5 ms·

The exact same restrictions on free speech disproportionately impact black activist groups who might not have the same corporate backing as many right wing thin

The exact same restrictions on free speech disproportionately impact black activist groups who might not have the same corporate backing as many right wing think tanks or organisations. The only thing restrictions on free speech incentivise is conformity to the ruling party's policies and there is an implicit assumption here that the democratic parties values are really the correct ones - which many people of colour will dispute. The moment the Republicans take over (which they will inevitably considering how few campaign promises Biden has so far delivered), they will turn this on groups like BLM and the Antifa movement in general.

wolverine876 5y ago
Sure, I agree, but what are you going to do about the civil rights of minorities? The current system isn't working. The problem is that people focus only on free-speech-for-all and ignore the enormous elephant in the room.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  Civil rights are not granted from cancelling racists from exposing their hateful views online, it's from taking action against the racist systems and people in power that really impact their rights. This can take the form of both violent and non-violent struggle but the key word is struggle, not just speech or the curtailment of wrong speech.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > the key word is struggle, not just speech or the curtailment of wrong speech Sure, but speech plays an enormous role, the largest role IMHO. > taking action against the racist systems and people in power that really impact their rights What is normalized among the public greatly determines, IMHO, the systems and powerful people. From another perspective: If we just changed the rules and the public didn't change, imagine what would happen. Also, note that people with political causes invest enormous resources in manipulating public opinion.
    - vimacs2 5y ago
      "If we just changed the rules and the public didn't change, imagine what would happen. Also, note that people with political causes invest enormous resources in manipulating public opinion." You cannot in fact change the rules if there hasn't been a shift in the public so this seems a rather moot point. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't invest in PR and education on these issues but muzzling the opposition just gives the next rulers in charge an already existing muzzle to use back on yourself. There is a history of often murderous suppression of "radical" groups in the US and by and far the majority of these were socialists, environmentalists, and marginalised people. The current fake appeasement to these demographics is just that - a mirage. They're willing to ban Trump from the internet but not raise the minimum wage, abolish the drug war, really come after companies for their industrial scale damaging of ecology or cease trade relations with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Excuse me for not taking this current "wokeness" fetishization by fundamentally hierarchical power structures entirely as good faith. It's also not clear to me at all that "speech plays the largest role". Of course, existing power structures want you to believe that because the thing they fear the most of all is armed and genuinely effective resistance and it also helps perpetuate the illusion of a free and democratic society as if all it took to conquer racism and imperialism was to have a sit down and chat - with the hidden assumption that prior exploited people were just too stupid to consider this before - but MLK and Ghandai would have gone nowhere if there weren't decades of riots and militant struggle preceding them that pushed the US and British governments to enter negotiations with these parties.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > They're willing to ban Trump from the internet but not raise the minimum wage, abolish the drug war, really come after companies for their industrial scale damaging of ecology or cease trade relations with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. I think 'they' is way too broad. Some companies banned Trump from their platforms. Those companies aren't particularly involved with the policies. > the thing they fear the most of all is armed and genuinely effective resistance I strongly doubt it. Such things are so rare and unlikely, not only in the U.S. but in democracies in general, that it's not too far off saying 'what they fear most is a giant meteor strike'. Well that would be a big problem, but not what is most feared. There hasn't been one in the U.S. since the Civil War, and that one came top-down, from the power structure.

wolverine876 5y ago

Sure, I agree, but what are you going to do about the civil rights of minorities? The current system isn't working. The problem is that people focus only on free-speech-for-all and ignore the enormous elephant in the room.

vimacs2 5y ago
Civil rights are not granted from cancelling racists from exposing their hateful views online, it's from taking action against the racist systems and people in power that really impact their rights. This can take the form of both violent and non-violent struggle but the key word is struggle, not just speech or the curtailment of wrong speech.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > the key word is struggle, not just speech or the curtailment of wrong speech Sure, but speech plays an enormous role, the largest role IMHO. > taking action against the racist systems and people in power that really impact their rights What is normalized among the public greatly determines, IMHO, the systems and powerful people. From another perspective: If we just changed the rules and the public didn't change, imagine what would happen. Also, note that people with political causes invest enormous resources in manipulating public opinion.
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    "If we just changed the rules and the public didn't change, imagine what would happen. Also, note that people with political causes invest enormous resources in manipulating public opinion." You cannot in fact change the rules if there hasn't been a shift in the public so this seems a rather moot point. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't invest in PR and education on these issues but muzzling the opposition just gives the next rulers in charge an already existing muzzle to use back on yourself. There is a history of often murderous suppression of "radical" groups in the US and by and far the majority of these were socialists, environmentalists, and marginalised people. The current fake appeasement to these demographics is just that - a mirage. They're willing to ban Trump from the internet but not raise the minimum wage, abolish the drug war, really come after companies for their industrial scale damaging of ecology or cease trade relations with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Excuse me for not taking this current "wokeness" fetishization by fundamentally hierarchical power structures entirely as good faith. It's also not clear to me at all that "speech plays the largest role". Of course, existing power structures want you to believe that because the thing they fear the most of all is armed and genuinely effective resistance and it also helps perpetuate the illusion of a free and democratic society as if all it took to conquer racism and imperialism was to have a sit down and chat - with the hidden assumption that prior exploited people were just too stupid to consider this before - but MLK and Ghandai would have gone nowhere if there weren't decades of riots and militant struggle preceding them that pushed the US and British governments to enter negotiations with these parties.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > They're willing to ban Trump from the internet but not raise the minimum wage, abolish the drug war, really come after companies for their industrial scale damaging of ecology or cease trade relations with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. I think 'they' is way too broad. Some companies banned Trump from their platforms. Those companies aren't particularly involved with the policies. > the thing they fear the most of all is armed and genuinely effective resistance I strongly doubt it. Such things are so rare and unlikely, not only in the U.S. but in democracies in general, that it's not too far off saying 'what they fear most is a giant meteor strike'. Well that would be a big problem, but not what is most feared. There hasn't been one in the U.S. since the Civil War, and that one came top-down, from the power structure.