5 ms·

This happens because there's a lot of cultural bias towards being centrist, being perceived as the reasonable middle. People like that a lot, it feels good, so

This happens because there's a lot of cultural bias towards being centrist, being perceived as the reasonable middle. People like that a lot, it feels good, so whenever such people try to describe political disputes it's tempting to try and describe both parties as the same when arguably they're not. This Substack article is a good case in point. It makes it sound like there's two sides, both demanding censorship, and Substack standing in the reasonable middle. But in reality they're only describing one side. They say: "In the online Thunderdome, it is imperative that you are not seen to engage with ideas from the wrong group; on the contrary, you are expected to marshall whatever power is at your disposal – be it cultural, political, or technological – to silence their arguments" Are both sides here trying to silence the other? No. One side is and we've seen that a lot, hence why this post exists and that's partly why Substack has taken off. But the most "extreme" view promoted by sceptical Substackers on vaccines is that mandates are immoral and people should be free to decide, for various reasons. They aren't arguing that people promoting vaccines should be forcibly censored. At least I've never seen any such arguments, not even in comments. "It’s [always] the other side who shuts down criticism because they know they can’t win the argument." Is it? Again, people flagging red alerts over problematic COVID policies or data aren't trying to shut down criticism of themselves, in fact they routinely highlight and engage with it by writing long responses to people who disagree with them (knowing full well they'll never get a response). In reality, one side here speaks but never listens whilst simultaneously working hard to ensure nobody is allowed to disagree with them. And the other side does not. So whilst I applaud Substack's take, their framing of it is curious and maybe doesn't bode well. They aren't sitting in the middle here because there is no middle. There's one group that wants to wipe the others out completely and will use any tactics available to do so, and then there's Substack that's sheltering those people from the storm.

bigger_inside 5y ago
This seems to be the public perception: only one side demands censorship. This isn't quite true and only shows you how well one side is at publicizing that they're being censored, which, ironically, means they're censored -less-. Palestinian accounts on facebook have been deleted for years when they were trying to report on occupation. Facebook also deleted all the accounts of Nicaraguan socialists trying to counter the Western narratives about their election. Anything on social media that is anti-imperialist, especially when it comes from the actual global south, has been silenced, and also silently silenced - because it' not part of the mainstream discourse, so people often don't realize it's gone because they never knew it was there to begin with. It was easy to quietly sweep under the rug. The new right isn't so easy to quietly sweep under the rug, because it's loud and it's next door to many people in the West, so you notice when the posts are gone, people yell about it and call wolf - which means they have the voice to yell, and the power to cry wolf. It's an old (very, very old) insight that rules for censorship are made with the the excesses of the right as legitimation for it, and then used against the left. Which is why, on the left, it would be pragmatically and strategically smart to stop clamoring for the censorship of the right. We're just handing the agents of control the tools to silence us with.
- exceptione 5y ago
  I am not sure about your reasoning. Parent is talking about vaccine opposers, while you are talking about Nicaraguan socialists and Palestinians. Could we really draw such lines?
  - jahearn 5y ago
    Parent seemed to not be talking about vaccines, but that censorship only was being applied to one "side." So this comment was intentionally describing issues that are from different sides to point out that (A) it doesn't only happen to the "right," and (B) the fact that we hear about it so much from the "right" might actually be because they're censored less. Then (C) they describe that this is potentially even an intentional pattern used by more middle-leaning "left" to justify censorship against the "right" and then leverage against their own, more radical, side. Not necessarily defending the idea, but comment seemed relevant to the parent, to me.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Well, I was using vaccines as an example because it's mentioned in the article (which appears to be prompted by some flak from the Guardian). I don't know about Palestinians and Nicaraguan socialists. Are they demanding that their critics be silenced? I doubt they're in any position to even imagine demanding that. "It's an old (very, very old) insight that rules for censorship are made with the excesses of the right as legitimation for it, and then used against the left." Maybe it's old because it's no longer true? I'm approaching middle age now, and the best examples of right wing censorship I can think of are all related to sexual morals and porn. But at least in the UK left wing parties usually support censoring that stuff too, e.g. here's an old article about the current head of the UK Labour Party being concerned about internet porn and other Labour party figures supporting the idea of internet censorship: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169509/Internet-porn-making-teenage-relationships-violent-says-countrys-law-chief.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169509/Internet-po... If the left has ever been the side of free speech it must have been some time before I was born. I suspect the reality is that the people who want censorship are typically those in power or most aligned with power, and that swings back and forth over time.
dools 5y ago
Absolutely. This is "leftist bullies" and "white genocide" and "reverse racism" all wrapped up with a bow on it. There's already a term: "both sidesism". It's the perfect term. But I'll tell you what: when the Blues Brothers and New York rioters in Seinfeld were chasing down Nazis, that shit was NOT controversial.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bigger_inside 5y ago

