Why I Believe In Free Speech inc Nazis

[MaryKB]

I see no Hitler running around who tempts peoples by restoring their pride after world war 1..do you?

*cough* "Make America Great Again" *cough*

 

[TheMeInTeam]

One big slippery slope post.

Stuff is going on already, so falling back on the "slippery slope" rejection doesn't hold.

Nope.

Nope.

Discussion, not ad hominem. Or I guess you could still take your own suggestion/policy and self-censor. I certainly won't try to deny you that freedom.

Thing is, unlike the China scenario, we're talking about private companies taking these measures without the influence of government. Or would you propose the Trump administration is pressuring YouTube, Twitter et al to deplatform the people they've been implicitly wooing and encouraging?

These companies are not "private", in the literal or functional sense. Not only are some of them partially owned by the Chinese government for example, but many are publicly traded, beholden to law/external influences accordingly, and are allowed to directly lobby. They are also allowed to directly control what information public users can see as it relates to elections/governance. Supposedly this is something we should care about, given the news cycle the past 3+ years.

I propose that the Trump administration (or perhaps a more functional governing setup where doing this would be less hypocritical ) go after these trash cans for lying under oath (Facebook), violating own ToS and/or misrepresenting them, and in some cases breach of contract/policy.

This isn't really about free speech, as much as the alt-righters may try to make it so. Free speech protects from government persecution, and this isn't the case. Businesses are free to avoid associating with individuals which may well negatively impact their own corporate image.

People have actually had payment processing cut already. People who depend on publicly traded businesses to function are having services cut off because the businesses want to control their actions/statements, and we're seeing more extreme versions of this in action with other countries.

This can and already has resulted in de facto suppression of free speech, and not just of the variety that is illegal/potentially harmful. Considering some anti-competitive practices have turned up to resist people suppressed as such finding another platform, there's legal basis for the government to step in on this.

There are some serious "wrong think" issues going on when some beliefs/standards are held as protected and others not arbitrarily.

I feel it's anti-free speech to tell YouTube they *have* to provide a platform to people they don't want to. If you're running a company, and someone wants to advertise with you but you think supporting them is going to hurt your business, then you have every right not to do business with them (exception of course being discrimination)

It's anti-speech for YouTube to claim a service then not provide it. Then lie about its enforcement practices and standards while hiding the rationale for its decisions on what is acceptable vs not acceptable speech.

YT has censored people who sourced mainstream media articles simply because the articles in question displayed links to stories about which YT does not approve. that is not what "free speech" looks like.

I don't understand why right-wingers always seem to think "free speech" only applies to them.

Yet time and again, who keeps calling for censorship?

Radical leftists who refuse to address reality, and radical right wingers who refuse to address reality. Can we not privilege these groups by acting according to their demands?

Creating workspace (like highways and other industrial projects), and in general reaching a country that felt beaten.
He did not become leader by shouting i want a holocaust.

Authoritarian leaders rarely advertise that in advance.

Ironically, censorship/suppression of free speech/actual events was an important part of the actual Nazi's implementation to control the country. As was removing peoples' means to resist it.

It's not lost to those of us paying attention that the same people calling for censorship of wrong-think as described in this thread also support more government control of "private" companies or unironically declare themselves communists. No worries though, can still speak freely as long as the people in power agree with it!

 

[MaryKB]

It's anti-speech for YouTube to claim a service then not provide it.

I don't think you have the faintest idea of what "free speech", as defined by the Constitution, is. Only the government can violate your right to free speech, a corporation or individual cannot. No one is required to broadcast your hate speech.

But since you're so disconnected from reality, I guess you might be under the impression the government forced YouTube to stop carrying Alex Jones or something ...

 

[Synobun]

"One side says it should be illegal to advocate limiting the rights of entire demographics. The other says those demographics should have no rights. I just can't see the difference between the two. Both radicals."

 

[Farm Boy]

~!Offsides!~

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think you have the faintest idea of what "free speech", as defined by the Constitution, is. Only the government can violate your right to free speech, a corporation or individual cannot. No one is required to broadcast your hate speech.

But since you're so disconnected from reality, I guess you might be under the impression the government forced YouTube to stop carrying Alex Jones or something ...

The government *is* pocketing money to avoid antitrust hitting the payment processors/banks that decided to *all simultaneously* stop working with Jones. The same banks that took...*non-trivial* taxpayer handouts to keep existing ~decade ago.

Claiming I'm the one disconnected from reality is comical irony. Try addressing posts you quote first so those words at least have the chance of meaning.

"One side says it should be illegal to advocate limiting the rights of entire demographics. The other says those demographics should have no rights. I just can't see the difference between the two. Both radicals."

There isn't much difference between people claiming others should have no rights and people claiming others should have no rights. The amusing thing is that you think the position you're taking is going to have a materially better outcome than handing control to the alt-right.

I'd rather not have authoritarian practices. Why is that so hard?

 

[Gorbles]

It's not lost to those of us paying attention that the same people calling for censorship of wrong-think as described in this thread also support more government control of "private" companies or unironically declare themselves communists. No worries though, can still speak freely as long as the people in power agree with it!

Discussion, not ad hominem.

