"Marketplace of Ideas"?

[Darat]

that I give a **** about FacePalm or any other private businesses nannying their content? These "social media" enterprises mushroom up all the time, and like mushrooms liquefy, stink briefly, and vanish. Who cares?



But there are always more dangerous fools and rogues who try to raise laws against speech. When their wretched statutes are enacted, they set out to enforce them. There is nothing they will not do to silence any voice they object to. Remember that.



Here's the essential point: It doesn't matter what you may want to say if a government claims to have power greater than your right to say it. You can agitate for more fresh flowers in Sunday School, and there will emerge men who will silence you, perhaps permanently, if you allow yourself to be tamed.



Am I appealing to emotion? Yes I am -- if self-respect is an emotion.



I feel weary, fighting this battle yet again.

You seem to have forgotten that you've already lost the war, regardless of what battle you engaged in the past. All the countries in the "developed world" at least have decided that some speech is prohibited. All we can discuss is exactly what speech can be prohibited.

For myself I am happy with speech that attempts to have me killed I.e.Nazism being prohibited. We know what happens when Nazism is allowed to flourish , literally people like me are among the millions of people that are killed.

 

[uke2se]

that I give a **** about FacePalm or any other private businesses nannying their content? These "social media" enterprises mushroom up all the time, and like mushrooms liquefy, stink briefly, and vanish. Who cares?

But there are always more dangerous fools and rogues who try to raise laws against speech. When their wretched statutes are enacted, they set out to enforce them. There is nothing they will not do to silence any voice they object to. Remember that.

Here's the essential point: It doesn't matter what you may want to say if a government claims to have power greater than your right to say it. You can agitate for more fresh flowers in Sunday School, and there will emerge men who will silence you, perhaps permanently, if you allow yourself to be tamed.

Am I appealing to emotion? Yes I am -- if self-respect is an emotion.

I feel weary, fighting this battle yet again.

Then you'll be happy to know that Facebook isn't a government agency and nobody's freedom of speech is being threatened. What's happening is that a private company is making a business decision. Most of Facebook's customers - I dare say - would prefer white nationalist propaganda not to appear on Facebook.

Deplatforming isn't about freedom of speech. It's about not lending a platform for the odious speakers to stand on while they are speaking.

 

[Thermal]

You are so backwards about these facts that it's actually impressive in a way.

Richard Spencer was already at the height of his public notoriety when he was face-punched at Trump's inauguration...

Maybe he was popular with you and your circles. Wasn't with me or mine. I only vaguely recalled him as that smacked ass alt right guy. I suppose we could do one of those google word search thingys, where you see how often a term is hit on search engines. I'd guess that his name went from way down low to spiking at the punch, staying high through Charlottesville, and dropping sharply into obscurity after the college heckling. Speaking of which...

And the reason you don't hear about him anymore is because of student groups' successful attempts to deplatform his planned college speaking tour, leading many institutions to withdraw his booking or refuse to book him, thus depriving him of access to public forums, and eventually resulting in him having to cancel his public speaking tour - which is why you haven't heard from him lately. Score one for deplatforming.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Spencer was given his platform. Got to stand on his rented stage and preach his garbage...that, uh, you claim to have found very popular. But he was, as I said, ridiculed off of it. And he largely faded out of the public eye.

Because he was given his platform. And ridiculed into crawling away.

eta: forgot: the cancellations had nothing to do with deplatforming based on his content, and everything to do with bringing violent elements in tow. He fought, and won, the right to his platform.

 

[uke2se]

Maybe he was popular with you and your circles. Wasn't with me or mine. I only vaguely recalled him as that smacked ass alt right guy. I suppose we could do one of those google word search thingys, where you see how often a term is hit on search engines. I'd guess that his name went from way down low to spiking at the punch, staying high through Charlottesville, and dropping sharply into obscurity after the college heckling. Speaking of which...



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Spencer was given his platform. Got to stand on his rented stage and preach his garbage...that, uh, you claim to have found very popular. But he was, as I said, ridiculed off of it. And he largely faded out of the public eye.

Because he was given his platform. And ridiculed into crawling away.

You are wrong. Spencer was efficiently deplatformed during his college tour. Venues canceled, protests drowned out his voice, etc.

He was ridiculed alright, but he was ridiculed as a method of deplatforming him.

