Absolutely, and equally on the other side of things the free speech side don't just want to be able to say whatever they want - they want the right to speech in front of people who don't want to hear it. People who don't like moderation on Twitter can go off to gab, gettr, telegram, Truth, 4chan or a tonne of other venues. But they don't just want to say what they want, they want the people they hate to hear it. The person shouting slurs at AOC on twitter isn't satisfied with calling AOC names if they don't think she will see it.
>>equally on the other side of things the free speech side don't just want to be able to say whatever they want - they want the right to speech in front of people who don't want to hear it.
While I am sure that is true in some circumstances, I believe that is less common than my original statement
>People who don't like moderation on Twitter can go off to gab, gettr, telegram, Truth, 4chan or a tonne of other venues.
All of those sites have various moderation rules, the key difference here is the people that control the moderation are likely of a different political leaning to you so you view them as being "unmoderated" because you do not like the content that is allowed there.
Gab as an example started out as a "free speech" platform, but now has pretty intensive moderation rules especially around Adult content. This cost them alot of good will from Free Speech Absolutists, and libertarians.
>>The person shouting slurs at AOC on twitter isn't satisfied with calling AOC names if they don't think she will see it.
AOC is somewhat of a different case, without addressing your red herring of slurs. AOC is an elected official, as such the bar should be set higher for elected official in that they have an ethical obligation to hear from the people they represent.
You went from asserting its uncommon for people to be advocating for a right to be heard at the beginning of your reply, to actually asserting that is your position at the end of it.
I just don't think it's a reasonable position, no one has an ethical obligation to make themselves endure racist and misogynist abuse. And you might call it a red herring, but there's overwhelming evidence that that's what AOC is exposed to under the system you advocate.
Free speech is a right to speak, not a right to insist other people listen.
>>but there's overwhelming evidence that that's what AOC is exposed
No there really is not because she and many others have the habitat of calling all criticism "harassment", and then posting a couple of example many of which are not even harassment
>no one has an ethical obligation to make themselves endure racist and misogynist abuse.
Sure, but we would first need to settle on a definition of what is "racist" and "misogynist" because if you use AOC definition of those word I can assure you we do not agree on what would be considered "racist" and "misogynist", because AOC thinks someone saying "We need strong border security" is racist.
I mean... if you want to try and claim that AOC hasn't been harassed, that's fine. But I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously, no matter your definition of racism or misogyny. I decided to go AOC's twitter page and view the replies to the first tweet I saw, I scrolled past 8 replies before I found the following
>How does it feel to know that in 2 weeks you will be voted out? What a loser you are. The People of NY hate you. After you lose the election, you should disappear forever. Go to Puerto Rico fix you abuelas roof and stay living there
Now, I personally think the racist trope of "go back to where you came from" is pretty obvious. I also think that the fact that I can find such comments so easily is fairly telling. But let's ignore that and just point out that people have literally been jailed for harassing AOC and sending her death threats.
So let's back up, you can make a judgement about the extent to which you value free speech, but you have to do that grounded in reality.
Yeah see I think you've sort of painted yourself into a corner with this, where the only way of defending your position is to pretend something obviously true isn't true. If you're going to define racism in a way that excludes comments that are so well established that they have wikipedia pages about them[1] and are literally listed in the category "Racism in the United States", then I think you've effectively said there's nothing that could possibly be said that is racist.
>Go to Puerto Rico fix you abuelas roof and stay living there
I don't think it's a leap to relate that to go back where you came from, and I don't think other people think that either - since the wikipedia page literally cites as an example of this racist trope.... Donald Trump saying
>Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came...
Who did he say that in reference to? AOC.
So it's not really a leap is it. But what I'm interested in, is that you claim to read a different meaning into this, so be specific, what do you think the person posting in reply to AOC meant by that?
