criticizing America and the former President (and some of his top officials).

Did you say to him "Love it or leave it" or are you just a total hypocrite?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, Stephen, you are projecting your view onto others. Most Americans would see an old guy talking to a bald guy. Most Americans would wonder what they are talking about. A good debate is not unlike a chess game – you have your strategy, your major components and supporting arguments, and move by move you confront your opponent.

Debate. Argument. The best ideas win. No one’s feelings are hurt. No one is evil. Junior high level education, you had that, right?

Like adults, Stephen. Not spoiled illiterate children imagining the worst about people that they don’t know, never talked to, and don’t know about.

You should stop projecting so much hate. You sound like you are in a lot of pain. The frame you carry for your world view must be an incredible burden to bear.

Keep in mind that the majority of Americans are happy, healthy, and rapidly becoming richer, more secure, more invested, and more hopeful about the future.

Trust me – an old guy and a bald guy talking – that’s all anyone would see. Except maybe you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Keep in mind, Stephen, that you are a tiny minority in your world view.

Americans think open debate is GOOD.

Americans think people should be judged by their character and not the color of their skin.

Americans think they can win debates because their ideas are BETTER, not behind they are TYRANTS that squelch ANYONE’s speech.

MAGA

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Ok, you’re an American, I’m an American, we have that in common, at least.

I think you are saying that some types of free expression should not be allowed because they would “disturb” you? Doesn’t that conflict with the fundamental idea of “free speech”?

Are you advocating a position that restricts free speech? If so, what position are you advocating? What speech or ideas or discussions would you ban? What debate would you ban?

While some of these ideas about curbing free speech may seem attractive on the surface, when you consider the consequences, I believe they end up making everything worse, not better.

Take a look at the history of Eugenics, Stephen. It was really horrific, but endorsed by more scientists than Climate Change. Really, it was a world-wide phenomenon and accounted for a lot of the most horrible world history. It was wrong and used to justify terrible things, but supported by “thousands” fo scientists, just like Climate Change.

Why not debate anything, Stephen? What are you afraid of? Let people talk. People with bad ideas will just be seen as people with bad ideas. Not evil. Just not right.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

A certain kind of speech being “offensive” or socially unacceptable does not (and should not) make it illegal to express such speech. But it does mean everyone else can decide whether that speech is something they consider unacceptable and act accordingly. I would hope that you would consider the “merits” of ethnic cleansing vis-á-vis White supremacy to be such speech, but your posts here clearly give away your position on that matter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Now you’re back to imagining things about me. I see people like machines, like biological machines, with short term and long term software. First, there is the long term software that they are born with, their DNA, that says a lot about them. Then, there short term software, developed during their lifetime, and lost with their death. IMHO, it is that software, their ideas, their practices, their habits, their treatment of others, their contribution to society, that defines them. Not their genetics. In thousands of years of study, I don’t believe anyone has identified a superior gene pool as it relates to genius, though many have tried and thought they succeeded. In my belief system, there is no monopoly on good ideas by white black or otherwise. Good ideas can be discovered, documented, proven and disseminated by anyone, without regard to their DNA.

Assuming they are human, of course. For some reason, only humans have the ability to store data outside their physical bodies. That seems key. This message, for example, was not written by a monkey. Monkeys can’t store and retrieve external data, only humans can.

All humans. You’re human, right? We have that in common too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Stephen, do you know the guy who wrote Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton? Ever read his works? In one of his books, he wrote a whole introduction comparing the scientific “consensus” regarding Eugenics with Climate Change, both were resoundingly endorsed by the Democratic Party.

Eugenics was concerned with exactly the question you pose – should people be killed based on their genetics – not just color, but width of their skull, position and size of their nose, construction of their jaw, etc. This was overwhelming endorsed by the scientific community of the 1900s.

Would I debate that? Of course? It is a flawed concept, regardless of how popular it was at the time, or how much pressure was applied by fanatical believers. It is a flawed idea.

Do you have a list of ideas you would “never” debate? Is it long? Or is this the only member of that list?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Stephen, would you debate whether Vulcans should be ruled by Klingons? Or wait, I remember another Star Trek series where one race actually ingested another, remember that? Funny looking guy with long arms a long head and little tentacles on the back of his neck that was going to die because his tentacles fell off and his masters were going to eat him. Remember that? To be honest, that’s when I tuned out of the Star Trek series. Idiocy on display.

Did you find it offensive and disgusting? I didn’t. I just saw it as stupid. I guess my skin is thicker than yours.