 

[Thermal]

You are wrong. Spencer was efficiently deplatformed during his college tour. Venues canceled, protests drowned out his voice, etc.

He was ridiculed alright, but he was ridiculed as a method of deplatforming him.

Protests drowning him out are not deplatforming. Deplatforming is denying him a soapbox. He was not denied due to his content, but was denied due to bringing in violent followers in some instances.

The point is, he was given his soapbox and laughed off of it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Then you'll be happy to know that Facebook isn't a government agency and nobody's freedom of speech is being threatened. What's happening is that a private company is making a business decision. Most of Facebook's customers - I dare say - would prefer white nationalist propaganda not to appear on Facebook.

Deplatforming isn't about freedom of speech. It's about not lending a platform for the odious speakers to stand on while they are speaking.

I have found that places online that allow mostly unmoderated content quickly become hangouts for the least desirable, unpleasant folks. Sure, 4chan might have multiple boards on topics that could easily be respectable and interesting to a general population, but 4chan is best known for it's free-wheeling, toxic boards like /b or /pol. Realistically, it's not really possible to compartmentalize one part of a platform from another, so the /pol racism and /b nihilism infect all the others. Respectable people realize this and head for more pleasant waters elsewhere. I don't care if 4chan has a automobile section, you're still getting some taint of the /b or /pol experience if you are there.

The funny thing is that platforms that are big about allowing no-moderation content quickly become home to a very narrow range of content. Basically, all the vile crap that isn't allowed elsewhere. Places like Voat only exist to host content that isn't allowed on their more respectable peers, and people only go to those places for those niche, vile content. Voat might as well call themselves BannedFromReddit.com, because that's really all that people go there for.

I don't see this as a problem. Facebook isn't the public forum. if a private business decides to cultivate a culture I find hostile and unpleasant, I am unlikely to return. One that is too restrictive is also one destined for failure. Facebook's business model is to find the sweet spot that works best for them.

It's the difference between a public park and a coffee shop. In a public park, i accept that all sorts of weirdos may be meeting and discussing all sorts of crap I don't like. But if my favorite coffee shop becomes a hangout for weirdo alt-right neo-nazis, no matter how well behaved, it will quickly become the de-facto nazi shop and I won't return. The shop then has to make a decision about what sorts they want to attract and act accordingly.

 

[uke2se]

Protests drowning him out are not deplatforming. Deplatforming is denying him a soapbox. He was not denied due to his content, but was denied due to bringing in violent followers in some instances.

The point is, he was given his soapbox and laughed off of it.

No, in many cases he was denied his soapbox. And he was never laughed off of it. The people who attended to listen to him sure didn't laugh him off of it. Instead, he was drowned out, his followers deciding not to attend because of the huge counter protests etc. He said as much himself, but you probably didn't hear him because he's got no platform anymore.

 

[Arcade22]

Am I appealing to emotion? Yes I am -- if self-respect is an emotion.

No that's fear you are appealing to alright.

Every single state on earth has something that you can't say or publish without facing criminal sanctions. You can argue about where the limits should be, but by acting all hysterical and stating that any restrictions on peoples free speech is tantamount to slavery just goes to show utterly how extreme and unrealistic your views are.

I feel weary, fighting this battle yet again.

Just don't cut yourself on all that edginess.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Protests drowning him out are not deplatforming. Deplatforming is denying him a soapbox. He was not denied due to his content, but was denied due to bringing in violent followers in some instances.

The point is, he was given his soapbox and laughed off of it.

I think you are grossly underselling the amount of heckler's veto that is occurring on college campuses. Pulling fire alarms and having events cancelled because of mass disturbance or threats of disturbance is not counter-speech or peaceful protest.

Saddling controversial speakers with security fees because the student body will engage in mass violence is an embarrassing response to this problem.

Universities are special places where people ought to be allowed to engage in free thinking of any sort, so long as it is peaceful. Those that presume to silence others through violence or criminal disruption should not be tolerated.

 

[uke2se]

I think you are grossly underselling the amount of heckler's veto that is occurring on college campuses. Pulling fire alarms and having events cancelled because of mass disturbance or threats of disturbance is not counter-speech or peaceful protest.

Saddling controversial speakers with security fees because the student body will engage in mass violence is an embarrassing response to this problem.

