5 ms·

Sasha Baron Cohen is a manipulator - that's the basis of his comedy, and for comedy, it's funny. It's not the person who I want to take cues on freedom of speec

Sasha Baron Cohen is a manipulator - that's the basis of his comedy, and for comedy, it's funny. It's not the person who I want to take cues on freedom of speech from. Yes, you can go to a group of people and get them to sing anti-semitic songs, just as you can bluster them with an unlabeled map or have them fall prey to trivial parlor magic. That's a terrible basis for attacking basic human rights on. He calls the openness of platforms a defect, and he would like to censor every single word before it is public - that is not freedom, it is authoritarianism. I suspect he believes that most people are dumb sheep - this is after all how he made his money - and he sees himself as protecting the poor sheep. He believes that because his intent is just, his actions are just - that the end justifies the means. He is the most dangerous kind of strongman: the self-righteous kind.

lph 7y ago
One thing I've noticed about the far-right is that, when they can't argue with the substance of what someone's said, they choose to attack his character instead.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that I'm far-right?
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  Uh, the person you're replying to doesn't appear to be far right, and he did a pretty good job of arguing against the substance of what Cohen said.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    When did he argue against anything Cohen said? He just said his comedy sucks and he’s “the worst kind of strongman”, while implying that Cohen wants to take basic human rights away from people. If that’s not an ad-hominem, it’s pretty close.
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      Not only did I not insult his comedy, I actually even called it funny. Cohen from his ADL speech genuinely believes that platforms should be publishers and should be on the line for what is posted to them - and therefore the publisher should censor all words which disagree with its opinions. He doesn't use the word censor, he instead uses the words "restrict", "limit" and "delay". He uses examples like hate speech and racism, and while that sounds fine on the surface, he makes it very clear he believes publishers can rightfully restrict speech in many ways well beyond what the law requires. In arguing for censorship, he is restricting the freedom of expression and that is against human rights. While it sounds great when it's focused on "big platforms" of "American Billionaires", forcing online platforms to be publishers is de facto censorship and it doesn't only affect Facebook, but your small community forums and message boards too. Yes, I do accuse Cohen of playing the strongman. He's a wealthy comedian (his net worth is about $130M) who made his money by filming himself manipulating other people, and he believes average people shouldn't be able to post freely on the internet without someone (the platform, the Government) approving their speech. That's an abhorrent view and it's in stark contrast to the belief that humans should have agency.
      - spion 7y ago
        So let me get this straight, a person who supposedly got a platform to manipulate many others at once (and thats dangerous, according to you) is saying that manipulators shouldn't get a platform to manipulate many others at once, and you find that... also bad? Worst case it might be hypocritical, but the claim is certainly inconsistent. The question is, how do we handle dangerous manipulators on social media? Are they not a problem at all?
- core-questions 7y ago
  This is not exactly isolated to the far-right. It's anyone who is bad at arguing or finds themselves beaten logically and needs an illogical escape. We should call that out on all sides.
- mcguire 7y ago
  I'm sorry, are you talking about Cohen? He's not usually considered far-right.
- lol2143651 7y ago
  Says the person attacking someone else's character...
- knolax 7y ago
  One thing I've noticed about the far-left is that they have a tendency of dismissing anybody they disagree with as far-right.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    One thing I've noticed about authoritarians is that they have been pretty successful at categorizing anything outside of their Overton window as "far", a corollary of branding authoritarianism as "centrist".
- jacquesm 7y ago
  The four stages of argument: - I'm right because ... - You're right because ... - You're ugly! - Person 'A' hits person 'B'.
- oska 7y ago
  I've already flagged lph's comment smearing vorpalhex but I see it as so egregious I'm also going to list the HN guidelines that I see it as breaching: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. > Please don't post shallow dismissals > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle
mcguire 7y ago
I suspect he is trying to repair his image. https://youtu.be/tF_2QZo90lw https://youtu.be/tF_2QZo90lw Kind of like Eminem and Michael Vick, it'll probably work.
- slg 7y ago
  It is funny that Why Isn't Sacha Baron Cohen Working Anymore video was posted just three months before his latest show started airing on Showtime. It is also weird seeing the video feature criticism of him from the ADL considering this speech was at his acceptance of an award from the ADL. It doesn't seem like his image needed much repairing after all.
- nostromo 7y ago
  It's amazing how his past movies, made not that long ago, would be completely verboten today. Using racial and ethnic and homophobic stereotypes to make audiences laugh... and raking in millions for doing so. And... it makes sense. Can you imagine if his movie portrayed a ridiculous caricature of a Jewish person, the way he portrayed a ridiculous caricature of a gay man ten years ago, today?
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    Context exists. His movies used stereotypes but never punched down at those groups, instead using such characters to mock bigots. So yes. I can imagine such a movie today. And it would be funny as hell. Wait! Actually this already exists as a TV show, it’s called I Am America and Cohen frequently portrays a caricature of a Jewish Mossad agent.
    - nostromo 7y ago
      I agree in some cases, but Bruno specifically was not attacking homophobia, but was all about making fun of a ridiculous gay straw man.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
corrys 7y ago
> and he would like to censor every single word before it is public - that is not freedom, it is authoritarianism He never said that. He said that a publishing delay just enough to filter out potential illegal content (snuff, hate speech are illegal under US law) would benefit the society overall.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deogeo 7y ago
  > hate speech are illegal under US law False - explained by a 1st Amendment lawyer: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amendment-slogans-20170608-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amen...
- bassman9000 7y ago
  And who decides what's filtered? Unless it's the judicial system, don't want it. If you have 2 opposing views, and one is delayed long enough, you've effectively censored it, in favor of the other. Which is exactly what's going to happen. Once the dissenting view "passes filter", the news cycle is over, the unfiltered view remains in everyone's retinas, the filtered one ignored, despite any merits it may have. This is just preparing the field for stronger, more arbitrary censorship.
  - mempko 7y ago
    Who is deciding which content is promoted now on social media? An unaccountable algorithm. Isn't this just the flip side of the censorship coin? Except now the truth is being censored and lies are being promoted because it's financially better for the publisher. Wouldn't the most appropriate legal response to this be not allow social media companies to have any sort of recommendation algorithm and force them to have feeds that are linear in time of people who you follow?
    - bassman9000 7y ago
      The appropriate response would be to take them to justice if law was broken, and for you not to use the platforms if you don't want to, as a free citizen. The problem with the mixed approach is that these platforms get the official recognition they don't deserve, and the private censors we don't need or want.
Zooper 7y ago
Smashing a speaker that deafens those around it doesn't inhibit free speech. Believing that building such a thing is an act of freedom is authoritarian.
shrimpx 7y ago
With all due respect, you don't understand his comedy whatsoever. I suspect you believe Bill Hicks is also a misanthrope. These are extremely gauche interpretations, it's like saying Picasso didn't care about painting because he didn't paint realistic flowers and horses and barns like a "proper painter" would. Edit: misspelling.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Cohen performed his bits without the audience knowing they were part of it - and he only shows the bits that had the outcomes he wanted (or were at least funny). There are more then a few security cam clips of the bits that didn't go so well - and I recommend finding them. Cohen isn't a surrealist who is using a medium to convey the depth of life, he's just a comedian with an editing team.
  - shrimpx 7y ago
    It's true he's just a comedian, but his comedy goes deeper than your run of the mill midlife crisis jokes at the comedy cellar or whatever. Just like Bill Hicks, he's a political comedian that reveals hard to stomach truths. Unlike Bill Hicks who creates an abstract persona (of a particular kind of bigot, etc.) and then critiques it, Cohen astonishingly shows you a concrete instance. Cheney autographed a milk jug he was convinced was used for waterboarding. Saying a joke about this on stage would be pretty funny, but Cheney himself autographed a waterboarding milk jug on camera and lamented about how much it would be worth as a collectors item.

