If I see someone making the 'educated' right wing arguements they can still get in the sea.
Twitter is now a place where cowards express their views without fear of recrimination and twitter do nothing about it.
While it would be an interesting experiment, I can't really see there being any earth shattering results.

Well the thing that made it interesting was also the kind of one-off that would have fucked any results anyway. But I still found it interesting.

I suppose the issue I'd have with it, and your terming of it as an "experiment" (to give it a bit more gravitas and ground it in reason), is that really it was an exercise in confirmation bias.

You believe that there is a growing authoritarian leftist movement, which crushes dissent and even reasoned alternative views, and that this represents a problem (I'm not clear for what or whom). Your experiment, if you take the data seriously, appears to bear this out.

However in reality all you've shown is that there are ignorant stubborn fragile aggressive bastards everywhere, and for some reason they gravitate to social media platforms. You could do exactly the same from a "leftist" perspective in rightish wing places and receive the same unreasonable responses. You could do the same, without the labels (i.e.: offer gentle but different views on things taken very seriously by ignoramuses), in any forum and you'll get the same data.

I suppose the question remains, I think Brooks may have posed it first - what exactly is the threat? Or is it simple disappointment that absolute shites exist all over the political spectrum?

IanHamlett wrote:

Am I not allowed to come to conclusions from my own experiences?

Depends, what significance level did you choose prior and what were the final p-values for the right-wing troll, left-wing troll and control accounts?

IanHamlett wrote:

The right-wing account was blocked and had more comments deleted than the left-wing account, even discounting the events surrounding the massive retweet. This lines up with rather well actual scientific findings about free speech in universities.

?

Also, was this all tweeting and website comments sections? (As in, places where people are entirely free to block and delete stuff because there's no free speech there?)

I didn't call it an experiment to mislead anyone as to it's scientific validity. Experiments aren't limited to science.

I do believe there's a growing authoritarian left (regressive left doesn't necessarily imply wanting to censor). It saddens me that people don't see this as a problem. Ideas should be challenged to see if they still stand. If expressing some opinions, or telling some jokes, becomes too costly, then we all miss out.

OK, well your terming meant I took it as I stated, and if that's not how you meant it I apologise.

However, I still don't believe there is more of a problem with stupid people on the left than stupid people on the right.

Of course there are authoritarian people on both the left and right. However, while those on the right are generally laughed at, discredited and mocked, those on the left seem to actually have some influence.

Edit- to clarify, im thinking particularly with regards free speech.

equinox_code wrote:

Of course there are authoritarian people on both the left and right. However, while those on the right are generally laughed at, discredited and mocked, those on the left seem to actually have some influence.

I think one of the big differences for me is that those on the right have more often been in a position of power and able to do something about what they don't like - in general it seems the left often haven't been in significant positions of power and so when they *do* get some control (e.g. student unions/NUS punters trying to draw up well-meaning but ultimately-flawed rules and guidelines about "safe spaces", people on twitter realising they can easily curate their own echo-chambers) they over-egg it and it takes a while to figure out where to draw the fuzzy lines.

All seems like growing pains to me, presented with lashings of clickbait and agenda-grinding from people who want to make a name for themselves. Clueless leftie dimwits will figure it out eventually, when it all comes round to bite them in the arse (which is what is happening).

djchump wrote:

… and there wasn't a problem, just a single person being a bit dim who, in years to come, will probably look back on it and grimace with the thought of "gosh, I was a bit daft about that, wasn't I".

I think this is the case more often than not.

I’m judging you right now.

djchump wrote:

IanHamlett wrote:

djchump wrote:

We all miss out on what though? Someone being on twitter, or some UKIP gimp giving a talk at a student union? Well, there's rivers being cried over here.

I stand for free speech as a universal right. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/15/peter-tatchell-racist-no-platform-controversy-silences-freedom-of-speech

Weird how that's in a leftie newspaper/website, eh? Also, this seems weird:

Cowling’s view is, no doubt, extreme. But it isn’t no-platforming. If she wants to refuse to engage with one of the most experienced and committed radical campaigners in the country, that is her great loss, but she is within her rights to do so. Her view doesn’t represent a corporate policy on the part of the NUS. And it is she who will be absent from the debate, not Tatchell. He will still be able to speak; indeed, in the end, his voice has been lent greater weight by the controversy.

So, he wasn't no-platformed, and there wasn't a problem, just a single person being a bit dim who, in years to come, will probably look back on it and grimace with the thought of "gosh, I was a bit daft about that, wasn't I".

It's not weird that it's a leftie paper, unless you interpreted "authoritarian left" as my name for the entire left (excluding me) and not a subset that required its own label. I picked this because it happened yesterday. If you want more examples, google "no platform", there's been quite a bit of it.

Trying to label a broad range of political opinions on a linear spectrum is never going to represent anyone very well. A four pointed political compass is far better but still groups all economic issues on one line and all social issues on another.

The terms aren't as well understood though.



I'm in the green bit btw.

I include myself in this fucknugget quota, obvs.

Dark Soldier wrote:

Twitter is for absolute fucknuggets tbh. Worth it for the occasional lol but anyone who takes any of that shit serious should be rightly shot in the skull. Includes anyone who discusses GamerGate which still enters my feed on a daily fucking basis.

Registered fuck nugget reporting. I always feel like core purpose is almost fucked now thanks to stuff like gamergate and the people on both sides that perpetuate. Reaching out to people is done through an air of weariness and caution, and if you didn't get in with certain groups years ago then they have no time for you. Makes getting your work shared a total nightmare.

Writing and videos what I done