8 ms·

Either de-platforming "works" because it delays sectarian conflict Suppression doesn't work. It just reveals that the bosses who have control have you out-grou

Either de-platforming "works" because it delays sectarian conflict Suppression doesn't work. It just reveals that the bosses who have control have you out-grouped if you're not one of their "faithful." delegitimizes discourse altogether and just accelerates it. One can think of Free Speech in this way: The whole purpose of Free Speech is to enshrine discourse. If there is Free Speech, then we can always fall back on discourse and talk it out. This is why, "Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is bankrupt. "Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences," is just another way of saying, "Don't say that, or we will use force on you." It's a disappointment to see nonsense like "milkshaking" and "Punch a Nazi." These are just dress rehearsals to more serious political violence. These are signs of people being radicalized to the point, where they are going to abandon discourse and resort to violent conflict. I remember when teachers used to talk about how the democratic societies and the USA were better than places like the USSR: Instead of using force against dissidents, we had Free Speech. Now, society's conception of civics is devolving into, "There is a right way to think, and if you don't agree, we'll force you to!"

eastWestMath 7y ago
>Suppression doesn't work. It just reveals that the bosses who have control have you out-grouped if you're not one of their "faithful." I think that's a bit telling - people are, by and large, being deplatformed for hate speech. And while the US has free speech laws that more or less protect hate speech, it does not have laws obligating institutions (such as universities or social media companies) give these people a platform for hate speech. >It's a disappointment to see nonsense like "milkshaking" and "Punch a Nazi." These are just dress rehearsals to more serious political violence. These are signs of people being radicalized to the point, where they are going to abandon discourse and resort to violent conflict. Right, but the regular mass shootings by Ben Shapiro fans isn't a concern.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  The issue is who's in charge of deciding it's hate speech? There's no impartial judicial system involved here, the people driving the deplatforming are self-appointed activists within these companies who are emotionally invested in 'doing something'. They're not moderate, or careful, or measured. That's not their nature.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    There's no impartial judicial system involved here, the people driving the deplatforming are self-appointed activists within these companies who are emotionally invested in 'doing something'. They're not moderate, or careful, or measured. That's not their nature. If you want to get a bit of data on how "moderate, or careful, or measured" they are, note that the pro-deplatforming crowd characterizes Ben Shapiro -- a devout adherent of Judaism, a consistent critic of the Alt-Right, and a primary target of the Alt-Right according to the SPLC -- as "Alt-Right." That's just one example. There are lots of examples. Labeling is being used as an intellectually dishonest weapon enabling censorship and suppression.
    - eastWestMath 7y ago
      I never called him alt-right. And I don't see why the fact that he's jewish negates the fact that he's engaged in hate speech several times - some nice examples here: >If you wear your pants below your butt, don't bend the brim of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life. >Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock
      - stcredzero 7y ago
        I never called him alt-right. Thanks for that. he's engaged in hate speech several times - some nice examples here: >If you wear your pants below your butt, don't bend the brim of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life. >Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock Thanks for the examples! The 1st is a criticism and throwing shade at particular behaviors. I had a colleague who did that with his pants. Who was from rural Michigan, BTW. Might I ask what your justification for saying it's "hate speech?" Are you by any chance trading in racial stereotypes? (This is a danger of ideologies like Intersectionality which obsess over identities like race.) The 2nd is nationalism. Sure, you can criticize him for that, but it's not "hate speech." Thanks for the examples of how arbitrary "hate speech" can be.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  (EDIT: I think that's a bit telling - people are, by and large, being deplatformed for hate speech. "Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition, so it can be anything, and now the term is being used dishonestly and arbitrarily. The YouTuber "Black Pigeon Speaks" had his channel completely deleted yesterday, apparently for "Hate Speech." This was despite his considerable popularity, his strict adherence to the known YouTube rules, and his lack of community strikes. Just how arbitrary is this? His channel is now back, just as arbitrarily. (He is an expatriate living in Japan, who likes to rescue animals, and who tests center-left on the Political Compass test.) Also witness how Phillip Defranco, who is as middle of the road as they come, was caught up in the recent New York Times hit piece.) it does not have laws obligating institutions (such as universities or social media companies) give these people a platform for