That's not what a minority is in a social/legal sense, and you know it.
... or maybe you really don't? It's hard to tell when you're being disingenuous or just plain ignorant.
Why I Believe In Free Speech inc Nazis
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
- Status
... or maybe you really don't? It's hard to tell when you're being disingenuous or just plain ignorant.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
I know it and reject it. Perhaps unlike you, I hold that there is more to people than their sexual preferences, skin color, etc.
Let's say everyone who plays civ (a minority of all Americans in the literal sense) were cut off from financial services. Ostensibly because it encourages slavery and nuclear arms. Fair play by private firms? They can do what they want, right? No free speech problems here then, right?
Actually, what *are* your standards for censorship? That's always a bit nebulous in threads claiming other people shouldn't be able to say stuff.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
No, I'm advocating for Nazis to shut up, sit down and be marginalized, you however enable them and have no qualms in doing so, that's the difference between you and me. I will keep pointing that out, not because i expect you to ever listen or change, but so that others know of your predilications because your blase attitude to this is dangerous and people have already died from the rhetoric you have no issue allowing.
Need i point out the rise of right-wing domestic terrorism, inspired by online rhetoric, rhetoric btw which you also have no problem allowing?
Need i point out the rise of right-wing domestic terrorism, inspired by online rhetoric, rhetoric btw which you also have no problem allowing?
Last edited:
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
@TheMeInTeam
You are trying to conflate "minority" as a straight measure (minority is less than half) vs the appropriate usage in context which is as a legal term, as in the listed protected minorities under law. This is a common alt-right water muddying tactic, despite their equally frequent claims that they are really speaking for some "silent majority." They are not a protected minority for a number of reasons.
1) Their membership in the group is strictly voluntary. They are not stuck by birth, identifiable by markers that cannot be disguised, or otherwise stuck.
2) Their grouping is based in ideology and political stance, which has never been and almost certainly never will be a legal source of minority designation under US law.
3) Their position is viewed as revolting by far too many people to give them the faintest hope in hell of being protected.
You are trying to conflate "minority" as a straight measure (minority is less than half) vs the appropriate usage in context which is as a legal term, as in the listed protected minorities under law. This is a common alt-right water muddying tactic, despite their equally frequent claims that they are really speaking for some "silent majority." They are not a protected minority for a number of reasons.
1) Their membership in the group is strictly voluntary. They are not stuck by birth, identifiable by markers that cannot be disguised, or otherwise stuck.
2) Their grouping is based in ideology and political stance, which has never been and almost certainly never will be a legal source of minority designation under US law.
3) Their position is viewed as revolting by far too many people to give them the faintest hope in hell of being protected.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Using standards of similar rigor to your own, I can conclude you are a nazi and that you should self-censor. I wonder why you don't do that though? Hmmm.
I don't care about the alt right or their nonsense unless the break the law. I do care that *very* questionable standards are being used to control what people can say, on platforms that have effectively taken over as the top means of public communication.
In many cases, association with the "alt right" is not "voluntary". People who have ideology/policy preferences nowhere near any standard of "alt right" get lumped in with them. To the point where someone who was liberal 5-10 years ago is now a "nazi", allegedly.
Unless you'd be willing to agree you're part of the alt-right because I say you are?
Last edited:
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Are you for real? Neo-Nazis and other bigots want me and people like me dead, Of course i goddamn don't want them to gain any foothold in society!
But you can't even fathom such a concept because you've got your security and that's all you care about.
You literally already played the "b-b-b-but neonazis are minorities too!" card and i hope everyone takes a note of that, because it is very, very revealing.
But you can't even fathom such a concept because you've got your security and that's all you care about.
You literally already played the "b-b-b-but neonazis are minorities too!" card and i hope everyone takes a note of that, because it is very, very revealing.
Lexicus
Deity
Concrete measures taken to limit the free speech of Nazis will inevitably be turned by bourgeois institutions against the Left and against marginalized people.
You seem to think you get to decide those things. I think this comes from a lack of grip on reality. Your opinion is not truth, and your definitions are wrong.
You don't seem to understand what censorship is either (yet another word that seems beyond your understanding) You are the only one here advocating that the government should control what you can or cannot say - you are suggesting that the government be forced to make me help someone whom I find harmful to myself. If you knew what censorship, free speech, etc, really mean, you'd be able to get this.
