3 ms·

I can't argue in good faith with someone who believes that white supremacists should continue to have a platform. I hope you do some research and look back on t

I can't argue in good faith with someone who believes that white supremacists should continue to have a platform. I hope you do some research and look back on this comment with shame. White supremacists do not deserve a platform, flat out. Disagreeing with this is explicitly agreeing with white supremacy.

chrischattin 6y ago
You don't have to agree with someone to think it's wrong to censor them.
- rickbutton 6y ago
  Do you think it is correct or incorrect to deplatform white supremacists? Do you think white supremacists deserve a platform? Edit: I've asked variants of this question several times in this thread, all without response. I can safely assume that those who won't freely answer this question are (attempting) to hide their bias.
  - golf1052 6y ago
    Yeah it's kind of shocking to see people defend white nationalist speech on private platforms. Of all the marginalized groups out there why does the group that advocates for the discrimination, removal, or even genocide of historically discriminated and murdered people (black people, indigenous people, Jewish people) need defending?
    - rickbutton 6y ago
      While those who defend them may disagree, defending white supremacy is in itself white supremacy. They defend it because they believe it. The thing that still continues to shock me is that there are people here that argue on behalf of white supremacists but still argue that they themselves are not, instead they are playing "devils advocate". At some point, let's call a duck a duck.
    - chrischattin 6y ago
      This same line of reasoning was used against people who stood up for the Jews in Nazi Germany. How soon we forget the lessons of the 20th century... Edit for reply: No. Not even close. I'm comparing your reaction to people standing up for free speech to how Nazi's treated the people who defended the Jews. Edit 2: Yes, YOU are acting like a Nazi (the real, historical version). I deleted it b/c it wasn't productive to the convo and you missed my point anyway. Either way, it's disturbing that you don't see the parallel. Edit 3: I'm not calling you a Nazi for attacking white nationalists. You totally missed the point. Edit 4: Where did you get that I'm defending white nationalists? I'm not. Not even in the slightest. I despise any ideology that treats people differently based on immutable characteristics that they have no control over (like skin color). I'm defending free speech and arguing that ideas should stand on their own. I'm saying YOU are acting like a Nazi for attacking anyone who isn't also aligned with censoring a socially outcast group. You are also misreading my comments, misrepresenting what I said, and you still don't get my point (even though you think you do).
      - rickbutton 6y ago
        Are you seriously comparing the struggle of Jews in Nazi Germany to white supremacists being deplatformed in America? If you are, you should really take a step back and evaluate the gravity of that statement. Edit: Saw your edit. You can usually click the timestamp to reply when there is no reply button. Thank you for the clarification. I'll repeat my previous statement because it still applies, I can tell that you simply don't grasp the gravity of your statement. It is -hilarious- to be called a nazi for calling for white supremacists to be deplatformed. I think I might print this out and put it in my cube (when I eventually get back into the office). Turns out, I was the Nazi the whole time, not the white supremacists! /s Edit, again: For the readers, he edited-in, and then edited-out, calling me a Nazi for saying that white supremacists shouldn't have a platform. Just wanted to make that clear. Edit, again, again: I did understand your point, I just refuse to engage with it, because it is ridiculous. Edit, again, again, again. This edit-back-and-forth is funny, but I have to go now. I sincerely hope that you do some research and realize that your defense of white supremacists only entrenches them into our culture further. I hope that one day, you look back on your views here, and realize that you truly did not have to defend them, but chose to anyway.
