3 ms·

"Those concepts are inherently fuzzy and related in messy ways." No, they're really not. The one has a strict legal definition and is enshrined in law, and the

by fao_ 10y ago

"Those concepts are inherently fuzzy and related in messy ways." No, they're really not. The one has a strict legal definition and is enshrined in law, and the others don't and aren't. "But in actuality, de-platforming as practiced on college campuses often results in a group of people too intimidated to talk and too intimidated to attend, contrary to their desires. " And what about the people who have felt intimidated by the hate speech and haven't attended because of that? "If "de-platforming" has the effect of censorship, then it might as well be censorship." But it isn't censorship. That person can speak their views outside of that building. They are only prohibited from having a platform to spread their views. They can still publish a book of them and market it. Nobody has lost any of their rights, unless you're stating that you automatically have a right to enter any building and preach your views. Nobody would get upset if $person was denied entrance to a funeral home for preaching their views there, because we all understand that that is inappropriate behaviour. A church can expell a person for preaching atheistic views, and nobody gets annoyed. But as soon as someone does it for a white supremacist, a nazi, andor a person preaching for the extermination of certain groups, it's suddenly "against their free speech". Or, for an even better example, think of twitter as a publishing company. If I go to twitter with a book (tweet), they are not legally obliged to publish it. The fact that they do not wish to publish it, or that they stop publishing it (removal of the tweet), is not an infringement of my free speech. I can start my own publishing company (with pretty much every website host), or go to another publishing company (like /pol/) to have my ideas heard. In addition, people writing to the publisher and stating that my book (tweet) should not be published, because of the views that are held in my book (tweet), that is also not an infringement of my free speech. If the government decides that what I say is unseemly, and they purge it from all forms of media, from libraries, etc. and state that my views are not to be published, then that is censorship. [An orthogonal point here is that people like yourself often argue that these people should not be able to write protests to the publisher (twitter). As per your own definition, wouldn't that count as infringement of their free speech? It's interesting how you readily support that views should not be removed, but condone that people should not be allowed to protest against views, or that people should not be allowed to write their point of views in emails and posts about twitter. Surely the right to advocate what you call 'censorship', falls under what you call 'free speech'?]

stcredzero 10y ago
No, they're really not. The one has a strict legal definition and is enshrined in law, and the others don't and aren't. Sorry, but it is a historical fact that "strict legal definitions" are fuzzy, and the definition of a "right" changes with technology and cultural changes. If such changes didn't happen, then wiretapping wouldn't be illegal and it would still be illegal to overfly someone's farm in an airplane. Hate speech existing as a legal term is evidence against what you say. And what about the people who have felt intimidated by the hate speech and haven't attended because of that? Can you point to specific instances of this happening? A church can expell a person for preaching atheistic views, and nobody gets annoyed. But as soon as someone does it for a white supremacist, a nazi, andor a person preaching for the extermination of certain groups, it's suddenly "against their free speech". This is breathtaking intellectual dishonesty here. Preaching for the extermination of certain groups is hate speech. Are you saying that all de-platforming is only targeted at hate speech? In that case, you are simply lying. If not, then this is the dishonest tactic of trying associating your opponent with a villainous group. If de-platforming were only focused against hate speech, there would be no debate, as hate speech is not protected speech. De-platforming, as practiced, is used to silence anything certain people don't like. As practiced, it's a form of group intimidation that uses the same mechanism of effect as hate speech. Hate speech only became a legal term recently. De-platforming on college campuses should also become something legally prohibited. [An orthogonal point here is that people like yourself often argue that these people should not be able to write protests to the publisher (twitter). As per your own definition, wouldn't that count as infringement of their free speech? It's interesting how you readily support that views should not be removed, but condone that people should not be allowed to protest against views, or that people should not be allowed to write their point of views in emails and posts about twitter. Surely the right to advocate what you call 'censorship', falls under what you call 'free speech'?] You do realize that you made a false assumption about my views here for weak probabalistic reasons, then proceeded to ascribe them to me? As a test: which logical fallacy is this? I've often seen this tactic online. There's even the same (il)logical structure, down to count and ordering of sentences. It's almost like it's deliberately taught to people!
- fao_ 10y ago
  > Sorry, but it is a historical fact that "strict legal definitions" are fuzzy, and the definition of a "right" changes with technology and cultural changes. I am not arguing for some wishy-washy hypothetical future that may or may not exist, I am arguing about the present. Currently the law enshrines your right to hold an opinion openly, just not in certain contexts, based on the opinion. It does not (as I have stated) enshrine your right to have that opinion heard or published, and so therefore does not cover de-platforming. > De-platforming, as practiced, is used to silence anything certain people don't like. Do you have a source for this? I've only ever heard of it used to remove speakers that discriminate against minorities (eg. Milo, Spencer, et al. ad nauseum), and, in the twitter case, to condone removing anti-semites (which clearly falls under hate speech), or to condone removing groups of posters recently created, that all spam certain individials to troll them by "arguing" with them (this actually falls under "harassment" legislation in some places. Incidentally this has happened personally, when I tweeted that I enjoy reporting anti-semites on twitter, seconds later my mentions were filled with a mixture of people and bots whom have never interacted with me before, all spewing hatred at me). > If de-platforming were only focused against hate speech, there would be no debate, as hate speech is not protected speech. This is an indirect tautology. > Are you saying that all de-platforming is only targeted at hate speech? In that case, you are simply lying. Perhaps providing an evidencial claim here would better serve your needs. So far you have not actually addressed any of my arguments, you have simply called it weak, stated that I am lying, and stated that I am wrong in a different world, with different laws. You then have the audacity to state that I am making a logical fallacy! You have yet to produce a firm, non-tautological argument, or produce any evidence for any of your claims. You also seem to have taken it upon yourself to ignore the main section of my argument. I will respond only when you do this, since engaging with someone who argues in an intellectualy dishonest manner is wasteful of my time. > You do realize that you made a false assumption about my views here for weak probabalistic reasons, then proceeded to ascribe them to me? You make, almost word for word, the same argument as the people I was referring to, so it seemed safe that you would share the same views, as well. I admit I could have been mistaken, however you have not addressed any of the (rather valid) points I made in that same section. As you bring up logical fallacies, it might be prudent for you to read this one: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

