You've still drawn a conclusion from your sucky experiment and anecdata though.IanHamlett wrote:I was having a poke to see if my suspicions were right, like taking a different route to work to see which way is quicker. I'm not presenting it as scientific findings but as an anecdote of personal experience related to a news story.djchump wrote:Your experiment sucks.
Am I not allowed to come to conclusions from my own experiences? 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.djchump wrote:You've still drawn a conclusion from your sucky experiment and anecdata though.IanHamlett wrote:I was having a poke to see if my suspicions were right, like taking a different route to work to see which way is quicker. I'm not presenting it as scientific findings but as an anecdote of personal experience related to a news story.djchump wrote:Your experiment sucks.
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:Am I not allowed to come to conclusions from my own experiences?
?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.
I stand for free speech as a universal right.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.
Nor do I. I kinda think being right wing is, on its own, evidence of stupidity. But as a lefty I see it as my job to help keep my house in order.Funkstain wrote: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.
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.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.
Weird how that's in a leftie newspaper/website, eh?IanHamlett wrote: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-speechdjchump 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.
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".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.
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".
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.djchump wrote:Weird how that's in a leftie newspaper/website, eh? Also, this seems weird:IanHamlett wrote: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-speechdjchump 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.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".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.
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.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!