hate speech. There is judicial precedent. A mining company that built and owns all the roads and sidewalks in town can't prohibit someone from driving and walking down them to disseminate pamphlets and to canvas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama Right, but the regular mass shootings by Ben Shapiro fans isn't a concern. Ben Shapiro has long been a consistent and vehement critic of the Alt-Right, and they have taken concerted action against him. (This, according to the SPLC!) The vast majority of his fans aren't mass shooters, just as the vast majority of __insert group here__ aren't violent. It's precisely this kind of reductive and indiscriminate characterization of groups which you are supposedly against, but which you have just engaged in. I support your right to say it, and will exercise my right to point out you're wrong.
  - eastWestMath 7y ago
    I didn't call him Alt-Right, I just pointed out there have been at least three mass shootings in the past two years by Ben Shapiro fans. Edit: In many countries, hate speech does in fact have a definition. Just because it's not in the US legal code doesn't mean it's undefined - that's why your right wing media personalities can have trouble coming into Canada.
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      Indeed you did. You're openly one of those people who likes to point out that members of __insert group here__ engage in mass killing. Thanks.
yourbandsucks 7y ago
I'd say the problem is really the expanding definition of 'nazi'. Popper's paradox of tolerance is a thing, we can't tolerate actual nazis who would silence everybody in the name of 'openness'. And the far-right types are still responsible for vastly more actual violence than the far left types. A couple nazis have been punched and antifa got out of hand in Berkeley once.. meanwhile, synagogues have been burned down, mosques shot up, a Sikh guy in Texas got shot because someone those he was one of "the arabs"... The problem on the left side honestly isn't violence, it's suppression of speech. The far left in the tech industry has control of speech in a way that's pretty novel, and they need to be more careful and less righteous. It feels good to call someone a nazi and cast them out, but let's exercise some restraint and save that for actual nazis.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  Popper's paradox of tolerance is a thing, we can't tolerate actual ____ who would silence everybody in the name of 'openness'. "Authoritarian" is what fits best here. It's what you call people who give up on convincing you and start coercing you. Society shouldn't tolerate those who would damage our society's foundation and ultimate safety valve of Free Speech, particularly if they do it in the name of 'openness'. The far left in the tech industry has control of speech in a way that's pretty novel, and they need to be more careful and less righteous. The novelty is important. It's intellectually dishonest to use the time lag of laws catching up, particularly when the potential damage to discourse and society is so huge.
  - wwweston 7y ago
    That's a uselessly broad definition of authoritarian. It transforms any situation in which someone does have authority -- even domain limited authority -- to make a call without unanimity into an authoritarian one. If that's what authoritarianism was, every parent, teacher, property owner (and therefore business), employer, and manager would be one. It would make law itself authoritarian. > particularly when the potential damage to discourse and society is so huge. Can you be more specific about an instance of damage to discourse? If it's huge, presumably it's easy to argue some high visibility cases where key valuable concepts that would be carried in discourse have become scarcely available. And presumably, there'd be a case that these key valuable concepts aren't subject to any of the traditional philosophical limits on free speech (which as broadly respected as it is, has, like most of the law, not been absolute). One might even expect the damaged areas of discourse to be manifestly more valuable to the point where compelled participation on the part of tech companies in sustaining them seems reasonable.
mrguyorama 7y ago
>"Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is bankrupt. You honestly think anyone should be allowed to say anything with zero consequences? Isn't that an infringement on my freedom of speech to call a belligerent nazi a pathetic waste of resources?
- daenz 7y ago
  If you read the next paragraph, you can see they are talking about political violence. The people who use the "no freedom from consequences" language are intentionally vague about what form those consequences take, and often, those "consequences" are including violent reactions. People who think it's ok to harass/threaten/attack people because they don't like their speech are in the same boat as people who catcall/harass/stalk women because of the way they dress, because they use the same rationale: "they were asking for it by expressing themselves that way"
  - mrguyorama 7y ago
    >The people who use the "no freedom from consequences" language are intentionally vague about what form those consequences take, and often, those "consequences" are including violent reactions Different speech has radically different consequences. Are you saying zero speech should be met with violence?
    - daenz 7y ago