lph 7y ago

One thing I've noticed about the far-right is that, when they can't argue with the substance of what someone's said, they choose to attack his character instead.

vorpalhex 7y ago
Are you suggesting that I'm far-right?
commandlinefan 7y ago
Uh, the person you're replying to doesn't appear to be far right, and he did a pretty good job of arguing against the substance of what Cohen said.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  When did he argue against anything Cohen said? He just said his comedy sucks and he’s “the worst kind of strongman”, while implying that Cohen wants to take basic human rights away from people. If that’s not an ad-hominem, it’s pretty close.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    Not only did I not insult his comedy, I actually even called it funny. Cohen from his ADL speech genuinely believes that platforms should be publishers and should be on the line for what is posted to them - and therefore the publisher should censor all words which disagree with its opinions. He doesn't use the word censor, he instead uses the words "restrict", "limit" and "delay". He uses examples like hate speech and racism, and while that sounds fine on the surface, he makes it very clear he believes publishers can rightfully restrict speech in many ways well beyond what the law requires. In arguing for censorship, he is restricting the freedom of expression and that is against human rights. While it sounds great when it's focused on "big platforms" of "American Billionaires", forcing online platforms to be publishers is de facto censorship and it doesn't only affect Facebook, but your small community forums and message boards too. Yes, I do accuse Cohen of playing the strongman. He's a wealthy comedian (his net worth is about $130M) who made his money by filming himself manipulating other people, and he believes average people shouldn't be able to post freely on the internet without someone (the platform, the Government) approving their speech. That's an abhorrent view and it's in stark contrast to the belief that humans should have agency.
    - spion 7y ago
      So let me get this straight, a person who supposedly got a platform to manipulate many others at once (and thats dangerous, according to you) is saying that manipulators shouldn't get a platform to manipulate many others at once, and you find that... also bad? Worst case it might be hypocritical, but the claim is certainly inconsistent. The question is, how do we handle dangerous manipulators on social media? Are they not a problem at all?
core-questions 7y ago
This is not exactly isolated to the far-right. It's anyone who is bad at arguing or finds themselves beaten logically and needs an illogical escape. We should call that out on all sides.
mcguire 7y ago
I'm sorry, are you talking about Cohen? He's not usually considered far-right.
lol2143651 7y ago
Says the person attacking someone else's character...
knolax 7y ago
One thing I've noticed about the far-left is that they have a tendency of dismissing anybody they disagree with as far-right.
- mindslight 7y ago
  One thing I've noticed about authoritarians is that they have been pretty successful at categorizing anything outside of their Overton window as "far", a corollary of branding authoritarianism as "centrist".
jacquesm 7y ago
The four stages of argument: - I'm right because ... - You're right because ... - You're ugly! - Person 'A' hits person 'B'.
oska 7y ago
I've already flagged lph's comment smearing vorpalhex but I see it as so egregious I'm also going to list the HN guidelines that I see it as breaching: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. > Please don't post shallow dismissals > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle

