4 ms·

Hmm... so in your opinion, back in the days of the Hollywood blacklist, when Louis B. Mayer decided that he wasn't going to buy any more screenplays from commun

Hmm... so in your opinion, back in the days of the Hollywood blacklist, when Louis B. Mayer decided that he wasn't going to buy any more screenplays from communists (or anyone who even had friends who were communists), that was perfectly okay? "Freedom of association", right? The truly bizarre thing about the "woke" movement is that they seem to have absolutely no conception that the stuff they're doing to others can just as easily be done to them.

Turing_Machine 6y ago
Touched a nerve, didn't it? You might be surprised at how fast this kind of thing can turn around.
- Turing_Machine 6y ago
  Recommended reading: https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial-ebook/dp/B003TO5838/ https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Pere... Edit: more recommended reading: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html
  - mint2 6y ago
    I’m not sure how you’re interpreting these, but if you are against businesses deplatforming those who express neonazi, and white nationalist propaganda I don’t think Paul Graham’s message supports you. I doubt Paul graham equates neonazi propaganda with his examples of past situations where you could believe something that was later thought of as very wrong: “ how can you be sure you wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in the 1930s” Are you saying that in 30 years that society will collectively think neonazi beliefs are correct and thus we were crazy to ostracize them? And you are saying that is why we should stop censoring them? Because in a future state we might live in a dystopia we should stop censoring the people trying to create the dystopia? And also that censoring neonazis is akin to those example like being anti slavery in the antebellum south? Is this your take away? Those arguments sound rather farcical and Paul himself actually explains why that is. Paul says this: “Of course, we're not just looking for things we can't say. We're looking for things we can't say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open.“ There is no doubt about neonazi propaganda. Whether or not it is true is not an open question. White supremacist propaganda maybe being right is not an open question.
- mint2 6y ago
  Weird how people keep trying to warn the left of some slippery slope argument that is if a company deplatforms literal neonazis today then lgbt, progressives or what have you can easily be tomorrow! Like another comment mentioned, it’s mind boggling that those making these arguments think those on the left aren’t aware of censorship, legal and societal, given how recently one could be persecuted for being too left and labeled a communist or arrested, ostracized and more for being lgtb. I don’t believe those making the arguments actually believe the surface facade of pointing out “unconsidered information”, so there must be some alternative purpose to the argument. It almost be like trying to constantly remind someone who was shot and also lost someone of how dangerous guns are and that’s why even violent felons needs gun. It’s also arguing victims should be glad they are continuing to be victimized and that they should help and defend their attackers.
geofft 6y ago
It's confusing how you criticize leftists for not realizing that they could theoretically be the target of these attacks while citing an extremely well-known example of leftists being the target of these attacks. Leftists are generally aware of this risk, because today there is no shortage of similar social pressure against leftist ideas, and do not think it's a concern. The problem is not that it's never occurred to them. One reason why it's not a concern is that there's no reason to believe that a principled stand against this tactic by the left will have any influence on the right. Conservatives in Hollywood in the middle of the last century did not blacklist communists in response to any similar activity by communists; they did so spontaneously. So there's no reason to fear an increased risk of use of this tactic. Nobody is getting ideas they didn't already have.
- zpeti 6y ago
  This makes absolutely no sense, and to me proves just how ignorant the left are of what could happen to them. Censorship always becomes about those in power staying in power. Look no further than wall street bets. That had nothing to do with left right but about control and power. Of course no one in the mainstream media is willing to consider this, because apparently wsb is financial trumpism. Wake up. This is what the aclu warned about 50 years ago.
- Turing_Machine 6y ago
  First, it's not "criticism" to ask a clarifying question. I understand that not having a good answer makes you uncomfortable, but that's not "criticism". Second, you do understand that it's possible to believe that both are bad, right?
  - geofft 6y ago
    I'm not uncomfortable, and I don't know why you think I am. I merely think you're factually incorrect in your assertion that the point you mention has not occurred to leftists. I do understand that it's possible to believe both are bad. I am informing you that leftists do not. (There's probably a more general phenomenon where centrists say that tools that can be used towards bad ends are bad, and people of a particular partisan tendency say that bad ends are bad and not to be blamed on the tool. For instance, liberals are generally not in favor of expanded gun rights, because they understand that guns can be used towards bad ends. Leftists are generally in favor of expanded gun rights, because they understand that, and also understand that guns can be used towards good ends.)
fatbird 6y ago
Having had those things done to them, "the woke movement" isn't fooled by the argument "if you don't do these things to us, we won't do them to you."