      No I'm not, and there are very specific and careful legal guidelines as to what constitutes unprotected, threatening speech. The vast majority of people being punched/attacked/milkshaked for their speech do not come anywhere close to those legal guidelines. If you feel the need to punch someone in the face for saying that abortion or illegal immigration is wrong, you need to take a serious look at your mental state, and not try to pretend in some abstract way that they are threatening your wellbeing in order to justify your violence.
      - mrguyorama 7y ago
jakelazaroff 7y ago
> It's a disappointment to see nonsense like "milkshaking" and "Punch a Nazi." These are just dress rehearsals to more serious political violence. These are signs of people being radicalized to the point, where they are going to abandon discourse and resort to violent conflict. This might be more convincing if Nazism and white surpemacy weren't themselves entirely predicated on violence. This is the kind of criticism you get to make if you're not part of their outgroup. They might be peaceful now (well, except for the steadily increasing violence [1]) but what do you think they're going to do if and when they get more power? At what point is pushing back acceptable? Is it when they start stripping legal protections from (more) people? When they start putting (more) people in camps? When I have to wear a patch identifying myself as Jewish? When they start firing up the gas chambers? It's not that "there is a right way to think". It's that these people are trying to harm me, specifically. And it's that other people want to pretend that this whole thing is just a difference of opinion. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-zealand-shooting-highlights-rise-violence-linked-to-white-supremacy-2019-03-15/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-zealand-shooting-highlights...
- jquery 7y ago
  >This might be more convincing if Nazism and white surpemacy weren't themselves entirely predicated on violence. If people were generally accurate about who is and isn't a Nazi or White Supremacist, this line of thinking might have merit (i.e., the idea that some types of thinking are inherently violent and must be suppressed at the level of speech, but of course who decides that?). But, observing political discourse over the past few years, people are not generally anywhere close to accurate about who is a Nazi or a White Supremacist. So what instead happens is a lot of people who aren't Nazis or White Supremacists get punched and milkshaked as collateral damage, and perhaps they are the majority of the damage. As a followup, a person could reasonably contend that Socialism and Communism are entirely predicated on violence. They certainly have huge body counts, and consistently. And then you have people who think that Capitalism is predicated on violence. And suddenly everyone is punching everybody and we stop talking to each other, all because you wanted to punch a Nazi. The road to hell... From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967092 ----------------------- > Men seem very unwilling to recognise that the memo and the discussion itself is harmful. ...you realize where this goes, right? Like -- suppose you're right; and suppose you're given the power to suppress all such harmful discussions. You apply it. No more such discussion. Great. Now suppose this occurs but in fact you're wrong. We must then ask: How would you find out that you're wrong? Well, in such a case, you probably wouldn't. I guess you might find out when the chickens, whatever they are, finally came home to roost. But ideally one wants to find out before then. Better hope the chickens are merely bad rather than catastrophic, seeing as you've been doing absolutely no planning for this case. And hopefully they come sooner rather than later. (And that's assuming you're a reasonable person who would actually admit error at that point; see below.) I mean, really... illiberalism, it always goes the same way. You think it's discussion that's harmful? Have you seen the alternative? Because, I mean, examples abound, and how it goes is pretty clear. You're talking about going down a path dominated by humanity's worst tribal instincts. I should hope that's not what you want -- but that's where that path leads. By the time the far-off disaster occurs, do you think it'll be people like you, who are capable of thinking clearly but just think certain discussions should be suppressed, who are going to be running the show? No, it'll the people who are the least reflective, the most tribal, the most doublethinky. Liberalism, free speech, when working properly, is supposed to work as a negative feedback loop. If you're wrong, you find out. Someone contradicts you, supplies arguments, and then you can consider them and see whether they might be right. As a lot of people have noted, it... doesn't exactly always succeed at this. But suppression of speech... hoo boy, that fails so much harder. That's how you get positive feedback loops. As the professed beliefs of the group get further and further from reality, simultaneously the requirements that you agree, the punishments for disagreeing, get stricter and harsher. You sure as hell don't find the truth that way. Truth, now... I notice that's something you didn't even mention at all. Because some of the points made in that memo, are, as best as people can currently tell, true. You haven't made any claims about to truth or falsity, only about harmfulness. But do you think the harmfulness of the claims in that memo exceed the harmfulness of shitty civilizational epistemic practices? (Nature can't be fooled, as they say!) Like, OK, bad epistemic practices might not seem that bad, might seem like a worthwhile