3 ms·

For awhile, the Soviets could "deplatform" people from their lives entirely by threatening them or sending them to the Gulags. They held things together for man

For awhile, the Soviets could "deplatform" people from their lives entirely by threatening them or sending them to the Gulags. They held things together for many decades through that continual disruption. Yes, you can coerce people with your advantages, and it will work for awhile. You can even create enclaves where you can keep undesirables out. But no, that never wins in the end.

woodruffw 8y ago
> For awhile, the Soviets could "deplatform" people from their lives entirely by threatening them or sending them to the Gulags. They held things together for many decades through that continual disruption. I take the scarequotes there to be you admitting that gulags aren't really deplatforming -- it's a government terrorizing its citizens. Nobody in this conversation is interested in building gulags or putting the undesirables in them. > Yes, you can coerce people with your advantages, and it will work for awhile. You can even create enclaves where you can keep undesirables out. But no, that never wins in the end. I don't understand this reasoning. I've presented some research indicating that banning hateful online communities actually does have some kind of positive effect, and your response it that it "never wins in the end"? What is the "end" here? Do we have any sort of evidence or overarching political theory that suggests that it doesn't win in the end? Most of us are on board, intuitively at least, with the notion that you can't have both a dictator and be a democratic republic. Why are we so hesitant to accept that other entities fundamentally conflict with the notion of liberal democracy?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I've presented some research indicating that banning hateful online communities actually does have some kind of positive effect I'm sure that you can find a Soviet study indicating that certain of their programs had an effect against Bourgeois oppressor thinking and activity for some number of years. Why are we so hesitant to accept that other entities fundamentally conflict with the notion of liberal democracy? Conditioning a society to accept the practically suppression of free speech fundamentally conflicts with the notion of liberal democracy.
  - woodruffw 8y ago
    > I'm sure that you can find a Soviet study indicating that certain of their programs had an effect against Bourgeois oppressor thinking and activity for some number of years. Again, no gulags here. Just Twitter, Reddit, and bad clones of the aforementioned. It's also worth noting that the Soviet Union, at its best, simply was not a liberal democracy. The position that I'm taking is nonsensical outside of a liberal democratic context, so comparing it with various inhumanities under a non-democracy is unconvincing at best. > Conditioning a society to accept the practically suppression of free speech fundamentally conflicts with the notion of liberal democracy. We're talking about the scope and structure of liberal democracy itself, a discussion that's been going on for as long as liberal democracies have existed (others have brought up Popper, but Popper cribbed the idea from Immanuel Kant). There's no conditioning going on.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      There's no conditioning going on. The general population that grew up online in web forums is very much conditioned to accept totalitarian dictates about who can say what, where. Even to the point where they concoct ideology about it. a discussion that's been going on for as long as liberal democracies have existed The US government coming in and telling a private entity, no you must tolerate free speech on your property is historical fact and precedent. There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehova's witness won a lawsuit on the basis of the First Amendment, enabling her to walk about that town and distribute her pamphlets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc Originally, it was widely recognized by US jurisprudence, though property rights and freedom of association are important, the First Amendment was even more important.
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        Also extended to shopping centers in one state with Pruneridge.
      - woodruffw 8y ago
- facistsSuck 8y ago
  > Nobody in this conversation is interested in building gulags or putting the undesirables in them. For now. That will be step 2
CamperBob2 8y ago
Because being banned from Twitter is totally like being sent to a gulag.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Granted, I'd rather you only take my speech than my physical freedom and my life. However, if society starts taking away practical freedom of speech, who is going to speak up? Why wouldn't the big companies and the government just pressure Google and Facebook to get everyone to shut up about it? This is why freedom of speech is foundational.
  - MrLeap 8y ago
    I appreciate the fight you're fighting, friend. Free speech has become inconvenient, so long live the tyranny of the feudal corporation apparently? It's pretty gross.

woodruffw 8y ago

> For awhile, the Soviets could "deplatform" people from their lives entirely by threatening them or sending them to the Gulags. They held things together for many decades through that continual disruption. I take the scarequotes there to be you admitting that gulags aren't really deplatforming -- it's a government terrorizing its citizens. Nobody in this conversation is interested in building gulags or putting the undesirables in them. > Yes, you can coerce people with your advantages, and it will work for awhile. You can even create enclaves where you can keep undesirables out. But no, that never wins in the end. I don't understand this reasoning. I've presented some research indicating that banning hateful online communities actually does have some kind of positive effect, and your response it that it "never wins in the end"? What is the "end" here? Do we have any sort of evidence or overarching political theory that suggests that it doesn't win in the end? Most of us are on board, intuitively at least, with the notion that you can't have both a dictator and be a democratic republic. Why are we so hesitant to accept that other entities fundamentally conflict with the notion of liberal democracy?

stcredzero 8y ago
I've presented some research indicating that banning hateful online communities actually does have some kind of positive effect I'm sure that you can find a Soviet study indicating that certain of their programs had an effect against Bourgeois oppressor thinking and activity for some number of years. Why are we so hesitant to accept that other entities fundamentally conflict with the notion of liberal democracy? Conditioning a society to accept the practically suppression of free speech fundamentally conflicts with the notion of liberal democracy.
- woodruffw 8y ago
  > I'm sure that you can find a Soviet study indicating that certain of their programs had an effect against Bourgeois oppressor thinking and activity for some number of years. Again, no gulags here. Just Twitter, Reddit, and bad clones of the aforementioned. It's also worth noting that the Soviet Union, at its best, simply was not a liberal democracy. The position that I'm taking is nonsensical outside of a liberal democratic context, so comparing it with various inhumanities under a non-democracy is unconvincing at best. > Conditioning a society to accept the practically suppression of free speech fundamentally conflicts with the notion of liberal democracy. We're talking about the scope and structure of liberal democracy itself, a discussion that's been going on for as long as liberal democracies have existed (others have brought up Popper, but Popper cribbed the idea from Immanuel Kant). There's no conditioning going on.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    There's no conditioning going on. The general population that grew up online in web forums is very much conditioned to accept totalitarian dictates about who can say what, where. Even to the point where they concoct ideology about it. a discussion that's been going on for as long as liberal democracies have existed The US government coming in and telling a private entity, no you must tolerate free speech on your property is historical fact and precedent. There is a lawsuit where a company owned this mining company town, including all of its roads and sidewalks. A Jehova's witness won a lawsuit on the basis of the First Amendment, enabling her to walk about that town and distribute her pamphlets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc Originally, it was widely recognized by US jurisprudence, though property rights and freedom of association are important, the First Amendment was even more important.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Also extended to shopping centers in one state with Pruneridge.
    - woodruffw 8y ago
facistsSuck 8y ago
> Nobody in this conversation is interested in building gulags or putting the undesirables in them. For now. That will be step 2

CamperBob2 8y ago

Because being banned from Twitter is totally like being sent to a gulag.

stcredzero 8y ago
Granted, I'd rather you only take my speech than my physical freedom and my life. However, if society starts taking away practical freedom of speech, who is going to speak up? Why wouldn't the big companies and the government just pressure Google and Facebook to get everyone to shut up about it? This is why freedom of speech is foundational.
- MrLeap 8y ago
  I appreciate the fight you're fighting, friend. Free speech has become inconvenient, so long live the tyranny of the feudal corporation apparently? It's pretty gross.