David Icke's Visa Cancelled

[angrysoba]

With the possible exception of the Koran, those books propose conspiracy theories.

Do you deny conspiracy theories are being used to radicalize people?

No, I don't deny that they can be, but I deny that this should result in banning of people espousing them, or books which contain them.

Are you arguing that all conspiracy theorists and all books that can be used to further conspiracy theories or books that have been known to radicalize people should be banned?

Besides, even if you are not opposed, in principle, to the banning of books and speakers, do you think such measures are effective when the ideas and the material is perfectly accessible on the internet?

 

[baron]

He's crazy but to treat him like a terrorist is equally crazy. All this will do is lend credence to his claims of a conspiracy of the elites and he will gain a hell of a lot of new followers.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Icke statement

 

[uke2se]

No, I don't deny that they can be, but I deny that this should result in banning of people espousing them, or books which contain them.

Are you arguing that all conspiracy theorists and all books that can be used to further conspiracy theories or books that have been known to radicalize people should be banned?

Besides, even if you are not opposed, in principle, to the banning of books and speakers, do you think such measures are effective when the ideas and the material is perfectly accessible on the internet?

I think everyone need to take seriously the threat of radicalization within Western society, the consequences of which we have started to see by now. Conspiracy theories like the ones proposed by Icke surfaces in manifestos from radical racist terrorists like Breivik and Roof. The way I see it, we are sitting on a ticking bomb of radical right wing terrorism in the Western world, and conspiracy theories and their purveyors are the catalysts.

 

[angrysoba]

I think everyone need to take seriously the threat of radicalization within Western society, the consequences of which we have started to see by now. Conspiracy theories like the ones proposed by Icke surfaces in manifestos from radical racist terrorists like Breivik and Roof. The way I see it, we are sitting on a ticking bomb of radical right wing terrorism in the Western world, and conspiracy theories and their purveyors are the catalysts.

I don't think that answers my questions.

 

[uke2se]

I don't think that answers my questions.

Ok

ETA: The answer to your fist question is "no."

The answer to your second question is "questionable, but worth looking at".

I think de-platforming the worst grifters and purveyors of radicalizing conspiracy theories is a way to push back against the spread. If de-platforming had no effect, nobody would care.

 

[Myriad]

Can't he just get a MasterCard instead?

 

[angrysoba]

Ok

ETA: The answer to your fist question is "no."

The answer to your second question is "questionable, but worth looking at".

I think de-platforming the worst grifters and purveyors of radicalizing conspiracy theories is a way to push back against the spread. If de-platforming had no effect, nobody would care.

I am in principle against the very idea of banning books that promote ideas, even very bad ideas. I have already explained why that is, and why I think it is an insult (to put it mildly) to the citizens of any country when a government says what types of books and ideas are permitted for broadcast. There are some narrow exceptions I would make such as actual death threats, instructions on how to make weapons of mass destruction, information that can risk the lives of individuals such as revealing the identities of people in witness protection programs, etc...

As for the effectiveness, obviously some countries such as China, North Korea, Iran etc... put a lot of effort into extreme suppression of ideas. I don't want to go down that route. I think the effect, in Western countries, of de-platforming, is often to expose the "worst grifters" to more publicity than they otherwise would have had. And once we know that Bad Person X has been de-platformed, they often end up with more publicity.

 

[uke2se]

I am in principle against the very idea of banning books that promote ideas, even very bad ideas. I have already explained why that is, and why I think it is an insult (to put it mildly) to the citizens of any country when a government says what types of books and ideas are permitted for broadcast. There are some narrow exceptions I would make such as actual death threats, instructions on how to make weapons of mass destruction, information that can risk the lives of individuals such as revealing the identities of people in witness protection programs, etc...

As for the effectiveness, obviously some countries such as China, North Korea, Iran etc... put a lot of effort into extreme suppression of ideas. I don't want to go down that route. I think the effect, in Western countries, of de-platforming, is often to expose the "worst grifters" to more publicity than they otherwise would have had. And once we know that Bad Person X has been de-platformed, they often end up with more publicity.

I disagree about the de-platforming thing. The alt-right, for example, have been effectively de-platformed, and according to their internal communication this has been very effective in limiting their recruitment.

As for the government de-platforming someone by not letting the person into the country, we have several examples of radical imams being prevented from entering countries. I don't see what's different in this case.

 

[baron]

As for the government de-platforming someone by not letting the person into the country, we have several examples of radical imams being prevented from entering countries. I don't see what's different in this case.

I think you probably do.

 

[ahhell]

As a rule, I'm not for de-platforuming. I think it probably does as much or more to get the word out there than just letting them speak would. In cases like Icke, it probably also feeds his conspiracy BS. Aside from that, he still has the internet. On the other hand, Australia does have every right to not let him in.

I think de-platforming the worst grifters and purveyors of radicalizing conspiracy theories is a way to push back against the spread. If de-platforming had no effect, nobody would care.

Not necessarily. Those that are de-platformed get something to rail at the opposition for. They may care because it benefits them.

 

[abaddon]

Was it the scaly skin and forked tongue?