tradeoff, if you imagine suppression of specific facts or claims or discussions as an isolated thing. Maybe we don't need to know literally everything. But that's not how it goes. Free speech, liberalism, these are ideas that are unnatural to people, they had to be learned, and they are constantly seeking ways to slip them off or and go back to full-on tribalism (or pervert them in service of it). You may want suppression of particular claims... you will get the bad old days. The positive-feedback loop of doom. Claims don't exist in isolation, after all; claims have relations between them. You can't just suppress one claim, because people will rederive it from other claims. And if the claim you suppress happens to be correct? Then people will definitely rederive it. So either surrounding claims have to go, or the process of inference itself has to go. Likely both. In fact definitely the latter; you can peel off surrounding claims all you want but eventually you'll have to attack inference itself. And hey, it happens already that people are constantly eager to do that anyway! They only need a little push... and then oops, there's your positive feedback loop. Once you encourage people to use bad methods, they'll use them to reach all sorts of bad conclusions... I expect many of them will surprise you! (And what is the scope of this suppression? Shall the hidden truth be kept alive in the academy, say, with a strict cordon, so that the facts may be known by the chosen few but never applied outside where it might be necessary? Shall those who wish to learn a subject have to first learn only the public parts, and then apply to join, to learn the hidden secrets? Or shall it extend even to them? Is the pursuit of truth itself something that must simply be forbidden?) It's a dark road you're suggesting here -- and not a new one; an old one, an ancient one, one whose failures we know very well. I'll take whatever harmfulness the truth might pose over that any day. I don't think it can really hold a candle to that." -----------------------
anarchodev 7y ago
When we talk about whether or not deplatforming "works" we necessarily have to define our goals. If your goal is, for instance, to be able to find as much hateful content on your platform of choice -- deplatforming absolutely doesn't work. If your goal is to allow fewer outlets for hateful groups to recruit new members (this is my goal), it's working fantastically. Almost better than any other tactic right now.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  When we talk about whether or not deplatforming "works" we necessarily have to define our goals. If your goal is, for instance, to be able to find as much hateful content on your platform of choice -- deplatforming absolutely doesn't work. If your goal is to allow fewer outlets for hateful groups to recruit new members (this is my goal), it's working fantastically. Almost better than any other tactic right now. You are revealing your biases and the distortion of your particular information bubble. Many of the people being name-called and deplatformed are not hateful and are not parts of hate groups. If you could transcend your particular bubble, you'd see that many people who are simply normal Republicans, libertarians, centrists, and independents are being caught up. There are huge numbers of people who are essentially being lied about -- in the most transparent fashion, supported with circular references produced by biased activists that ultimately don't go to any documented facts. What this abuse of "moderation" is actually doing, is fanning societal outrage and destroying the credibility of the Left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuX87JFzLFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuX87JFzLFc The extremists, both the Far Left and Far Right, gain in the short term from this, because it gains eyeballs and membership through this reinforcing circle of outrage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc The dying legacy media naturally joins in on this spiral of outrage and clickbait.
jvagner 7y ago
"The whole purpose of Free Speech is to enshrine discourse." Nicely stated. A lot of the activism happening right now is constructed a way as to annihilate any of the nuances against the position. So the discourse isn't happening inside the issue, which isn't terribly surprising. But just like Congressional leaders voting for bills they haven't read, certain forces of our cultural debates right now are gaining ground without the presence of much discourse. I look at people like Mike Monteiro (screaming for Jack's head), the anti-de-platforming crowd decrying certain de-platformings, and the free speech crowd decrying all de-platformings. Is this the discourse? I'm not sure it is.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  Is this the discourse? I'm not sure it is. Part and parcel to Free Speech being foundational to discourse. If one values discourse, Free Speech needs to always be there. The late 1700s equivalent would be, if the manufacturers of printing presses were only letting those with their favored political views print anything. (And if making one's own printing press were practically infeasible.) Viral discovery in a digital medium is a big game changer, in the same league as printed text. Just because some megacorps are able to do so, doesn't mean all of it should be granted to one particular subset of one particular political persuasion. That's technically legal, supposedly, but not democratic in spirit. That's a minority using resource advantage to manipulate and coerce the public.