    - istorical 6y ago
      people aren't defending these things. they are defending this 'slippery slope' idea that if you give companies the power and support them in banning content based off of ideological stuff, then you risk that 'bannable' content threshold slowly growing. it's literally a straw man to imply people are focused on individuals in this situation, they are just worried about precedent and the future.
      - golf1052 6y ago
        No private platform, even those that claimed to be a "bastion of free speech" [1] when they were first created has ever not banned for ideological stuff. Back in 2015 this same discussion came up [2]. 5 years later we're still worried about sliding down the slope. What is too far? Hating fat people? Hating trans people? Hating black people? Should a private platform allow it all even though people supporting those views actively harm people? And we can even see what happens when platforms try to truly allow all speech. Voat [3 NSFW] is a good example, Gab is another example. The worst content takes over and your platform gets rejected by most of the world. Way before reddit banned the_donald they had to specifically delist it from the front page because awful content would end up being the first thing people saw. [4] I also don't expect that Youtube or reddit or Twitter would end up banning all ideological content, religious videos will not get banned one day, discussing electoral politics will not get banned one day, we're not going to slide off the slope because the slope isn't there. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-co-founder-alexis-ohanians-rosy-outlook-on-the-future-of-politics/#57504fc15550 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-c... 2. https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/8964995/reddit-free-speech-history https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/8964995/reddit-free-speec... 3. NSFW: https://voat.co/ https://voat.co/ 4: https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13797712/reddit-trump-the-donald-ban https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13797712/reddit-trump-th...
  - chrischattin 6y ago
    I think crappy ideas (like white supremacy) should be fought with better ideas (like treating everyone equally regardless of their race). Censoring/deplatforming will not have the effect you think it will. Nor is it ethically palpable.
    - rickbutton 6y ago
      This kind of half-measure response is exactly why white supremacy continues to thrive in America. You cannot argue with a white supremacist on reasonable ground, their world view is intrinsically incorrect, and I am convinced that you cannot convince a white supremacist they are wrong through debate. > Nor is it ethically palpable. Do not ascribe your ethics onto me. I think it is extremely ethical to deny white supremacists a platform. In fact, it is the most ethical choice. Those who refuse to interact with our society in good faith do not deserve the stage.
      - mensetmanusman 6y ago
        Germany has a strong handed approach and white supremacy continues to thrive in Germany.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        White supremacy does not thrive in America. That is a fantasy. I'd love to link you to a Scott Alexander essay at this point which examined that very question and concluded, based on evidence and data, that there might be a few thousand genuine white supremacists in America. But of course he deleted his blog so I can't. This is why so many people are arguing with you. The statements by the left and the observable reality are so out of whack it's clear it's a "dog whistle", as they like to say. The revolutionary left are using the word white to mean something quite different to its normal definition. It seems rather to be used to mean "anyone who isn't black" or more perniciously, "anyone conservative". Alexander had a great essay on this redefinition of whiteness as well, but alas ...