Universities are special places where people ought to be allowed to engage in free thinking of any sort, so long as it is peaceful. Those that presume to silence others through violence or criminal disruption should not be tolerated.

It worked.

 

[Cavemonster]

Protests drowning him out are not deplatforming. Deplatforming is denying him a soapbox. He was not denied due to his content, but was denied due to bringing in violent followers in some instances.

The point is, he was given his soapbox and laughed off of it.

I'm not sure how defeated he is. He's still head of his think tank, he's still head of his publisher.

We don't hear much about him in the mainstream press, but honestly we didn't hear much about him UNTIL he got hit in the face. National press attention was the anomaly so seeing him less doesn't necessarily mean too much. He headlined the Charlottesville thing after he had been more in the general public eye being mocked for getting punched than anything else, so that clearly didn't dissuade his supporters.

And if you look at his wiki page, you'll see he's banned from almost all European countries. To the extent that he's been unsuccessful spreading his message, the highest level of deplatforming is a part of it.

But above all even to the extent that mockery might disempower an individual, I don't feel convinced that it disempowers closely held ideas very effectively. Antivaxxers are being mocked incessantly, but a town near me just had a major measles outbreak. Their movement is spreading in the face of mockery. That's not to say that censorship is the right tool in that case, just to show the limits of ridicule.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It worked.

In the short term. The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move.

The heckler's veto on campus is settled law. These universities are in for a hard check if they keep this up.

 

[uke2se]

In the short term. The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move.

The heckler's veto on campus is settled law. These universities are in for a hard check if they keep this up.

That's fine. Slap them with fines. Point is, Spencer couldn't speak. Good show.

 

[Thermal]

I think you are grossly underselling the amount of heckler's veto that is occurring on college campuses. Pulling fire alarms and having events cancelled because of mass disturbance or threats of disturbance is not counter-speech or peaceful protest.

Saddling controversial speakers with security fees because the student body will engage in mass violence is an embarrassing response to this problem.

Universities are special places where people ought to be allowed to engage in free thinking of any sort, so long as it is peaceful. Those that presume to silence others through violence or criminal disruption should not be tolerated.

Agreed. But I am not talking about...whatever you are talking about.

I am referring to the non-violent heckling at the Southern college/university that I am too lazy to google the name of, where the non-violent protesters non-violently scooped up all the tickets and non-violently lambasted Spencer's punk ass on his duly fought-for public platform. Captain Punchable's violent followers shooting at people at bus stops changed the game for him, not the content of his speech being summarily deplatformed. I'm calling that a resounding win for the hecklers. What's with this discussion of violent protest?

 

[Thermal]

I'm not sure how defeated he is. He's still head of his think tank, he's still head of his publisher.

We don't hear much about him in the mainstream press, but honestly we didn't hear much about him UNTIL he got hit in the face. National press attention was the anomaly so seeing him less doesn't necessarily mean too much. He headlined the Charlottesville thing after he had been more in the general public eye being mocked for getting punched than anything else, so that clearly didn't dissuade his supporters.

You may find that some posters upthread found him quite the bee's knees in their social circles before the punching. But agreed, he was a bit player before the punching, and only rose to national attention in the context of the limits of free speech, and whether it was okay to pop a nazi in the chops. IMHO, that's all he is good for.

And if you look at his wiki page, you'll see he's banned from almost all European countries. To the extent that he's been unsuccessful spreading his message, the highest level of deplatforming is a part of it.

I'm seeing this differently. Deplatforming based on content is worlds away from denying a venue to do the speaker bringing along violent elements. One is ideological censorship, the other a demonstrable public safety concern.

But above all even to the extent that mockery might disempower an individual, I don't feel convinced that it disempowers closely held ideas very effectively. Antivaxxers are being mocked incessantly, but a town near me just had a major measles outbreak. Their movement is spreading in the face of mockery. That's not to say that censorship is the right tool in that case, just to show the limits of ridicule.

True, but I think that goes back to the True Believers versus the fence sitters. Hard core faithful will rarely be dissuaded. The uncommitted masses may be, and they are more my concern.

I don't think we will ever convince Spencer that black people are pretty cool, and can be a lot of fun to hang out with and be neighbors with and stuff. He's entrenched. But we can reach out to the thousands who cock their ears and listen to him, and wonder if he has a point. The more publicly this is done, the better. Air it all out: flat earthers, aura readers, white supremacists, the whole lot.