@Cloud_Strife I think he is for real; this is the same guy who's said before that he believes men are the real victims of oppression by women. And it looks like his ridiculous disingenuous nonsense is getting even worse, lol.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
They will inevitably be turned against everyone not in power.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Not if the law behind them is structured properly. In other words, you are undoubtedly correct.
Lexicus
Deity
Well the punchline of that post was "that's why I support socialist revolution and a literal purge of Nazis rather than just banning them from Twitter or whatever" but sure
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Perhaps the same could be said of all laws
Lexicus
Deity
I would agree to an extent.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minority try again
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship try again
...try again.
The problem with that standard is that it could also support purging those who support socialist revolutions.
Or really anybody, depending on who has the guns at the time.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
That's okay, after all you wouldn't want to censor anyone in the market place of ideas right
Let those with the best arguments (and coincidently also guns) prevail
I've tried enough with you, you don't seem capable of getting it and you're still completely wrong. Like @Timsup2nothin said, your "dictionary definitions" are meaningless, we're talking about in the legal sense here.
I think everyone one of your posts should simply be responded to with "try again."
Again, in order for a corporation to censor you, it'd have to be able to prevent you from speaking ... by like throwing you in jail or something. Please tell me which bodies other than the government are able to do this? You know very well that if YouTube doesn't give you a channel, you're still able to find some way of getting your message out.
I think everyone one of your posts should simply be responded to with "try again."
Again, in order for a corporation to censor you, it'd have to be able to prevent you from speaking ... by like throwing you in jail or something. Please tell me which bodies other than the government are able to do this? You know very well that if YouTube doesn't give you a channel, you're still able to find some way of getting your message out.
Lexicus
Deity
The funniest part is that the dictionary says
3a: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment
//the country's ethnic minorities
b: a member of a minority group
//an effort to hire more minorities
Lexicus
Deity
Facebook routinely censors people. Censorship in the most restricted sense means going through content before it is seen by the public to ensure it meets some standards of acceptability...and corporations certainly do this to some extent. The question is whether this activity by corporations poses a threat to free speech. I believe that the case can be made that in some cases, it does, depending on the ubiquity of the platform.
But it is certainly true that "censorship" on Twitter or whatever does not stop anyone from going to a streetcorner and saying what they want to say.
Of course, generally speaking I would argue that literal censorship is less of a threat to free speech and free discourse than the intentional drowning-out of important information with sensational nonsense. China's government has figured out that censoring stuff falls afoul of the Streisand effect, but timing the release of sensational-but-inconsequential news so that it drowns out discussion of more sensitive matters works fine.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
I would rather leave the marketplace of ideas open so that we don't have a totalitarian settlement using guns.
I clearly stated I rejected the legal/social basis for it, however, choosing to use the literal definition to demonstrate questionable standards (notably you've not bothered to refute this, as usual). Quoted is also an interesting stance to take regarding "censorship" lol. But sure, reject the most objective measures we have available while simultaneously talking about reality. THAT's got to lead to well-constrained anticipation when done routinely, right?
If you make up pretend definitions for censorship that are convenient to you then you can make "censorship" require firing people in to space or something too. But that's a strange take when pointing fingers at others about "reality".
Words have multiple meanings, don't see how the one I used was wrong in context.
Berzerker
Deity
I believe in free speech because I lack the moral authority to shut people up for disagreeing with me and if that moral authority did exist it justifies shutting me up too
The issue is more complicated though, I do have the moral authority to ignore what people say and to dis-associate (boycott) from them. If corporations are people too
then YouTube can decide what speech is allowed on their platform.
So what happens if the Chinese use their consumer base as clout to pressure YouTube into removing criticism of China? I prefer allowing the offensive speech to letting people blunt criticism. And for those arguing this is not about censorship, what do you think happens when enough politicians clamor for 'regulation' of the communications industry? The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! We cant allow their attack on our Democracy, we must lower the cone of silence onto the internet.
The issue is more complicated though, I do have the moral authority to ignore what people say and to dis-associate (boycott) from them. If corporations are people too
then YouTube can decide what speech is allowed on their platform.So what happens if the Chinese use their consumer base as clout to pressure YouTube into removing criticism of China? I prefer allowing the offensive speech to letting people blunt criticism. And for those arguing this is not about censorship, what do you think happens when enough politicians clamor for 'regulation' of the communications industry? The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! We cant allow their attack on our Democracy, we must lower the cone of silence onto the internet.
- Status
Similar threads