Turing_Machine 6y ago

Touched a nerve, didn't it? You might be surprised at how fast this kind of thing can turn around.

Turing_Machine 6y ago
Recommended reading: https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial-ebook/dp/B003TO5838/ https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Pere... Edit: more recommended reading: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html
- mint2 6y ago
  I’m not sure how you’re interpreting these, but if you are against businesses deplatforming those who express neonazi, and white nationalist propaganda I don’t think Paul Graham’s message supports you. I doubt Paul graham equates neonazi propaganda with his examples of past situations where you could believe something that was later thought of as very wrong: “ how can you be sure you wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in the 1930s” Are you saying that in 30 years that society will collectively think neonazi beliefs are correct and thus we were crazy to ostracize them? And you are saying that is why we should stop censoring them? Because in a future state we might live in a dystopia we should stop censoring the people trying to create the dystopia? And also that censoring neonazis is akin to those example like being anti slavery in the antebellum south? Is this your take away? Those arguments sound rather farcical and Paul himself actually explains why that is. Paul says this: “Of course, we're not just looking for things we can't say. We're looking for things we can't say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open.“ There is no doubt about neonazi propaganda. Whether or not it is true is not an open question. White supremacist propaganda maybe being right is not an open question.
mint2 6y ago
Weird how people keep trying to warn the left of some slippery slope argument that is if a company deplatforms literal neonazis today then lgbt, progressives or what have you can easily be tomorrow! Like another comment mentioned, it’s mind boggling that those making these arguments think those on the left aren’t aware of censorship, legal and societal, given how recently one could be persecuted for being too left and labeled a communist or arrested, ostracized and more for being lgtb. I don’t believe those making the arguments actually believe the surface facade of pointing out “unconsidered information”, so there must be some alternative purpose to the argument. It almost be like trying to constantly remind someone who was shot and also lost someone of how dangerous guns are and that’s why even violent felons needs gun. It’s also arguing victims should be glad they are continuing to be victimized and that they should help and defend their attackers.

geofft 6y ago

It's confusing how you criticize leftists for not realizing that they could theoretically be the target of these attacks while citing an extremely well-known example of leftists being the target of these attacks. Leftists are generally aware of this risk, because today there is no shortage of similar social pressure against leftist ideas, and do not think it's a concern. The problem is not that it's never occurred to them. One reason why it's not a concern is that there's no reason to believe that a principled stand against this tactic by the left will have any influence on the right. Conservatives in Hollywood in the middle of the last century did not blacklist communists in response to any similar activity by communists; they did so spontaneously. So there's no reason to fear an increased risk of use of this tactic. Nobody is getting ideas they didn't already have.

zpeti 6y ago
This makes absolutely no sense, and to me proves just how ignorant the left are of what could happen to them. Censorship always becomes about those in power staying in power. Look no further than wall street bets. That had nothing to do with left right but about control and power. Of course no one in the mainstream media is willing to consider this, because apparently wsb is financial trumpism. Wake up. This is what the aclu warned about 50 years ago.
Turing_Machine 6y ago
First, it's not "criticism" to ask a clarifying question. I understand that not having a good answer makes you uncomfortable, but that's not "criticism". Second, you do understand that it's possible to believe that both are bad, right?
- geofft 6y ago
  I'm not uncomfortable, and I don't know why you think I am. I merely think you're factually incorrect in your assertion that the point you mention has not occurred to leftists. I do understand that it's possible to believe both are bad. I am informing you that leftists do not. (There's probably a more general phenomenon where centrists say that tools that can be used towards bad ends are bad, and people of a particular partisan tendency say that bad ends are bad and not to be blamed on the tool. For instance, liberals are generally not in favor of expanded gun rights, because they understand that guns can be used towards bad ends. Leftists are generally in favor of expanded gun rights, because they understand that, and also understand that guns can be used towards good ends.)

fatbird 6y ago

Having had those things done to them, "the woke movement" isn't fooled by the argument "if you don't do these things to us, we won't do them to you."