I see people with stupid ideas as people with stupid ideas, not evil people. Did I mentioned that I used to teach Computer Science? I often see myself as a teacher, still. Of course I would be happy to help straighten out the wrong-headed ideas held by someone else. I see myself as very persuasive.

Persuasive, Stephen. How can you ever win someone over to your ideas if you don’t listen to them and engage them and debate them?

Or would you prefer to just put your fingers in your ears and sing?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

It isn’t my job to convince a White supremacist who believes in ethnic cleansing for the sake of creating a Whites-only ethnostate that their ideas aren’t ignorant and evil. It’s my job to mock their ignorance, call them evil dumbasses, and laugh at them like they deserve. If you think their ideas are worth debating, you think their ideas have some merit to them. The idea of ethnic cleansing in service of racial superiority has no merit; debating it, for even a second, gives it more credibility than it will ever deserve.

You’ve said, over and over, that you believe the idea deserves debate. Which means you think the idea of ethnic cleansing holds at least a sliver of credibility and merit. And that says far more about you than you should be comfortable with, Hamilton.

I wonder what Shiva Ayyadurai would think of you for wanting to debate people who, in all likelihood, would want him dead for being a brown-skinned foreigner.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

Debating something does not give it credibility. I have had to explain to a lot of children, like you, why their ideas were flawed.

persuasion, Stephen, persuasion.

Do you ever intend to persuade anyone? Or do you just want to spend your time condemning people that you don’t know, never met, and couldn’t possibly understand as evil?

Set a goal for yourself, Stephen. Persuade one person to take a new position on something. I dare you.

Maybe you could learn to actually fit in to an existing social fabric, rather than spending your time trying to destroy a society that you just don’t understand.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

Debating something does not give it credibility.

“Stephen T. Stone deserves to be lynched for being queer.”

If you’re willing to debate whether that statement is true — to let someone attempt to convince you that I deserve to die only because of my sexual orientation — you believe it holds at least a sliver of credibility. That is your problem, not mine.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

Are you saying the topic is off limits for ANYONE to debate? Or are you saying that the people who hold that view should not be listened to?

I asked you before and I will ask you again, what are you trying to say? Are there a list of topics that you think should be “undebatable”, even in (for example) academic or informal debates done just for the fun of it?

Is the problem with me or the subject or with the anyone who holds a certain view?

Or is the problem Actually that you just don’t know how to debate or defend an actual argument about anything, and will instead fall back to your RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC chant?

Spell it out for us, Stephen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

Are you saying the topic is off limits for ANYONE to debate? Or are you saying that the people who hold that view should not be listened to?

I asked you before and I will ask you again, what are you trying to say? Are there a list of topics that you think should be “undebatable”, even in (for example) academic or informal debates done just for the fun of it?

Is the problem with me or the subject or with the anyone who holds a certain view?

Or is the problem Actually that you just don’t know how to debate or defend an actual argument about anything, and will instead fall back to your RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC chant?

Spell it out for us, Stephen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

And by the way, I don’t fear gay people, they are self-selecting victims of Darwin’s truth. No children to pass their deviant traits on to. No legacy. No reproduction with a female. Who cares about their deviant sexual practices anyway? Find a mate and live out your days with your dick in another man’s asshole or mouth, up to you. Short term negligible impact on society as a whole.

Your deviant habits are self-correcting. Be happy. Be as gay as you like.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Nice own goal dipshit

“Or is the problem Actually that you just don’t know how to debate or defend an actual argument about anything, and will and will instead fall back to your RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC chant?”

That is the best description of your postings I’ve ever heard. Too bad you have the self awareness of a bag of extra foamy frog spawn.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Re: False Argument

People might not have hair for a lot of reasons, for example.

Wow, way to toss the strawmen under the buss crybaby. Nothing wrong with being bald. You you do want to lie down with the white supremacists and that really isn’t something worth debating.

But you missed the point – everyone has their opinion. No site is without bias. You want to take away Twitter’s right to moderate but love sucking up to StormFront to "debate" the best way to stop the minorities from stealing their women.

Gary (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: False Argument

Fascist says what?

Apparently they say, "Don’t be mean to those skinheads, that may be early pattern balding! Just because they have a swastika tattoo doesn’t mean they aren’t Very Fine People!! And they person they are kicking probably deserved it anyway."

At least, that is what crybaby Ham says.

ladyattis (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 False Argument

Like I’m willing to be lenient with evangelicals as not all of them are Family Research Council dirtbags, but anyone who’s a race realist or bigot of another stripe I’m just not gonna invite them to the cookout, sorry. And note, that I don’t talk party affiliation because it’s not a straight line. There’s plenty of center right Democrats as there are (even if some are afraid in this time of resurgent fascism) center right Republicans. It’s just gonna take time until this all settles out and we’ll see what happens from there. But I do feel for conservatives even though I’m a leftist. There’s a similar problem on the left with the "red-brown alliance" of Nazbols (national bolsheviks), so this isn’t just a right or left problem but a universal one.

