I don't disagree with your point about those who want the protestors to go away (and of course about the first dogwhistle), but can we please not compare just stop oil to immigrants, or the treatment they get to racism? The two are not comparable.
A) source? B) its not about not liking the protest, its that they are actively making it worse by letting cars idle. sure they can turn the engine off but most wont ofc. they are making actual climate activists look bad. i beleive a lot of these protesters in the news are set up by the oil industry and the like for that reason.
Regarding idle cars- that's not the point. The point is that if it's more inconvenient to take a car than public transportation/WFH, people will take public transportation or WFH
Most people driving around do it because they don't have a choice, so all they're doing is making some poor person's already shitty life worse. They are absolutely delusional if they think holding up traffic for a few hours is making a difference to the environment when there's a private jet putting out how many times more pollution than those cars? They need to convince more people to be sympathetic to the cause but making their lives miserable just makes people want to punch them in the face instead of help them.
There is no such thing as freedom of speech outside of the context of government reaction. You cannot face consequences from government for protected speech. Out in public it's fuck around and find out. For corporations it's all about their bottom line, Twitter is not public space, reddit is not public space, this instance isn't public space (someone owns the server it's on.) It's their decision what is allowed to be said on their platform. They are not government, they have the right to censor to protect themselves or to set an environment they desire for their product/service.
Freedom of speech as an aspiration for society doesn't exist, and rightfully so. There are consequences for your actions, speaking words is an action, so if your actions are speaking hateful words then there are consequences of that action, as in my reaction to your hateful b.s
You can't say "black people are literally destroying society" and then cry "FrEeDoM oF SpEeCh!" when someone gives you shit about your terrible opinion. Downvoting is not censoring. You have a shit opinion and I have an opinion about your shit opinion. If you spew hateful rhetoric about people you can't hide behind FrEeDoM oF SpEeCh when people confront you on that hateful rhetoric.
I believe it's using certain language or phrases that sound fine on their face but have hidden signals or meanings to certain groups. Probably a bad example but off the top of my head something like a politician saying "you should have the right to protect your family in your own home" could be a dog whistle to say that they oppose gun restrictions.
It's not really a good example as most of the time a politician who says that it is not hiding the fact that they oppose gun restrictions.
It does show though the problem with the term, which is that plenty of perfectly valid and legitimate opinions can be claimed as 'dog whistles', and so people will throw the accusation around when it's completely unwarranted.
This is a bit of a tricky example, if Orban or Meloni said that I'd be suspicious.
But if an environmentalist or leftist criticised bankers for investment in fossil fuel or the 2007 economic collapse then it's obviously not dog whistle to blame it in international bankers.
I believe this happened in the UK. I'm not totally familiar with their politicians, but I believe it was Corbin? that was standing in front of a mural that was supposed to be about some "illuminati" intentional banker conspiracy and he got a whole bunch of shit for being antisemitic because the bankers were Jewish, when their religion/ethnicity had absolutely nothing to do with the criticism.
Sort of. There’s no context where 1488 is not a nazi saying unless you’re literally using it as a number. But when it first started being used it could potentially qualify as a dog whistle.
For it to be a dog whistle it would have to sound like an innocent comment on face value unless you were the “dog”
Their rights aren't even being violated, it's never the government censoring them.
That being said, far more dangerous to society than the ability to speak hatefully is the government censoring speech it doesn't like.
What about you say one thing but mean something different?
"It's not racist to be worried about immigration" - basically an excuse to be racist towards immigrants
Or
Or a recent one from the UK, "I agree with Just Stop Oil, but I don't think they're going about it the right way"
I don't disagree with your point about those who want the protestors to go away (and of course about the first dogwhistle), but can we please not compare just stop oil to immigrants, or the treatment they get to racism? The two are not comparable.
oof wow yeah
they are going about it the wrong way tho.
No, they fucking aren't
We have less than 10 years of comfortable life before climate change fucks us up. It is already too late to stop it
We should be rioting in the streets
A) source? B) its not about not liking the protest, its that they are actively making it worse by letting cars idle. sure they can turn the engine off but most wont ofc. they are making actual climate activists look bad. i beleive a lot of these protesters in the news are set up by the oil industry and the like for that reason.
Regarding idle cars- that's not the point. The point is that if it's more inconvenient to take a car than public transportation/WFH, people will take public transportation or WFH
Most people driving around do it because they don't have a choice, so all they're doing is making some poor person's already shitty life worse. They are absolutely delusional if they think holding up traffic for a few hours is making a difference to the environment when there's a private jet putting out how many times more pollution than those cars? They need to convince more people to be sympathetic to the cause but making their lives miserable just makes people want to punch them in the face instead of help them.
yep. we need more people protesting for public, less against workers who have no other choice
https://youtu.be/0KQYNtPl7V4?si=aN4TljsXai_7IN-J
Looking good is a privilege, we have worse things to worry about man
statesrightstodowhat
There is no such thing as freedom of speech outside of the context of government reaction. You cannot face consequences from government for protected speech. Out in public it's fuck around and find out. For corporations it's all about their bottom line, Twitter is not public space, reddit is not public space, this instance isn't public space (someone owns the server it's on.) It's their decision what is allowed to be said on their platform. They are not government, they have the right to censor to protect themselves or to set an environment they desire for their product/service.
Freedom of speech as an aspiration for society doesn't exist, and rightfully so. There are consequences for your actions, speaking words is an action, so if your actions are speaking hateful words then there are consequences of that action, as in my reaction to your hateful b.s
You can't say "black people are literally destroying society" and then cry "FrEeDoM oF SpEeCh!" when someone gives you shit about your terrible opinion. Downvoting is not censoring. You have a shit opinion and I have an opinion about your shit opinion. If you spew hateful rhetoric about people you can't hide behind FrEeDoM oF SpEeCh when people confront you on that hateful rhetoric.
I believe it's using certain language or phrases that sound fine on their face but have hidden signals or meanings to certain groups. Probably a bad example but off the top of my head something like a politician saying "you should have the right to protect your family in your own home" could be a dog whistle to say that they oppose gun restrictions.
It's not really a good example as most of the time a politician who says that it is not hiding the fact that they oppose gun restrictions.
It does show though the problem with the term, which is that plenty of perfectly valid and legitimate opinions can be claimed as 'dog whistles', and so people will throw the accusation around when it's completely unwarranted.
The most common and innocuous sounding one is "Family values" the moment I hear that I immediately assume anti-gay.
Ding ding ding
This is a bit of a tricky example, if Orban or Meloni said that I'd be suspicious.
But if an environmentalist or leftist criticised bankers for investment in fossil fuel or the 2007 economic collapse then it's obviously not dog whistle to blame it in international bankers.
I believe this happened in the UK. I'm not totally familiar with their politicians, but I believe it was Corbin? that was standing in front of a mural that was supposed to be about some "illuminati" intentional banker conspiracy and he got a whole bunch of shit for being antisemitic because the bankers were Jewish, when their religion/ethnicity had absolutely nothing to do with the criticism.
Like 1488 is a dog whistle. Pretty much saying you’re a nazi. But I could be wrong
Sort of. There’s no context where 1488 is not a nazi saying unless you’re literally using it as a number. But when it first started being used it could potentially qualify as a dog whistle.
For it to be a dog whistle it would have to sound like an innocent comment on face value unless you were the “dog”
LMMFAO
As if the white supremacist would arrest their klan brother...
Hehe. It was low hanging fruit, I gotta hold myself up to higher standards. Glad you enjoyed it though :P
You were making a valid point, I just think you give the cops too much credit in it lol...