mcguire 7y ago

I suspect he is trying to repair his image. https://youtu.be/tF_2QZo90lw https://youtu.be/tF_2QZo90lw Kind of like Eminem and Michael Vick, it'll probably work.

slg 7y ago
It is funny that Why Isn't Sacha Baron Cohen Working Anymore video was posted just three months before his latest show started airing on Showtime. It is also weird seeing the video feature criticism of him from the ADL considering this speech was at his acceptance of an award from the ADL. It doesn't seem like his image needed much repairing after all.
nostromo 7y ago
It's amazing how his past movies, made not that long ago, would be completely verboten today. Using racial and ethnic and homophobic stereotypes to make audiences laugh... and raking in millions for doing so. And... it makes sense. Can you imagine if his movie portrayed a ridiculous caricature of a Jewish person, the way he portrayed a ridiculous caricature of a gay man ten years ago, today?
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  Context exists. His movies used stereotypes but never punched down at those groups, instead using such characters to mock bigots. So yes. I can imagine such a movie today. And it would be funny as hell. Wait! Actually this already exists as a TV show, it’s called I Am America and Cohen frequently portrays a caricature of a Jewish Mossad agent.
  - nostromo 7y ago
    I agree in some cases, but Bruno specifically was not attacking homophobia, but was all about making fun of a ridiculous gay straw man.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

corrys 7y ago

> and he would like to censor every single word before it is public - that is not freedom, it is authoritarianism He never said that. He said that a publishing delay just enough to filter out potential illegal content (snuff, hate speech are illegal under US law) would benefit the society overall.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deogeo 7y ago
> hate speech are illegal under US law False - explained by a 1st Amendment lawyer: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amendment-slogans-20170608-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-white-first-amen...
bassman9000 7y ago
And who decides what's filtered? Unless it's the judicial system, don't want it. If you have 2 opposing views, and one is delayed long enough, you've effectively censored it, in favor of the other. Which is exactly what's going to happen. Once the dissenting view "passes filter", the news cycle is over, the unfiltered view remains in everyone's retinas, the filtered one ignored, despite any merits it may have. This is just preparing the field for stronger, more arbitrary censorship.
- mempko 7y ago
  Who is deciding which content is promoted now on social media? An unaccountable algorithm. Isn't this just the flip side of the censorship coin? Except now the truth is being censored and lies are being promoted because it's financially better for the publisher. Wouldn't the most appropriate legal response to this be not allow social media companies to have any sort of recommendation algorithm and force them to have feeds that are linear in time of people who you follow?
  - bassman9000 7y ago
    The appropriate response would be to take them to justice if law was broken, and for you not to use the platforms if you don't want to, as a free citizen. The problem with the mixed approach is that these platforms get the official recognition they don't deserve, and the private censors we don't need or want.

Zooper 7y ago

Smashing a speaker that deafens those around it doesn't inhibit free speech. Believing that building such a thing is an act of freedom is authoritarian.

shrimpx 7y ago

With all due respect, you don't understand his comedy whatsoever. I suspect you believe Bill Hicks is also a misanthrope. These are extremely gauche interpretations, it's like saying Picasso didn't care about painting because he didn't paint realistic flowers and horses and barns like a "proper painter" would. Edit: misspelling.

vorpalhex 7y ago
Cohen performed his bits without the audience knowing they were part of it - and he only shows the bits that had the outcomes he wanted (or were at least funny). There are more then a few security cam clips of the bits that didn't go so well - and I recommend finding them. Cohen isn't a surrealist who is using a medium to convey the depth of life, he's just a comedian with an editing team.
- shrimpx 7y ago
  It's true he's just a comedian, but his comedy goes deeper than your run of the mill midlife crisis jokes at the comedy cellar or whatever. Just like Bill Hicks, he's a political comedian that reveals hard to stomach truths. Unlike Bill Hicks who creates an abstract persona (of a particular kind of bigot, etc.) and then critiques it, Cohen astonishingly shows you a concrete instance. Cheney autographed a milk jug he was convinced was used for waterboarding. Saying a joke about this on stage would be pretty funny, but Cheney himself autographed a waterboarding milk jug on camera and lamented about how much it would be worth as a collectors item.