chrischattin 6y ago

You don't have to agree with someone to think it's wrong to censor them.

rickbutton 6y ago
Do you think it is correct or incorrect to deplatform white supremacists? Do you think white supremacists deserve a platform? Edit: I've asked variants of this question several times in this thread, all without response. I can safely assume that those who won't freely answer this question are (attempting) to hide their bias.
- golf1052 6y ago
  Yeah it's kind of shocking to see people defend white nationalist speech on private platforms. Of all the marginalized groups out there why does the group that advocates for the discrimination, removal, or even genocide of historically discriminated and murdered people (black people, indigenous people, Jewish people) need defending?
  - rickbutton 6y ago
    While those who defend them may disagree, defending white supremacy is in itself white supremacy. They defend it because they believe it. The thing that still continues to shock me is that there are people here that argue on behalf of white supremacists but still argue that they themselves are not, instead they are playing "devils advocate". At some point, let's call a duck a duck.
  - chrischattin 6y ago
    This same line of reasoning was used against people who stood up for the Jews in Nazi Germany. How soon we forget the lessons of the 20th century... Edit for reply: No. Not even close. I'm comparing your reaction to people standing up for free speech to how Nazi's treated the people who defended the Jews. Edit 2: Yes, YOU are acting like a Nazi (the real, historical version). I deleted it b/c it wasn't productive to the convo and you missed my point anyway. Either way, it's disturbing that you don't see the parallel. Edit 3: I'm not calling you a Nazi for attacking white nationalists. You totally missed the point. Edit 4: Where did you get that I'm defending white nationalists? I'm not. Not even in the slightest. I despise any ideology that treats people differently based on immutable characteristics that they have no control over (like skin color). I'm defending free speech and arguing that ideas should stand on their own. I'm saying YOU are acting like a Nazi for attacking anyone who isn't also aligned with censoring a socially outcast group. You are also misreading my comments, misrepresenting what I said, and you still don't get my point (even though you think you do).
    - rickbutton 6y ago
      Are you seriously comparing the struggle of Jews in Nazi Germany to white supremacists being deplatformed in America? If you are, you should really take a step back and evaluate the gravity of that statement. Edit: Saw your edit. You can usually click the timestamp to reply when there is no reply button. Thank you for the clarification. I'll repeat my previous statement because it still applies, I can tell that you simply don't grasp the gravity of your statement. It is -hilarious- to be called a nazi for calling for white supremacists to be deplatformed. I think I might print this out and put it in my cube (when I eventually get back into the office). Turns out, I was the Nazi the whole time, not the white supremacists! /s Edit, again: For the readers, he edited-in, and then edited-out, calling me a Nazi for saying that white supremacists shouldn't have a platform. Just wanted to make that clear. Edit, again, again: I did understand your point, I just refuse to engage with it, because it is ridiculous. Edit, again, again, again. This edit-back-and-forth is funny, but I have to go now. I sincerely hope that you do some research and realize that your defense of white supremacists only entrenches them into our culture further. I hope that one day, you look back on your views here, and realize that you truly did not have to defend them, but chose to anyway.
  - istorical 6y ago
    people aren't defending these things. they are defending this 'slippery slope' idea that if you give companies the power and support them in banning content based off of ideological stuff, then you risk that 'bannable' content threshold slowly growing. it's literally a straw man to imply people are focused on individuals in this situation, they are just worried about precedent and the future.
    - golf1052 6y ago
      No private platform, even those that claimed to be a "bastion of free speech" [1] when they were first created has ever not banned for ideological stuff. Back in 2015 this same discussion came up [2]. 5 years later we're still worried about sliding down the slope. What is too far? Hating fat people? Hating trans people? Hating black people? Should a private platform allow it all even though people supporting those views actively harm people? And we can even see what happens when platforms try to truly allow all speech. Voat [3 NSFW] is a good example, Gab is another example. The worst content takes over and your platform gets rejected by most of the world. Way before reddit banned the_donald they had to specifically delist it from the front page because awful content would end up being the first thing people saw. [4] I also don't expect that Youtube or reddit or Twitter would end up banning all ideological content, religious videos will not get banned one day, discussing electoral politics will not get banned one day, we're not going to slide off the slope because the slope isn't there. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-co-founder-alexis-ohanians-rosy-outlook-on-the-future-of-politics/#57504fc15550 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-c... 2. https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/8964995/reddit-free-speech-history https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/8964995/reddit-free-speec... 3. NSFW: https://voat.co/ https://voat.co/ 4: https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13797712/reddit-trump-the-donald-ban https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13797712/reddit-trump-th...
- chrischattin 6y ago
  I think crappy ideas (like white supremacy) should be fought with better ideas (like treating everyone equally regardless of their race). Censoring/deplatforming will not have the effect you think it will. Nor is it ethically palpable.
  - rickbutton 6y ago
    This kind of half-measure response is exactly why white supremacy continues to thrive in America. You cannot argue with a white supremacist on reasonable ground, their world view is intrinsically incorrect, and I am convinced that you cannot convince a white supremacist they are wrong through debate. > Nor is it ethically palpable. Do not ascribe your ethics onto me. I think it is extremely ethical to deny white supremacists a platform. In fact, it is the most ethical choice. Those who refuse to interact with our society in good faith do not deserve the stage.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Germany has a strong handed approach and white supremacy continues to thrive in Germany.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      White supremacy does not thrive in America. That is a fantasy. I'd love to link you to a Scott Alexander essay at this point which examined that very question and concluded, based on evidence and data, that there might be a few thousand genuine white supremacists in America. But of course he deleted his blog so I can't. This is why so many people are arguing with you. The statements by the left and the observable reality are so out of whack it's clear it's a "dog whistle", as they like to say. The revolutionary left are using the word white to mean something quite different to its normal definition. It seems rather to be used to mean "anyone who isn't black" or more perniciously, "anyone conservative". Alexander had a great essay on this redefinition of whiteness as well, but alas ...