4 ms·
It's not that they should be just as upset, it's that they don't have any sort of principled stance and are in the cheer squad when the same thing is happening
by flukus 7y ago
It's not that they should be just as upset, it's that they don't have any sort of principled stance and are in the cheer squad when the same thing is happening to the other side. They cheer people losing jobs because they disagree with them and get upset that the same thing happens to people they agree with, at least at the group level.
Should you be able to lose your job, be cutoff from a private service, be banned from a project because of your public opinions? It's a yes/no question and modern society appears to be converging on yes. This is a consequence of that decision. An easy to see consequence that many of us warned about but got drowned out of the conversation being called racists, christian fundamentalist, pedophile apologists and everything else when we speak for their rights.
So congratulations to the people that cheered Stallmans firing, various de-platforming techniques, codes of conduct, etc, you've normalized this and given the CCP all the weapons they need to control speech in the west.
- johnny22 7y agoYou don't seem to think it's possible to be for "deplatforming" someone, and against "deplatforming" someone else. That's an odd take. I fail to see how that's incompatible.
- luckylion 7y agoI believe the parent is saying that the claims to be "against deplatforming" are fake when the same people happily supported deplatforming before. It's just a tactic to say that deplatforming itself is bad, what they actually mean is "deplatforming someone I like is bad". Saying that is fine, pretending it's more than that is dishonest.
- etchalon 7y agoI don't believe I've seen anyone say that they're against deplatforming, while being for deplatforming. What I think instead is that people who were against previous de-platforming (whatever their reason) want to use this situation, which is obviously egregious and cowardly on the part of Blizzard, to muddy the water.
- luckylion 7y agoIsn't that the same, only in reverse? "Oh you're not okay with deplatforming, you're only saying that because you disagree with the person deplatformed this time". It's hard to prove the innermost opinions, but I do believe that there's a lot of outrage coming, among others, from people who are absolutely fine with deplatforming and consider it a valid tactic but don't consider that player a valid target. There definitely are others who are against deplatforming on principle. They are consistent, but I don't think all are. Of course, anybody can change their mind any time, and if this incident converts the proponents of deplatforming, then the next case will be very different.
- etchalon 7y agoI doubt this incident would sour people on the general idea of de-platforming, anymore than people would sour on the concept of prison if someone innocent was found incarcerated. De-platforming is a consequence, and the debate is not "is de-platforming OK?" but "when is de-platforming OK?"
- LocalH 7y agoGood thing I can staunchly say that I am against all deplatforming, and have been since it started happening.
- flukus 7y agoI think it's possible, just hypocritical and ultimately self defeating. This is an example of how it's self defeating. For the last decade the left could have been focusing on extending worker protections and putting some hard lines on their personal opinions and what the can be punished for at work. Instead they've made corporations the morality police, and ultimately they only listen to money.