dear live journal

[rkt]

dear six apart, live journal, lj abuse (oh what a term), etc.

you all suck.

thank you for once again reinforcing shit-headed hate.

whie your capacity for stupidity shouldn't cease to amaze me, it still does.

i bite my thumb at all of you.

r

Comments

[kaygigi.livejournal.com]

I know that LJ doesn't have free speech the way one would have in a truely public forum with protected speech a la the constitution, but they have this ideology of allowing people to have free speech on the site, mostly as a way to not take resonsibility for what's posted.

I mean, I agree with you about racist speech, but I also think that LJ thinks that everyone has a right to an opinion, whether it's racist or not, or racist according to certain perspectives. Which is not to say that I agree with that stance, but I can see their arguements for not stepping in every case of "racist" speech. An honest debate about racial privileges and affirmative action might be a fine line, according to them, away from a racist rant from either side. Therefore they don't step in such that the first is allowed to go on unhindered and uncensored. Am I making sense? I mean, I've met a lot of people who are pro-racism and/or anti-anti-racism (yes, two different things), and I just have a hunch that LJ thinks that they can't censor those views so long as they aren't pointed towards a specific person. I disagree, but I also understand the ideology of allowing free exchange, though I don't agree with the LJ (and craigslist, and myspace, and etc etc etc) libertarian "live and let offend" policies. Ultimately I believe that peopel walking down the street swinging their fists should be held accountable for the noses they break, to the point where someone wantonly swinging their arms should have restricted movement for the good of society. Sorry for the metaphor, but in seventh grade my social studies teacher used the metaphor "i have the right to swing my fist until I hit your nose" to explain limits on protected speech when studying the first amendment.

Anyway, I hope that makes my stance a little clearer...

[rkt.livejournal.com]

but I also think that LJ thinks that everyone has a right to an opinion, whether it's racist or not, or racist according to certain perspectives.

but, as i've mentioned above. they are inconsistent about this. i'd bite my thumb at them less (but still, my thumb would be bit) if they were universal in their banninations and didn't focus so much on "punishing" PoC for fighting back against direct racism.

my main prior experience with lja was trying to argue against a pro-rape-community. my arguing with them, apparently, was more of a nuissance than getting rid of the damn comm.

the analogy works well enough.

[kaygigi.livejournal.com]

Theres a pro-rape community on LJ? They could be held criminally liable for any rapes that are committed by men in that community... I feel dirty now.

[rkt.livejournal.com]

the community eventually became no more. but not until significantly after lja received barrages of emails from survivors. at that time, the matter was irrelevent and they perceived no liability. (considering there was encouragement to rape and use drugging substnaces, i don't know how that makes since and i never received a plausible explanation beyond 'because we say so'.) i have no idea what led to the community becoming no more.


it's not my fault you're a dirty girl. :)

[kaygigi.livejournal.com]

Maybe someone did try to hold them liable, or maybe someone on their staff got raped. I'm glad it's gone, but seriously, it does lead me to wonder WTF? about LJ.

I'm not going to respond to the last comment... ;)