eastWestMath 7y ago

>Suppression doesn't work. It just reveals that the bosses who have control have you out-grouped if you're not one of their "faithful." I think that's a bit telling - people are, by and large, being deplatformed for hate speech. And while the US has free speech laws that more or less protect hate speech, it does not have laws obligating institutions (such as universities or social media companies) give these people a platform for hate speech. >It's a disappointment to see nonsense like "milkshaking" and "Punch a Nazi." These are just dress rehearsals to more serious political violence. These are signs of people being radicalized to the point, where they are going to abandon discourse and resort to violent conflict. Right, but the regular mass shootings by Ben Shapiro fans isn't a concern.

yourbandsucks 7y ago
The issue is who's in charge of deciding it's hate speech? There's no impartial judicial system involved here, the people driving the deplatforming are self-appointed activists within these companies who are emotionally invested in 'doing something'. They're not moderate, or careful, or measured. That's not their nature.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  There's no impartial judicial system involved here, the people driving the deplatforming are self-appointed activists within these companies who are emotionally invested in 'doing something'. They're not moderate, or careful, or measured. That's not their nature. If you want to get a bit of data on how "moderate, or careful, or measured" they are, note that the pro-deplatforming crowd characterizes Ben Shapiro -- a devout adherent of Judaism, a consistent critic of the Alt-Right, and a primary target of the Alt-Right according to the SPLC -- as "Alt-Right." That's just one example. There are lots of examples. Labeling is being used as an intellectually dishonest weapon enabling censorship and suppression.
  - eastWestMath 7y ago
    I never called him alt-right. And I don't see why the fact that he's jewish negates the fact that he's engaged in hate speech several times - some nice examples here: >If you wear your pants below your butt, don't bend the brim of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life. >Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      I never called him alt-right. Thanks for that. he's engaged in hate speech several times - some nice examples here: >If you wear your pants below your butt, don't bend the brim of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life. >Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock Thanks for the examples! The 1st is a criticism and throwing shade at particular behaviors. I had a colleague who did that with his pants. Who was from rural Michigan, BTW. Might I ask what your justification for saying it's "hate speech?" Are you by any chance trading in racial stereotypes? (This is a danger of ideologies like Intersectionality which obsess over identities like race.) The 2nd is nationalism. Sure, you can criticize him for that, but it's not "hate speech." Thanks for the examples of how arbitrary "hate speech" can be.
stcredzero 7y ago
(EDIT: I think that's a bit telling - people are, by and large, being deplatformed for hate speech. "Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition, so it can be anything, and now the term is being used dishonestly and arbitrarily. The YouTuber "Black Pigeon Speaks" had his channel completely deleted yesterday, apparently for "Hate Speech." This was despite his considerable popularity, his strict adherence to the known YouTube rules, and his lack of community strikes. Just how arbitrary is this? His channel is now back, just as arbitrarily. (He is an expatriate living in Japan, who likes to rescue animals, and who tests center-left on the Political Compass test.) Also witness how Phillip Defranco, who is as middle of the road as they come, was caught up in the recent New York Times hit piece.) it does not have laws obligating institutions (such as universities or social media companies) give these people a platform for hate speech. There is judicial precedent. A mining company that built and owns all the roads and sidewalks in town can't prohibit someone from driving and walking down them to disseminate pamphlets and to canvas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama Right, but the regular mass shootings by Ben Shapiro fans isn't a concern. Ben Shapiro has long been a consistent and vehement critic of the Alt-Right, and they have taken concerted action against him. (This, according to the SPLC!) The vast majority of his fans aren't mass shooters, just as the vast majority of __insert group here__ aren't violent. It's precisely this kind of reductive and indiscriminate characterization of groups which you are supposedly against, but which you have just engaged in. I support your right to say it, and will exercise my right to point out you're wrong.
- eastWestMath 7y ago
  I didn't call him Alt-Right, I just pointed out there have been at least three mass shootings in the past two years by Ben Shapiro fans. Edit: In many countries, hate speech does in fact have a definition. Just because it's not in the US legal code doesn't mean it's undefined - that's why your right wing media personalities can have trouble coming into Canada.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    Indeed you did. You're openly one of those people who likes to point out that members of __insert group here__ engage in mass killing. Thanks.