TFG says:

Re: Re:

Everyone deserves a voice. Don’t like it? Don’t listen to it. Which is exactly what’s happening when someone gets kicked off Twitter.

If it’s illegal content, allowing authorities to handle it is correct. If it’s strictly legal content, allowing people to exercise their own authority to tell someone they can’t say that on their platform is correct.

We’re on a slippery slope with calling for regulation of this trumped-up "deplatforming" nonsense. Eventually, it will turn into massive censorship, or no moderation, and it will be turned on everyone to their detriment.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Everyone deserves a voice.

Including advertisers.

Don’t like it? Then don’t listen to it.

So I take it you have no problem with spam flooding your social media feeds. You’ll just "not listen to it" somehow? That slippery slope argument goes to shit pretty quickly when you consider that advertisers should also be treated fairly because you know…free speech and all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

We’re on a slippery slope with this de-platforming bullshit. Eventually, it can and will be turned on voices you agree with and more importantly YOUR voice

My response is: So what? That is their LEGAL right to block you for almost anything they want to. I can kick you out of my house for pretty much any reason. Same with restaurants, convention centers, etc…

There is no slippery slope because this is how the system was designed to work. And working it is. If you don’t like you can always petition to change it, but I guarantee that IS the slippery slope and you won’t like the results.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

We’re on a slippery slope with this de-platforming bullshit.

  1. Create a US-based, conservative-funded platform of your own – if it’s so popular, it should have no trouble raising funds. Maybe a GoFundMe – like you’re doing for the wall, now that Mexico isn’t paying for it.
  2. Take all your shit and put it there

How is that so complicated?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"How is that so complicated?"

They actually know their toxic shit isn’t actually popular enough to gain an audience anywhere near as large as the one they can get by forcing current platforms to host it. It’s just easier to pretend they’re the victim if they’re not allowed to violate other peoples’ freedom of association than it is to admit nobody wants to associate with them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Every time someone posts evidence of anti-conservative bias by social media sites Mike writes it off as a mistake. No bias, just mistakes. Just lots of progressive leaning employees making mistakes as they try to sift through vast amounts of information. Kind of reminds me of that IRS thing during the Obama administration – no bias, just mistakes.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

To prove anti-conservative bias, you have to present statistics about…

  • how many posts were made by conservative and liberal users
  • how many of those posts were reported (and by how many people)
  • how often Twitter punished both conservative and liberal users
  • how long those punishments lasted

…and then you’d still have to show me the exact posts that triggered the punishments. (False positives and reportflagging are things that happen, after all.) And even then — after all that! — you’d stil have to prove whether those posts for are overtly political in nature, and how they’re aligned to either conservatism or liberalism. To put it bluntly: If a conservative is banned for using racial slurs and conservatives consider that a form of anti-conservative bias, what does that say about conservatism?

TFG says:

Re: Re:

Every time someone purports to post evidence of anti-conservative bias, it turns to be either be not what they said it was, or people violating the Terms of Service by holding to views that conservatives should be ashamed to be affiliated with.

I really don’t understand why any conservative would want to be affiliated with the American Nazi Party, for example.

Matthew A. Sawtell (profile) says:

So... how are going to be labelling Zachary Vorhies?

Going to be interesting to see how much Zachary Vorhies – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VeElBAeas – is going to picked apart by Mike Masnick and friends. Also, have fun this pile of documents – https://www.projectveritas.com/google-document-dump/.

Can the TechDirt team be on par with the ’50 Cent Army’, we shall see…

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The argument is that the guy being put forward as an example of a victim of Google’s supposed bias against relatively mainstream conservative views, but evidence shows that he holds views (or acts as though he does) that are not generally considered mainstream conservative views. Therefore, this is not an example of Google being biased against mainstream conservative ideas, but against trolls, extremists, and bigots, which is not generally considered controversial.

That is, we aren’t just insulting the guy to refute the argument he’s making about himself (which is one of the cases where an ad hominem argument is actually valid) but also to refute the arguments made by others about him and his credibility (another time when ad hominem is valid). It’s not invalid or unfair to argue that the facts presented by someone are of questionable validity at best by attacking their character in ways that either dispute their credibility or the premise of their argument(s). That’s different from using ad hominem to attack the validity of the argument as a whole.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...