by fao_ 10y ago

stcredzero 10y ago

No, they're really not. The one has a strict legal definition and is enshrined in law, and the others don't and aren't. Sorry, but it is a historical fact that "strict legal definitions" are fuzzy, and the definition of a "right" changes with technology and cultural changes. If such changes didn't happen, then wiretapping wouldn't be illegal and it would still be illegal to overfly someone's farm in an airplane. Hate speech existing as a legal term is evidence against what you say. And what about the people who have felt intimidated by the hate speech and haven't attended because of that? Can you point to specific instances of this happening? A church can expell a person for preaching atheistic views, and nobody gets annoyed. But as soon as someone does it for a white supremacist, a nazi, andor a person preaching for the extermination of certain groups, it's suddenly "against their free speech". This is breathtaking intellectual dishonesty here. Preaching for the extermination of certain groups is hate speech. Are you saying that all de-platforming is only targeted at hate speech? In that case, you are simply lying. If not, then this is the dishonest tactic of trying associating your opponent with a villainous group. If de-platforming were only focused against hate speech, there would be no debate, as hate speech is not protected speech. De-platforming, as practiced, is used to silence anything certain people don't like. As practiced, it's a form of group intimidation that uses the same mechanism of effect as hate speech. Hate speech only became a legal term recently. De-platforming on college campuses should also become something legally prohibited. [An orthogonal point here is that people like yourself often argue that these people should not be able to write protests to the publisher (twitter). As per your own definition, wouldn't that count as infringement of their free speech? It's interesting how you readily support that views should not be removed, but condone that people should not be allowed to protest against views, or that people should not be allowed to write their point of views in emails and posts about twitter. Surely the right to advocate what you call 'censorship', falls under what you call 'free speech'?] You do realize that you made a false assumption about my views here for weak probabalistic reasons, then proceeded to ascribe them to me? As a test: which logical fallacy is this? I've often seen this tactic online. There's even the same (il)logical structure, down to count and ordering of sentences. It's almost like it's deliberately taught to people!

fao_ 10y ago
> Sorry, but it is a historical fact that "strict legal definitions" are fuzzy, and the definition of a "right" changes with technology and cultural changes. I am not arguing for some wishy-washy hypothetical future that may or may not exist, I am arguing about the present. Currently the law enshrines your right to hold an opinion openly, just not in certain contexts, based on the opinion. It does not (as I have stated) enshrine your right to have that opinion heard or published, and so therefore does not cover de-platforming. > De-platforming, as practiced, is used to silence anything certain people don't like. Do you have a source for this? I've only ever heard of it used to remove speakers that discriminate against minorities (eg. Milo, Spencer, et al. ad nauseum), and, in the twitter case, to condone removing anti-semites (which clearly falls under hate speech), or to condone removing groups of posters recently created, that all spam certain individials to troll them by "arguing" with them (this actually falls under "harassment" legislation in some places. Incidentally this has happened personally, when I tweeted that I enjoy reporting anti-semites on twitter, seconds later my mentions were filled with a mixture of people and bots whom have never interacted with me before, all spewing hatred at me). > If de-platforming were only focused against hate speech, there would be no debate, as hate speech is not protected speech. This is an indirect tautology. > Are you saying that all de-platforming is only targeted at hate speech? In that case, you are simply lying. Perhaps providing an evidencial claim here would better serve your needs. So far you have not actually addressed any of my arguments, you have simply called it weak, stated that I am lying, and stated that I am wrong in a different world, with different laws. You then have the audacity to state that I am making a logical fallacy! You have yet to produce a firm, non-tautological argument, or produce any evidence for any of your claims. You also seem to have taken it upon yourself to ignore the main section of my argument. I will respond only when you do this, since engaging with someone who argues in an intellectualy dishonest manner is wasteful of my time. > You do realize that you made a false assumption about my views here for weak probabalistic reasons, then proceeded to ascribe them to me? You make, almost word for word, the same argument as the people I was referring to, so it seemed safe that you would share the same views, as well. I admit I could have been mistaken, however you have not addressed any of the (rather valid) points I made in that same section. As you bring up logical fallacies, it might be prudent for you to read this one: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy