3 ms·

I appreciate that fact that you can tell this is all just a front for beliefs they don't have. I mean if they really believe in free speech you would assume th

I appreciate that fact that you can tell this is all just a front for beliefs they don't have. I mean if they really believe in free speech you would assume they would have mentioned Julian Assange or Wikileaks once. It would have made a lot more sense if they had ever mentioned how dangerous the censorship of Wikileaks by monetary means was. Fortunately they never did this so you can reasonably assume it is a front.

krapp 8y ago
Most people who believe in free speech only believe in freedom for their speech. That's just the way people are. Extremists cry foul that their free speech rights are being violated or that they're being censored but within their own groups they would quickly stamp out opposing ideas or criticism.
- mikeash 8y ago
  They do this because they see words as weapons to be used against their enemies, nothing more. It’s not that they believe in freedom of speech incompletely. They just know that freedom of speech is something other people care about, and it can be used as a rhetorical weapon. “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
  - meowface 8y ago
    I don't understand what you're trying to claim. Are you suggesting the owners of Gab are anti-Semitic?
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I’m suggesting that people who cry “freedom of speech” when others won’t do business with them, while simultaneously suppressing dissent among their own ranks, are using it as a rhetorical weapon rather than as a principle they follow but I completely.
      - meowface 8y ago
        I agree with you, but in this situation, who is "suppressing dissent among their own ranks"?
        krapp 8y ago
        No one. Banning Gab.com isn't suppressing dissent, since Gab.com weren't dissenting against Paypal. Also, Gab.com weren't in "the ranks of" Paypal, nor was Paypal "in the ranks of" Gab.com. Paypal had no apparent issue with Gab until recently, so politics being the catalyst of Paypal's decision seems unlikely in this case, as they could have banned Gab at any time. Rather, recent extenuating circumstances seem to have made a client relationship with Gab no longer tolerable for Paypal.
lazugod 8y ago
Are you talking about Paypal or the banned organization?
- zarriak 8y ago
  Gab

krapp 8y ago

Most people who believe in free speech only believe in freedom for their speech. That's just the way people are. Extremists cry foul that their free speech rights are being violated or that they're being censored but within their own groups they would quickly stamp out opposing ideas or criticism.

mikeash 8y ago
They do this because they see words as weapons to be used against their enemies, nothing more. It’s not that they believe in freedom of speech incompletely. They just know that freedom of speech is something other people care about, and it can be used as a rhetorical weapon. “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
- meowface 8y ago
  I don't understand what you're trying to claim. Are you suggesting the owners of Gab are anti-Semitic?
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I’m suggesting that people who cry “freedom of speech” when others won’t do business with them, while simultaneously suppressing dissent among their own ranks, are using it as a rhetorical weapon rather than as a principle they follow but I completely.
    - meowface 8y ago
      I agree with you, but in this situation, who is "suppressing dissent among their own ranks"?
      - krapp 8y ago
        No one. Banning Gab.com isn't suppressing dissent, since Gab.com weren't dissenting against Paypal. Also, Gab.com weren't in "the ranks of" Paypal, nor was Paypal "in the ranks of" Gab.com. Paypal had no apparent issue with Gab until recently, so politics being the catalyst of Paypal's decision seems unlikely in this case, as they could have banned Gab at any time. Rather, recent extenuating circumstances seem to have made a client relationship with Gab no longer tolerable for Paypal.

lazugod 8y ago

Are you talking about Paypal or the banned organization?

zarriak 8y ago
Gab