This seems to be the public perception: only one side demands censorship. This isn't quite true and only shows you how well one side is at publicizing that they're being censored, which, ironically, means they're censored -less-. Palestinian accounts on facebook have been deleted for years when they were trying to report on occupation. Facebook also deleted all the accounts of Nicaraguan socialists trying to counter the Western narratives about their election. Anything on social media that is anti-imperialist, especially when it comes from the actual global south, has been silenced, and also silently silenced - because it' not part of the mainstream discourse, so people often don't realize it's gone because they never knew it was there to begin with. It was easy to quietly sweep under the rug. The new right isn't so easy to quietly sweep under the rug, because it's loud and it's next door to many people in the West, so you notice when the posts are gone, people yell about it and call wolf - which means they have the voice to yell, and the power to cry wolf. It's an old (very, very old) insight that rules for censorship are made with the the excesses of the right as legitimation for it, and then used against the left. Which is why, on the left, it would be pragmatically and strategically smart to stop clamoring for the censorship of the right. We're just handing the agents of control the tools to silence us with.

exceptione 5y ago
I am not sure about your reasoning. Parent is talking about vaccine opposers, while you are talking about Nicaraguan socialists and Palestinians. Could we really draw such lines?
- jahearn 5y ago
  Parent seemed to not be talking about vaccines, but that censorship only was being applied to one "side." So this comment was intentionally describing issues that are from different sides to point out that (A) it doesn't only happen to the "right," and (B) the fact that we hear about it so much from the "right" might actually be because they're censored less. Then (C) they describe that this is potentially even an intentional pattern used by more middle-leaning "left" to justify censorship against the "right" and then leverage against their own, more radical, side. Not necessarily defending the idea, but comment seemed relevant to the parent, to me.
native_samples 5y ago
Well, I was using vaccines as an example because it's mentioned in the article (which appears to be prompted by some flak from the Guardian). I don't know about Palestinians and Nicaraguan socialists. Are they demanding that their critics be silenced? I doubt they're in any position to even imagine demanding that. "It's an old (very, very old) insight that rules for censorship are made with the excesses of the right as legitimation for it, and then used against the left." Maybe it's old because it's no longer true? I'm approaching middle age now, and the best examples of right wing censorship I can think of are all related to sexual morals and porn. But at least in the UK left wing parties usually support censoring that stuff too, e.g. here's an old article about the current head of the UK Labour Party being concerned about internet porn and other Labour party figures supporting the idea of internet censorship: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169509/Internet-porn-making-teenage-relationships-violent-says-countrys-law-chief.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169509/Internet-po... If the left has ever been the side of free speech it must have been some time before I was born. I suspect the reality is that the people who want censorship are typically those in power or most aligned with power, and that swings back and forth over time.

dools 5y ago

Absolutely. This is "leftist bullies" and "white genocide" and "reverse racism" all wrapped up with a bow on it. There's already a term: "both sidesism". It's the perfect term. But I'll tell you what: when the Blues Brothers and New York rioters in Seinfeld were chasing down Nazis, that shit was NOT controversial.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]