Possibly. There was a mass banning of skeptics, no reason given. Jrarrblarg is/was a member here, he got hit as well.

They just didn't like facts and evidence interrupting their fantasies, so in a selfless defense of freedom of speech, all critics were silenced.

 

[Earthborn]

Bloke sounds like a jerk, but just quickly googling he denies being a holocaust denier.

He doesn't deny the Holocaust. He just thinks it was done by Jewish Nazi Illuminati Freemason Catholic Satanist Lizard People... from Space... from Another Dimension.

 

[sadhatter]

I think everyone need to take seriously the threat of radicalization within Western society, the consequences of which we have started to see by now. Conspiracy theories like the ones proposed by Icke surfaces in manifestos from radical racist terrorists like Breivik and Roof. The way I see it, we are sitting on a ticking bomb of radical right wing terrorism in the Western world, and conspiracy theories and their purveyors are the catalysts.

Heard the same thing about every type of music.

Prove your case.

 

[sadhatter]

Ok

ETA: The answer to your fist question is "no."

The answer to your second question is "questionable, but worth looking at".

I think de-platforming the worst grifters and purveyors of radicalizing conspiracy theories is a way to push back against the spread. If de-platforming had no effect, nobody would care.

People care about murder as a way to achieve political goals, must mean it's a great option.

People care because the premise is both morally repugnant , will be abused in the future and has been abused in the past.

 

[Butter!]

If you planned on eliminating poverty by picking up penies on the ground and returning them to their owners I'd question your motives in the same way.

When someone's course of action has minimal benefit but gains them something I get suspicious.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I don't really have anything to add. I just wanted to tell you that I somehow originally read your post as "eliminating poverty by picking up penises on the ground and returning them to their owners." I kept reading it over, going, "Whaaat - is this a reference to a show I haven't seen or something?"

 

[sadhatter]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I don't really have anything to add. I just wanted to tell you that I somehow originally read your post as "eliminating poverty by picking up penises on the ground and returning them to their owners." I kept reading it over, going, "Whaaat - is this a reference to a show I haven't seen or something?"

I had to triple check after reading your post.

I'm typing from my phone and it kept autocorrecting to penis ,so I thought one slipped through lol.

 

[theprestige]

I think de-platforming the worst grifters and purveyors of radicalizing conspiracy theories is a way to push back against the spread.

The problem I have with this is that this is a moving target by design. Once you get rid of today's "worst grifter", today's "second-worst grifter" becomes tomorrow's "worst grifter". Pretty soon, you're deplatforming people just because you disagree with them.

"Deplatforming" basically means "your ideas aren't welcome here". It's one thing for a private individual or group to exercise their freedom of association to avoid people and ideas they don't like. It's another thing for the government to do it as an exercise of state authority.

Icke's ideas are welcome enough in Australia that he can sell tickets and pay for his travel expenses. Why is the Australian government contradicting the preferences of Australian citizens freely exercising their rights? Because some Australians want Icke to STFU and go away. Not only do they not want to hear him, they don't want anybody else to hear him.

Well and good. But what's the limiting principle on "deplatforming the worst grifters"?

Some people would argue that theism is a mental disorder and all religions are cults. Should the Australian government deny visas to visiting clergy and lay preachers? Should religious proselytism be banned, Down Under?

What about homeopaths? People who advocate easing Australian firearms restrictions? People who fall outside Australia's political Overton Window?

"Grift" is a crime, fraud and theft and extortion and blackmail. These things are defined in law, with interpretation well established by legal precedent in the courts. "Grift" is also a figure of speech, encompassing a lot of things that are objectionable to some, but not illegal. Race-baiting and campaign promises come to mind. Colluding with lobbyists is often legally permissible, but can be thought of as a kind of "grift". Promoting religion probably strikes a lot of people as a grift of some kind.

"Deplatforming" a convicted fraudster is one thing. But it's not the thing you're talking about here.

---

Anyway, Icke's ideas aren't welcome in Australia. I don't have a problem with denying his visa in principle. Nobody is entitled to entry into another country. However, I think that government policy should try not to be capricious, and should try not to gainsay the choices of its own citizens without good reason.

uke2se If your concern is that Icke will radicalize some Australians, do you think it is wise to stop at denying him entry to Australia? Do you think it would make sense if the Aussie government also prohibited Australians from buying his books and disseminating his ideas?

If Icke licensed an Australian citizen to promote his ideas and shill his books, should that be allowed?

 

[sadhatter]

This reminds me of when me and all my edgelord friends as a teenager stopped looking for Skrewdriver c.d.s when they were banned.

Oh wait, the opposite of that happened, and we searched and spent 4x as much as normal because of the allure. And due to the sunk time ( and being teenage edgelords ) actually listened to the sub par garbage.

But lo and behold none of us turned out as skinheads.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Practically speaking, visas are a privilege, not a right. I don't see "quackery" as a characteristic worthy of special protection from government discrimination.

If he was a citizen, he could quack all he likes, but he's not. I'm ok with Aus saying they don't need any and declining entry.