[_1qd4]

I’m curious why you’re being censored. Are you a fiscal conservative, or a social conservative?

Because I have a bunch of fiscal conservatives on my Facebook and the only thing they post about is monetary policy. Nothing about abortions, marriage, immigration, or policing - the things social conservatives tend to drive themselves red in the face with.

It might be worth examining your own discourse to understand why you were being censored (or felt you were being censored). I’m not saying you’re doing anything wrong, I’m just wondering if you’ve ever reflected on what you post and how people react to it.

[rpmisms]

And what's the difference? What makes being a social conservative less valid? You're coming from a very high-and-mighty standpoint here, when the simple truth is that he should not be censored.

[jbob2000]

I don't want to get into the mud on social conservatism. These people want to undo abortion and marriage rights, among a lot of other social progress we have made. Do I really need to explain the difference between someone who likes to debate interest rate hikes with someone who wants to remove rights for women and LGBT people?

I'm not being high and mighty. I simply asked if he had reflected on why he felt censored. If he was sharing fake news about Hillary being a lizard person, then yeah, I understand why people would remove him from their newsfeed.

[rpmisms]

And there you go. Check your bias, because it's making you sound remarkably like you have an excellent elbow-pad-and-fedora collection,

[nabnob]

It's not just conservatives. I'm an old school, anti-identity politics leftist and feminist, and the modern "left" is more concerned with using the right language than having the correct analysis or actually defending basic rights.

[sascha_sl]

Suggestion: Read Foucault.

[nabnob]

Foucault and other post modernists defended pedophilia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...

I'll stick with Marx and dialectical materialism, which offer actual tools to fight systemic oppression, rather than moral relativism.

[ctdonath]

We're seeing an awful lot of high profile conservatives, noted for politely expressing widespread views, being censored for stating something the dominant ideology objects to - something for which there is reasonable, if irritating, disagreement over.

[onefuncman]

I don't know what a high profile conservative is, can you reinforce your point with specific examples?

[ctdonath]

Just casually considered...

James Woods, famous actor and outspoken conservative, was repeatedly suspended on Twitter for posting reasonable comments. He finally quit Twitter in frustration.

Scott Adams, major cartoonist and popular Trump-observing pundit, is regularly demonetized on YouTube for no apparent reason. Some videos are removed entirely if he says certain words perfectly sensible for polite political discourse. Fortunately he has "F U money" and continues producing political content.

Popular conservative show "Louder With Crowder" (of the "...change my mind" meme) has been functionally demonized by YouTube and is struggling to stay afloat on their own servers. Crowder simply expresses views conservatives think reasonable.

There are many such cases.

[ssully]

I don't go on Twitter much anymore, but last I saw of James Woods he was saying something about hanging people and I remember Crowder getting heat for using homophoic slurs. It wasn't a smear job - I watched the videos myself.

I don't know much about Scott Adams, so I can't comment on that. But your examples so far are not reasonable people.

[ctdonath]

And yet Leftist calls to metaphorically/actually "kill whitey", depictions of Trump's head severed, advocacy/support of Antifa violence, vicious takedowns of anything resembling white or straight "pride" (no different than any other "pride" movement), dismantling of "safe spaces" in favor of others, and a host of other overt assaults on conservatism for simply existing/disagreeing remain in public with no equivalent censorship.

When one side is smacked down for the slightest transgression as perceived by the other, yet the other gets a pass for all but the most overt calls to violence against the former, we have a problem.

[jowsie]

Crowder is a poor example as his troubles come mainly from the fact that he keeps specifically targeting people with harassment campaigns. It probably doesn't help that his go to insults are all homophobic.

[meerita]

Well, to give you an example (I'm conservative both in the social and economics), and when I posted that I was happy the abortion law was banned in my country, cheering up, Facebook flagged my post, and deleted it. On another ocasion i got banned for posting a political opinion that was pro-Trump (nothing fanatical, to be honest) and I got flagged and delete the post bymyself.

I lost 10 Twitter accounts because I argued with facts, without ad hominem. It's hard to state the truth if it goes agaisn't their bias. It's ok, it's their business.

[catacombs]

> I lost 10 Twitter accounts because I argued with facts, without ad hominem. It's hard to state the truth if it goes agaisn't their bias. It's ok, it's their business.

You either have way too much free time or seriously need to reconsider your hobbies.