
Twitter Exec Is Questioned About “Learn to Code” - kyleblarson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwIYHwbojQo
======
posix_compliant
The guest who speaks after Vijaya, Tim Pool, got my fight or flight reflex up
just by listening to him talk. It's hard to engage with someone when it feels
like an outlet for their aggression rather than a discussion.

His words were saying "by having twitter delete #learntocode tweets, you've
muted a protest", but his tone was more like "I want to fight you".

~~~
Kavenerinds
>got my fight or flight reflex up just by listening to him talk

Same thought but didn't have the words for it.

I haven't listened to his JRE episode yet from a couple of episodes ago, but I
don't really want to feel like that the whole couple hours.

~~~
mortdeus
He's just being tough on them because there are a lot of people who are
legitimately frustrated and concerned with the recent shift in policy these
giant social networks are adopting to combat the backlash being thrown their
way for their platforms influence over the 2016 election that gave Trump the
slight edge he needed to win the election.

I can sympathize somewhat with their position being a conservative because I
understand that their job is to create the most profitable product and its
hard to take a more conservative position on things when frankly our base
tends to be of much less volume because were often defending unpopular ideas
based on higher order philosophical principals we feel are worth protecting no
matter the cost.

For example, I dont like white supremacists or racists, but at the same time i
think its important we allow those ideas to persist in a democracy because we
see any censorship as a slippery slope that it might seem like a good idea at
first to go down but just because it seems to be the quicker and most straight
forward path to get down off the mountain (which btw is where we all want to
get to in a polite society) that doesnt mean we dont end up tripping halfway
down and tumbling to the bottom with broken bones.

In other words if we start down this path with seemingly good intentions whats
to say were not going to be trying to take further steps in this supposedly
moral direction just because in order to be continuously progressive and push
such an agenda that gets you the votes, you need to invent some new issue and
solution to progress towards.

In other words what do democrats campaign on to remain in power when they
actually achieve a Utopia?

Isnt that kind of a conflict of interest for democrats then if they want power
for the sake of just being in power?

Btw in all fairness i should point out that the Republicans are all about
creating crisises for them to campaign on being to solve as well. (hence the
fact we dont take libertarians very seriously within our caucus)

All im saying is that at the end of the day, we need conservative and liberal
ideals to promote a healthy democracy and sometimes the liberals get it right
and sometimes the conservatives do.

When it comes to my gut feelings on the issues of free speech we need to be
less concerned about the individual's voice and whats being said and be more
concerned by the volume we give to select voices to say things so loud they
can drown everybody else out.

~~~
Kavenerinds
I don't think those ideas (white supremacy or racism) should persist at all.
Intolerance should not be tolerated.

The slippery slope is a fallacy, but for some reason, people seem to be okay
with using it in their rhetoric.

As for your question, I am not sure. If it truly is a utopia (a place where
everything is perfect) what would there be that should be changed? I would
think that everyone is cool with the status quo.

It's not a conflict of interest if they (Democrats) still see that there is
progress to be made. However, that won't be the case assuming there is a
Utopia; maybe they'll campaign based on what color people have to wear. Who
knows what the exact campaign issues in a Utopia would be?

