4 ms·

Mmmmmm. Gab is haven for hate speech and right wing conspiracy theories. I personally think it is good that Visa will not help them. But as a techie I would sa

Mmmmmm. Gab is haven for hate speech and right wing conspiracy theories. I personally think it is good that Visa will not help them. But as a techie I would say to them use bitcoin?

badrabbit 6y ago
I never heard if them before but your rights depend on your ability to tolerate others' right. Today it's right wing conspiracy theories, tomorrow it's a left wing civil rights movement like BLM activism. Payment processors acting as henchmen for the ruling class to decide who should and should not be tolerated is as 1984 dystopian as it gets. I don't know about you but I never voted for visa to legislate, judge or enforce any laws. Rights mean nothing if arbitrary groups of people can collaboratr to prevent your free excercise of those rights. Visa itself has little to no rights, only privileges afforded to it by the public to operate a business.
- tedivm 6y ago
  The slippery slope fallacy is exactly that- a fallacy. The idea that we have to tolerate intolerance is also one that's been explored and debunked quite a bit.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    No, I did not say tolerate intolerance. You must tolerate intolerant free speech! Actions are a different ballgame,and even then democratically elected institutions not random corporations get to enforce that rule. And by tolerate I mean don't kill people or socially isolate them and their family from obtaining basic necessities of life. If you can't do that then I cannot support protection of any rights you have at all. I do not wish to live to see more world wars and genocides. Matter if fact, I am saying that your actions of supporting harmful retaliation against free speech is an intolerant action that shouldn't be tolerated, so you're sort of speaking against yourself except you don't see your actions as intolerant.
    - igetspam 6y ago
      You're wrong. Social sanctions are the exact right response to repugnant behavior. If you peddle hate speech, then being labelled appropriately and pushed into isolation is a just response. You are allowed to say and think what you want and we are allowed to shun you. Both of these things are inline with individual rights and freedoms. People seem to think that "free speech" is a license to be an A-hole but free speech comes with consequences. Cause and affect are natural laws and the response to sheltering Nazis is often harsh and sometimes violent. Being shunned and losing access to a service provided by a private business feels like a pretty light sentence.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    The slippery slope fallacy is "this is the first step, and further steps will be easier, so we shouldn't take that step". Sometimes that is true, often it is not. Free speech is a category where there really does seem to be a slippery slope. Infrastructure built to combat child pornography is now used to block porn in general in the UK, for instance. In the US, it's used to block sites infringing copyright. If that first step hadn't been taken - if providers hadn't been required to build that infrastructure for CP - it would have been far more difficult to force them to create it for porn or piracy. But once "filter things we don't like" was accepted, expanding the list of disliked things was far easier than setting up the filter in the first place. As for tolerating intolerance - I personally always find it depressing when people use this to advocate for silencing Nazis, or white supremacists, or racists, or people that happen to be called those things. Here's a more complete quote of Popper: > Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Nazis, despite what many seem to think, do NOT have the power to suppress speech with violence in the US, or Germany, or anywhere else. Popular opinion is also firmly against such philosophies. But there IS a philosophy in the US that fits the latter part of his description - one that is not prepared to meet others in a rational argument, and instead denounces all argument. One that responds to speech they do not like with force aimed to silence that speech. And yes, one that encourages the use of physical force as well. What else is "Punch a Nazi", if not responding to speech with force? You won't see Visa blacklisting them anytime soon though, because they ARE Visa. And Mastercard. And numerous other organizations across the world. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing.
throwawaycncltr 6y ago
Imagine I witness you break your leg in public, in an otherwise isolated place. I have no legal obligation to help you, but if I don’t you’ll have to drag yourself for hours to get help. I also happen to find your comment very “triggering”. My parents both survived a right wing dictatorship and brought me up in a very “edgy” manner (don’t trust police. don’t talk in public. Don’t use your real name on Internet forums. Don’t talk about what happens in the family at school). My wife and her family survived a communist dictatorship. I therefore view your train of thought to be very dangerous, and I see you as my ideological enemy. To be specific I find your stance on free speech to be befitting of a corporativist, therefore a fascist as opposed to my (classical, clearly) liberalism. Back to the woods: Do I walk away and let you drag yourself out? Realistically you’ll die before you get out of the woods. But you might make it and I’m under absolutely no legal requirement to help you (Most jurisdictions anyway). Liekwise, the owner of GAB could use an unpractical payment system no one in the West used unless they want to have an FBI file. His wife could divorce him and move out to make a living and raise the kids. I would pull up out of the woods. I think I have a moral responsibility towards you. Likewise VISA has an moral obligation to provide services for legal businesses no matter how unpopular. Imagine if VISA decided not to allow its system at abortion clinics. Either way, I’m cancelling my VISA. I’m sick of corporate blue washing.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  We're already in the middle of a pandemic where America is failing to pull together and make sensible decisions. At the same time, minorities are clashing in the streets with right-wing extremists and the police. > I therefore view your train of thought > to be very dangerous Torba and his moronic website are far more likely to contribute to a civil war in November than is Visa. I don't know where you lived before, but if you're in the USA now, you should skate to where the puck is going, not where it's been.
bmarquez 6y ago
I disagree with your opinion on Gab, but even so, there's a difference between banning Gab the company and banning Andrew Torba the person. Why should Andrew (and by extension his wife and anyone else who lives at his address) be personally blacklisted for corporate activity?
- belltaco 6y ago
  Proof that it actually happened? All I see is empty speculation. Given the usual disingenuous postings by Andrew Torba I am not inclined to believe him.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  > there's a difference between banning Gab > the company and banning Andrew Torba the person. Is it that the latter is much funnier?