 

[uke2se]

You may find that some posters upthread found him quite the bee's knees in their social circles before the punching. But agreed, he was a bit player before the punching, and only rose to national attention in the context of the limits of free speech, and whether it was okay to pop a nazi in the chops. IMHO, that's all he is good for.



I'm seeing this differently. Deplatforming based on content is worlds away from denying a venue to do the speaker bringing along violent elements. One is ideological censorship, the other a demonstrable public safety concern.



True, but I think that goes back to the True Believers versus the fence sitters. Hard core faithful will rarely be dissuaded. The uncommitted masses may be, and they are more my concern.

I don't think we will ever convince Spencer that black people are pretty cool, and can be a lot of fun to hang out with and be neighbors with and stuff. He's entrenched. But we can reach out to the thousands who cock their ears and listen to him, and wonder if he has a point. The more publicly this is done, the better. Air it all out: flat earthers, aura readers, white supremacists, the whole lot.

This is all well and good if you are able to control the discussion. You won't, however. Because of the internet, everyone is constantly shouting into the ether, and every viewpoint is treated as equal. You can post "Nazis are bad, m'kay" but you'll immediately be bombed by people posting anime-Hitler memes and shouts of "cuck".

It's not possible to have a rational discussion of the scale that's necessary to convince a body of people of anything that they aren't already leaning towards. Extreme opinions will continue to be amplified and the public polarized. Social media is creating an environment where each person is locked into a view-point, shielded in her echo-chamber from differing opinions, and tutored on how to dismiss people who would tell her differently.

Regulating social media, banning the utterings of extremism, is a way to take back control.

 

[kmortis]

I moved these posts from another thread to make them no longer off-topic.

Posted By: kmortis

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Agreed. But I am not talking about...whatever you are talking about.

I am referring to the non-violent heckling at the Southern college/university that I am too lazy to google the name of, where the non-violent protesters non-violently scooped up all the tickets and non-violently lambasted Spencer's punk ass on his duly fought-for public platform. Captain Punchable's violent followers shooting at people at bus stops changed the game for him, not the content of his speech being summarily deplatformed. I'm calling that a resounding win for the hecklers. What's with this discussion of violent protest?

I think it's a bit of cherry picking to discuss deplatforming without mentioning the many other cases in which violence, the threat of violence, or other criminal and disruptive behavior is occurring. Deplatforming as a goal is ideologically different than protest. The goal that invited speakers will be unable to speak because of organized action of students is not something I can support and is inconsistent with 1A law concerning college campuses. Simply put, right wing trolls should be able to speak at universities if invited and students should be able to hear them, if they so choose. It is the universities role to facilitate such speakers as they would other speakers, no matter how objectionable they find the material.

Disorderly conduct intended to prevent students from hearing speakers they want to hear is not laudable, whether that be violent disorderly conduct, or just being a nuisance like pulling a fire alarm, screaming and shouting, rushing the stage, or other such conduct. The "hands off" approach that administrators take to such activity is embarrassing.

 

[uke2se]

I think it's a bit of cherry picking to discuss deplatforming without mentioning the many other cases in which violence, the threat of violence, or other criminal and disruptive behavior is occurring. Deplatforming as a goal is ideologically different than protest. The goal that invited speakers will be unable to speak because of organized action of students is not something I can support and is inconsistent with 1A law concerning college campuses. Simply put, right wing trolls should be able to speak at universities if invited and students should be able to hear them, if they so choose. It is the universities role to facilitate such speakers as they would other speakers, no matter how objectionable they find the material.

Disorderly conduct intended to prevent students from hearing speakers they want to hear is not laudable, whether that be violent disorderly conduct, or just being a nuisance like pulling a fire alarm, screaming and shouting, rushing the stage, or other such conduct. The "hands off" approach that administrators take to such activity is embarrassing.

Spencer had set up a scam to be able to be "invited" to speak. He applied to speak and when turned down, his lawyer friend sued. Several colleges thought it was too much hassle to fight the suit so they made arrangements for him to speak. That's when the protests started.

 

[Belz...]

Lets just start with the white nationalists. Not many people have been murdered in the name of Bigfoot.

In that case you should ban religion immediately.

ETA: Woah! Thought this was a new thread rather than a split.