yourbandsucks 7y ago

I'd say the problem is really the expanding definition of 'nazi'. Popper's paradox of tolerance is a thing, we can't tolerate actual nazis who would silence everybody in the name of 'openness'. And the far-right types are still responsible for vastly more actual violence than the far left types. A couple nazis have been punched and antifa got out of hand in Berkeley once.. meanwhile, synagogues have been burned down, mosques shot up, a Sikh guy in Texas got shot because someone those he was one of "the arabs"... The problem on the left side honestly isn't violence, it's suppression of speech. The far left in the tech industry has control of speech in a way that's pretty novel, and they need to be more careful and less righteous. It feels good to call someone a nazi and cast them out, but let's exercise some restraint and save that for actual nazis.

stcredzero 7y ago
Popper's paradox of tolerance is a thing, we can't tolerate actual ____ who would silence everybody in the name of 'openness'. "Authoritarian" is what fits best here. It's what you call people who give up on convincing you and start coercing you. Society shouldn't tolerate those who would damage our society's foundation and ultimate safety valve of Free Speech, particularly if they do it in the name of 'openness'. The far left in the tech industry has control of speech in a way that's pretty novel, and they need to be more careful and less righteous. The novelty is important. It's intellectually dishonest to use the time lag of laws catching up, particularly when the potential damage to discourse and society is so huge.
- wwweston 7y ago
  That's a uselessly broad definition of authoritarian. It transforms any situation in which someone does have authority -- even domain limited authority -- to make a call without unanimity into an authoritarian one. If that's what authoritarianism was, every parent, teacher, property owner (and therefore business), employer, and manager would be one. It would make law itself authoritarian. > particularly when the potential damage to discourse and society is so huge. Can you be more specific about an instance of damage to discourse? If it's huge, presumably it's easy to argue some high visibility cases where key valuable concepts that would be carried in discourse have become scarcely available. And presumably, there'd be a case that these key valuable concepts aren't subject to any of the traditional philosophical limits on free speech (which as broadly respected as it is, has, like most of the law, not been absolute). One might even expect the damaged areas of discourse to be manifestly more valuable to the point where compelled participation on the part of tech companies in sustaining them seems reasonable.

mrguyorama 7y ago

>"Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is bankrupt. You honestly think anyone should be allowed to say anything with zero consequences? Isn't that an infringement on my freedom of speech to call a belligerent nazi a pathetic waste of resources?

daenz 7y ago
If you read the next paragraph, you can see they are talking about political violence. The people who use the "no freedom from consequences" language are intentionally vague about what form those consequences take, and often, those "consequences" are including violent reactions. People who think it's ok to harass/threaten/attack people because they don't like their speech are in the same boat as people who catcall/harass/stalk women because of the way they dress, because they use the same rationale: "they were asking for it by expressing themselves that way"
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  >The people who use the "no freedom from consequences" language are intentionally vague about what form those consequences take, and often, those "consequences" are including violent reactions Different speech has radically different consequences. Are you saying zero speech should be met with violence?
  - daenz 7y ago
    No I'm not, and there are very specific and careful legal guidelines as to what constitutes unprotected, threatening speech. The vast majority of people being punched/attacked/milkshaked for their speech do not come anywhere close to those legal guidelines. If you feel the need to punch someone in the face for saying that abortion or illegal immigration is wrong, you need to take a serious look at your mental state, and not try to pretend in some abstract way that they are threatening your wellbeing in order to justify your violence.
    - mrguyorama 7y ago