Mmmmmm. Gab is haven for hate speech and right wing conspiracy theories. I personally think it is good that Visa will not help them. But as a techie I would say to them use bitcoin?

badrabbit 6y ago

I never heard if them before but your rights depend on your ability to tolerate others' right. Today it's right wing conspiracy theories, tomorrow it's a left wing civil rights movement like BLM activism. Payment processors acting as henchmen for the ruling class to decide who should and should not be tolerated is as 1984 dystopian as it gets. I don't know about you but I never voted for visa to legislate, judge or enforce any laws. Rights mean nothing if arbitrary groups of people can collaboratr to prevent your free excercise of those rights. Visa itself has little to no rights, only privileges afforded to it by the public to operate a business.

tedivm 6y ago
The slippery slope fallacy is exactly that- a fallacy. The idea that we have to tolerate intolerance is also one that's been explored and debunked quite a bit.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  No, I did not say tolerate intolerance. You must tolerate intolerant free speech! Actions are a different ballgame,and even then democratically elected institutions not random corporations get to enforce that rule. And by tolerate I mean don't kill people or socially isolate them and their family from obtaining basic necessities of life. If you can't do that then I cannot support protection of any rights you have at all. I do not wish to live to see more world wars and genocides. Matter if fact, I am saying that your actions of supporting harmful retaliation against free speech is an intolerant action that shouldn't be tolerated, so you're sort of speaking against yourself except you don't see your actions as intolerant.
  - igetspam 6y ago
    You're wrong. Social sanctions are the exact right response to repugnant behavior. If you peddle hate speech, then being labelled appropriately and pushed into isolation is a just response. You are allowed to say and think what you want and we are allowed to shun you. Both of these things are inline with individual rights and freedoms. People seem to think that "free speech" is a license to be an A-hole but free speech comes with consequences. Cause and affect are natural laws and the response to sheltering Nazis is often harsh and sometimes violent. Being shunned and losing access to a service provided by a private business feels like a pretty light sentence.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  The slippery slope fallacy is "this is the first step, and further steps will be easier, so we shouldn't take that step". Sometimes that is true, often it is not. Free speech is a category where there really does seem to be a slippery slope. Infrastructure built to combat child pornography is now used to block porn in general in the UK, for instance. In the US, it's used to block sites infringing copyright. If that first step hadn't been taken - if providers hadn't been required to build that infrastructure for CP - it would have been far more difficult to force them to create it for porn or piracy. But once "filter things we don't like" was accepted, expanding the list of disliked things was far easier than setting up the filter in the first place. As for tolerating intolerance - I personally always find it depressing when people use this to advocate for silencing Nazis, or white supremacists, or racists, or people that happen to be called those things. Here's a more complete quote of Popper: > Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Nazis, despite what many seem to think, do NOT have the power to suppress speech with violence in the US, or Germany, or anywhere else. Popular opinion is also firmly against such philosophies. But there IS a philosophy in the US that fits the latter part of his description - one that is not prepared to meet others in a rational argument, and instead denounces all argument. One that responds to speech they do not like with force aimed to silence that speech. And yes, one that encourages the use of physical force as well. What else is "Punch a Nazi", if not responding to speech with force? You won't see Visa blacklisting them anytime soon though, because they ARE Visa. And Mastercard. And numerous other organizations across the world. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

throwawaycncltr 6y ago

Imagine I witness you break your leg in public, in an otherwise isolated place. I have no legal obligation to help you, but if I don’t you’ll have to drag yourself for hours to get help. I also happen to find your comment very “triggering”. My parents both survived a right wing dictatorship and brought me up in a very “edgy” manner (don’t trust police. don’t talk in public. Don’t use your real name on Internet forums. Don’t talk about what happens in the family at school). My wife and her family survived a communist dictatorship. I therefore view your train of thought to be very dangerous, and I see you as my ideological enemy. To be specific I find your stance on free speech to be befitting of a corporativist, therefore a fascist as opposed to my (classical, clearly) liberalism. Back to the woods: Do I walk away and let you drag yourself out? Realistically you’ll die before you get out of the woods. But you might make it and I’m under absolutely no legal requirement to help you (Most jurisdictions anyway). Liekwise, the owner of GAB could use an unpractical payment system no one in the West used unless they want to have an FBI file. His wife could divorce him and move out to make a living and raise the kids. I would pull up out of the woods. I think I have a moral responsibility towards you. Likewise VISA has an moral obligation to provide services for legal businesses no matter how unpopular. Imagine if VISA decided not to allow its system at abortion clinics. Either way, I’m cancelling my VISA. I’m sick of corporate blue washing.

uniqueid 6y ago
We're already in the middle of a pandemic where America is failing to pull together and make sensible decisions. At the same time, minorities are clashing in the streets with right-wing extremists and the police. > I therefore view your train of thought > to be very dangerous Torba and his moronic website are far more likely to contribute to a civil war in November than is Visa. I don't know where you lived before, but if you're in the USA now, you should skate to where the puck is going, not where it's been.

bmarquez 6y ago

I disagree with your opinion on Gab, but even so, there's a difference between banning Gab the company and banning Andrew Torba the person. Why should Andrew (and by extension his wife and anyone else who lives at his address) be personally blacklisted for corporate activity?

belltaco 6y ago
Proof that it actually happened? All I see is empty speculation. Given the usual disingenuous postings by Andrew Torba I am not inclined to believe him.
uniqueid 6y ago
> there's a difference between banning Gab > the company and banning Andrew Torba the person. Is it that the latter is much funnier?