Mm-hm.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Ah yes truly there is no appreciable difference between denying minorities rights and curtailing the rights of those that would harm them. I am very smart!

Edit:

The sheer insanity of someone claiming the status quo is better when people are already dying from inaction, talk about being distant from reality

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Mm-hm.

Heh, caught me there. After a handful of ad hominem shots it's hard to 100% take the high road at all times.

Though I'd be interested in your take on how your post just now contributes to the discussion.

Ah yes truly there is no appreciable difference between denying minorities rights and curtailing the rights of those that would harm them. I am very smart!

Which rights are being denied, precisely? Aside from those who engage in "wrong think" that is.

Interestingly, you yourself are openly advocating suppressing minority opinions without a coherent standard.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why is that so hard?

Because people are frequently of authoritarian impulse and they like to mislabel themselves. Which was covered earlier. Conveniently enough, both hate laws and private platforming are on the table so that the conversation can shift the points as convenient rather than nail them down, and boy howdy, don't even wanna touch actual incitement. Too concrete in producing standards for the subjectivity! Teamz. If the babe threads are gone teamz is an somewhat acceptable reason to wag the respective (metaphorical) willies around over.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Lol disengenuous as ****ing hell. if you think espousing race realism, transphobia, homophobia and other assorted bigoted crap is merely "wrong think" then you genuinely aren't equipped to have this discussion, but it's cool man how you try to downplay it.

Like imagine being so detatched from reality and basic human dignity that you think espousing to eliminate certain groups is merely "wrong think" and not some horrible rhetoric that has led to people dying in the past, but I'm sure the usual suspects think this time they can control the flame, even as they pour gasoline on themselves and everyone else.

 

[Berzerker]

Why would neo-Nazis deny the holocaust?

 

[Synobun]

There isn't much difference between people claiming others should have no rights and people claiming others should have no rights. The amusing thing is that you think the position you're taking is going to have a materially better outcome than handing control to the alt-right.

Gee this sounds familiar

Oh, wait.

Ignoring labels, what standards should be used to allow people to march vs not, in general?

Whether or not they want to take rights away from entire born-as demographics would be a neat standard to start at.

I specify born-as, because I know you'll be clever and say that these standards would take rights away from Nazis, and frankly, a derailment about whether or not someone is born as a Nazi would be a waste of time compelling enough for you to jump at.

 

[MaryKB]

Claiming I'm the one disconnected from reality is comical irony.

You do not seem to have any grasp of the concepts of reality or logic. You seem to think dressing up your opinions with pseudo-intellectual double-speak makes you sound smart. It doesn't. Pretty much everything you post is nonsense trash.

And just look at your recent posts ... you seem to be quite clearly implying that alt-righters are some sort of minority (they aren't) and claiming Cloud is trying to restrict minority rights (he isn't) You then state that you're completely oblivious to the hardships of (actual) minorities today. You have a pattern of this type of thing, spouting your ignorance as if you're some sort of high authority, and acting condescending and disparaging to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about. What's really ironic is your custom user title

The things that you make up in your mind aren't "logic" or "reality"

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm sure the person who can't even entertain the idea of not allowing neo-Nazis and other bigots freely associate, speak and march totally has the interests of minorities at heart provided they shut up, sit down and take what's coming to them because muh freeze peach

but it's cool people, we've seen exactly what allowing this crap leads too and he's either too apathetic to care about it or....

 

[Senethro]

Why would neo-Nazis deny the holocaust?

Say what?

 

[Berzerker]

I thought holocaust denial was a TM of neo-Nazis

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why would neo-Nazis deny the holocaust?

Being disingenuous. On a rational level it would make more sense for them to take pride in it as an accomplishment, but they are more interested in muddying the waters since they don't want to be held to account about it.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

They muddy the waters to push their sick vitriol, just like how people will claim espousing bigotry and the removal of certain groups from society wholesale, usually in the form of violence or targetted deportation, is merely "wrong think". They want to normalize it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And just look at your recent posts ... you seem to be quite clearly implying that alt-righters are some sort of minority (they aren't)

They are literally a tiny minority of all people. Unless you're asserting > 50% of the country is alt right?

Cloud is trying to restrict minority rights (he isn't)

Cloud is, in fact, advocating exactly that. "Opinion I don't like" --> "existential threat to me" --> "should be banned/deplatformed/not allowed to express views through normally available means".

You don't have to have a different skin color or a statistically rare sexual preference to be in the "minority" about something.

~~~

I won't take the rest of the bait in the post.

I'm sure the person who can't even entertain the idea of not allowing neo-Nazis and other bigots freely associate, speak and march totally has the interests of minorities at heart provided they shut up, sit down and take what's coming to them because muh freeze peach

You're the one advocating for people to shut up and sit down. I merely point out that if that is an appropriate response in its own right, why not practice what is preached?

Lol disengenuous as ****ing hell. if you think espousing race realism, transphobia, homophobia and other assorted bigoted crap is merely "wrong think" then you genuinely aren't equipped to have this discussion, but it's cool man how you try to downplay it.

I could counter argue that your cognitive ability is unfit for discussion just like you're saying, but since that's both ad hominem and pathetic I won't . Just note that if I were to say that, it would carry all the validity of the quoted post.

I'd rather not go down that path.