jakelazaroff 7y ago

> It's a disappointment to see nonsense like "milkshaking" and "Punch a Nazi." These are just dress rehearsals to more serious political violence. These are signs of people being radicalized to the point, where they are going to abandon discourse and resort to violent conflict. This might be more convincing if Nazism and white surpemacy weren't themselves entirely predicated on violence. This is the kind of criticism you get to make if you're not part of their outgroup. They might be peaceful now (well, except for the steadily increasing violence [1]) but what do you think they're going to do if and when they get more power? At what point is pushing back acceptable? Is it when they start stripping legal protections from (more) people? When they start putting (more) people in camps? When I have to wear a patch identifying myself as Jewish? When they start firing up the gas chambers? It's not that "there is a right way to think". It's that these people are trying to harm me, specifically. And it's that other people want to pretend that this whole thing is just a difference of opinion. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-zealand-shooting-highlights-rise-violence-linked-to-white-supremacy-2019-03-15/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-zealand-shooting-highlights...

jquery 7y ago
>This might be more convincing if Nazism and white surpemacy weren't themselves entirely predicated on violence. If people were generally accurate about who is and isn't a Nazi or White Supremacist, this line of thinking might have merit (i.e., the idea that some types of thinking are inherently violent and must be suppressed at the level of speech, but of course who decides that?). But, observing political discourse over the past few years, people are not generally anywhere close to accurate about who is a Nazi or a White Supremacist. So what instead happens is a lot of people who aren't Nazis or White Supremacists get punched and milkshaked as collateral damage, and perhaps they are the majority of the damage. As a followup, a person could reasonably contend that Socialism and Communism are entirely predicated on violence. They certainly have huge body counts, and consistently. And then you have people who think that Capitalism is predicated on violence. And suddenly everyone is punching everybody and we stop talking to each other, all because you wanted to punch a Nazi. The road to hell... From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967092 ----------------------- > Men seem very unwilling to recognise that the memo and the discussion itself is harmful. ...you realize where this goes, right? Like -- suppose you're right; and suppose you're given the power to suppress all such harmful discussions. You apply it. No more such discussion. Great. Now suppose this occurs but in fact you're wrong. We must then ask: How would you find out that you're wrong? Well, in such a case, you probably wouldn't. I guess you might find out when the chickens, whatever they are, finally came home to roost. But ideally one wants to find out before then. Better hope the chickens are merely bad rather than catastrophic, seeing as you've been doing absolutely no planning for this case. And hopefully they come sooner rather than later. (And that's assuming you're a reasonable person who would actually admit error at that point; see below.) I mean, really... illiberalism, it always goes the same way. You think it's discussion that's harmful? Have you seen the alternative? Because, I mean, examples abound, and how it goes is pretty clear. You're talking about going down a path dominated by humanity's worst tribal instincts. I should hope that's not what you want -- but that's where that path leads. By the time the far-off disaster occurs, do you think it'll be people like you, who are capable of thinking clearly but just think certain discussions should be suppressed, who are going to be running the show? No, it'll the people who are the least reflective, the most tribal, the most doublethinky. Liberalism, free speech, when working properly, is supposed to work as a negative feedback loop. If you're wrong, you find out. Someone contradicts you, supplies arguments, and then you can consider them and see whether they might be right. As a lot of people have noted, it... doesn't exactly always succeed at this. But suppression of speech... hoo boy, that fails so much harder. That's how you get positive feedback loops. As the professed beliefs of the group get further and further from reality, simultaneously the requirements that you agree, the punishments for disagreeing, get stricter and harsher. You sure as hell don't find the truth that way. Truth, now... I notice that's something you didn't even mention at all. Because some of the points made in that memo, are, as best as people can currently tell, true. You haven't made any claims about to truth or falsity, only about harmfulness. But do you think the harmfulness of the claims in that memo exceed the harmfulness of shitty civilizational epistemic practices? (Nature can't be fooled, as they say!) Like, OK, bad epistemic practices might not seem that bad, might seem like a worthwhile tradeoff, if you imagine suppression of specific facts or claims or discussions as an isolated thing. Maybe we don't need to know literally everything. But that's not how it goes. Free speech, liberalism, these are ideas that are unnatural to people, they had to be learned, and they are constantly seeking ways to slip them off or and go back to full-on tribalism (or pervert them in service of it). You may want suppression of particular claims... you will get the bad old days. The positive-feedback loop of doom. Claims don't exist in isolation, after all; claims have relations between them. You can't just suppress one claim, because people will rederive it from other claims. And if the claim you suppress happens to be correct? Then people will definitely rederive it. So either surrounding claims have to go, or the process of inference itself has to go. Likely both. In fact definitely the latter; you can peel off surrounding claims all you want but eventually you'll have to attack inference itself. And hey, it happens already that people are constantly eager to do that anyway! They only need a little push... and then oops, there's your positive feedback loop. Once you encourage people to use bad methods, they'll use them to reach all sorts of bad conclusions... I expect many of them will surprise you! (And what is the scope of this suppression? Shall the hidden truth be kept alive in the academy, say, with a strict cordon, so that the facts may be known by the chosen few but never applied outside where it might be necessary? Shall those who wish to learn a subject have to first learn only the public parts, and then apply to join, to learn the hidden secrets? Or shall it extend even to them? Is the pursuit of truth itself something that must simply be forbidden?) It's a dark road you're suggesting here -- and not a new one; an old one, an ancient one, one whose failures we know very well. I'll take whatever harmfulness the truth might pose over that any day. I don't think it can really hold a candle to that." -----------------------

