I can not publicly speak on any controversial topic (at least taking the position not approved by the orthodoxy) without risk of being fired, and myself and my family attacked. In fact, merely using my true legal name instead of a pseudonym is a very risky thing right now, which has cost many people their livelihoods, their careers and sometimes their very safety. I can not publish any controversial opinion, disagreeing with government-approved policy, on any of the major social networks. I can not share information that is deemed "harmful" by the same social networks - and by "harmful" I mean politically inconvenient to them. That sounds pretty oppressive to me.
> Specifically, in what ways are you oppressed and censored based on your "gender, race, or societal stature"?
I am not claiming I am oppressed based on my race - though I know if I weren't white, speaking unorthodox thoughts would likely carry less risk for me. But the threat, of course, comes not from the race angle itself, but from the heresy. The race and social stature just changes the amount of danger the heresy leads to. But the censorship is not based on race, it's based on speaking the things that the censors do not want to be spoken.
> Because the only topics I see getting censored (by "big tech") are:
That's because you choose not to see what does not fit your predetermined conclusion. It is not possible to convince the person that something exists if the person declared upfront they wouldn't see it. There's just no way to do it.
> So white supremacists are censored
No, it works the other way - people who are censored are declared white supremacists. Including, hilariously, people like Larry Elder, Candace Owens and Winsome Sears (if you're not in the know, all these people are black), and many others like them. "White supremacist" has become a generic pejorative that the left applies to anybody they want to censor, and they no longer even bother to make it sound plausible.
> it just means you lack the perspective of being discriminated against based on certain factors.
Again, you assume a lot about people you do not know. Hint: black people aren't the only group who faced prejudice and discrimination in human history. But my personal history here is completely irrelevant, since "oppression olympics" is the most stupid game known to man. You don't need to be oppressed to be right, and "privilege" is just an attempt to silence people who you can't find an argument against. If there was some "perspective", it would have been possible to explain it without claiming "you can't possibly understand this because your skin is of a wrong color and the bits between your legs are of a wrong shape". But there's never any explanation, only "shut up, you privileged!"
> I can infer pretty easily from what you've said that you're very likely white, male
And that tells you everything you need to know about me. As a true "anti-racist" (you're an anti-racist, aren't you?), once you know person's race and maybe gender, there's nothing more you need to know to know everything about them, right?
> Specifically, in what ways are you oppressed and censored based on your "gender, race, or societal stature"?
You seem to be confused. From the fact that there's censorship, and the fact that I declared nobody should be censored, regardless of their race, etc. you somehow got to the conclusion that I claim the censorship that exists is based on race, etc. No, it's not based on race - though, given that it is largely performed by "anti-racists" - of whom many are hardcore racists, that consider race the most - and sometimes the only - defining characteristics of a person - there may be certain racial angles in their actions, but the ultimate goal has nothing to do with it. It is always about suppressing the information and the opinion that diverges from the orthodoxy.
I can not publicly speak on any controversial topic (at least taking the position not approved by the orthodoxy) without risk of being fired, and myself and my family attacked. In fact, merely using my true legal name instead of a pseudonym is a very risky thing right now, which has cost many people their livelihoods, their careers and sometimes their very safety. I can not publish any controversial opinion, disagreeing with government-approved policy, on any of the major social networks. I can not share information that is deemed "harmful" by the same social networks - and by "harmful" I mean politically inconvenient to them. That sounds pretty oppressive to me.
> Specifically, in what ways are you oppressed and censored based on your "gender, race, or societal stature"?
I am not claiming I am oppressed based on my race - though I know if I weren't white, speaking unorthodox thoughts would likely carry less risk for me. But the threat, of course, comes not from the race angle itself, but from the heresy. The race and social stature just changes the amount of danger the heresy leads to. But the censorship is not based on race, it's based on speaking the things that the censors do not want to be spoken.
> Because the only topics I see getting censored (by "big tech") are:
That's because you choose not to see what does not fit your predetermined conclusion. It is not possible to convince the person that something exists if the person declared upfront they wouldn't see it. There's just no way to do it.
> So white supremacists are censored
No, it works the other way - people who are censored are declared white supremacists. Including, hilariously, people like Larry Elder, Candace Owens and Winsome Sears (if you're not in the know, all these people are black), and many others like them. "White supremacist" has become a generic pejorative that the left applies to anybody they want to censor, and they no longer even bother to make it sound plausible.
> it just means you lack the perspective of being discriminated against based on certain factors.
Again, you assume a lot about people you do not know. Hint: black people aren't the only group who faced prejudice and discrimination in human history. But my personal history here is completely irrelevant, since "oppression olympics" is the most stupid game known to man. You don't need to be oppressed to be right, and "privilege" is just an attempt to silence people who you can't find an argument against. If there was some "perspective", it would have been possible to explain it without claiming "you can't possibly understand this because your skin is of a wrong color and the bits between your legs are of a wrong shape". But there's never any explanation, only "shut up, you privileged!"
> I can infer pretty easily from what you've said that you're very likely white, male
And that tells you everything you need to know about me. As a true "anti-racist" (you're an anti-racist, aren't you?), once you know person's race and maybe gender, there's nothing more you need to know to know everything about them, right?
> Specifically, in what ways are you oppressed and censored based on your "gender, race, or societal stature"?
You seem to be confused. From the fact that there's censorship, and the fact that I declared nobody should be censored, regardless of their race, etc. you somehow got to the conclusion that I claim the censorship that exists is based on race, etc. No, it's not based on race - though, given that it is largely performed by "anti-racists" - of whom many are hardcore racists, that consider race the most - and sometimes the only - defining characteristics of a person - there may be certain racial angles in their actions, but the ultimate goal has nothing to do with it. It is always about suppressing the information and the opinion that diverges from the orthodoxy.