anarchodev 7y ago

When we talk about whether or not deplatforming "works" we necessarily have to define our goals. If your goal is, for instance, to be able to find as much hateful content on your platform of choice -- deplatforming absolutely doesn't work. If your goal is to allow fewer outlets for hateful groups to recruit new members (this is my goal), it's working fantastically. Almost better than any other tactic right now.

stcredzero 7y ago
When we talk about whether or not deplatforming "works" we necessarily have to define our goals. If your goal is, for instance, to be able to find as much hateful content on your platform of choice -- deplatforming absolutely doesn't work. If your goal is to allow fewer outlets for hateful groups to recruit new members (this is my goal), it's working fantastically. Almost better than any other tactic right now. You are revealing your biases and the distortion of your particular information bubble. Many of the people being name-called and deplatformed are not hateful and are not parts of hate groups. If you could transcend your particular bubble, you'd see that many people who are simply normal Republicans, libertarians, centrists, and independents are being caught up. There are huge numbers of people who are essentially being lied about -- in the most transparent fashion, supported with circular references produced by biased activists that ultimately don't go to any documented facts. What this abuse of "moderation" is actually doing, is fanning societal outrage and destroying the credibility of the Left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuX87JFzLFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuX87JFzLFc The extremists, both the Far Left and Far Right, gain in the short term from this, because it gains eyeballs and membership through this reinforcing circle of outrage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc The dying legacy media naturally joins in on this spiral of outrage and clickbait.

jvagner 7y ago

"The whole purpose of Free Speech is to enshrine discourse." Nicely stated. A lot of the activism happening right now is constructed a way as to annihilate any of the nuances against the position. So the discourse isn't happening inside the issue, which isn't terribly surprising. But just like Congressional leaders voting for bills they haven't read, certain forces of our cultural debates right now are gaining ground without the presence of much discourse. I look at people like Mike Monteiro (screaming for Jack's head), the anti-de-platforming crowd decrying certain de-platformings, and the free speech crowd decrying all de-platformings. Is this the discourse? I'm not sure it is.

stcredzero 7y ago
Is this the discourse? I'm not sure it is. Part and parcel to Free Speech being foundational to discourse. If one values discourse, Free Speech needs to always be there. The late 1700s equivalent would be, if the manufacturers of printing presses were only letting those with their favored political views print anything. (And if making one's own printing press were practically infeasible.) Viral discovery in a digital medium is a big game changer, in the same league as printed text. Just because some megacorps are able to do so, doesn't mean all of it should be granted to one particular subset of one particular political persuasion. That's technically legal, supposedly, but not democratic in spirit. That's a minority using resource advantage to manipulate and coerce the public.