4 ms·

>Platforming bigots won't actually prevent bigots from deplatforming subaltern groups when they have the power to do so. Well if you had legal protections for

by zen_1 4y ago

>Platforming bigots won't actually prevent bigots from deplatforming subaltern groups when they have the power to do so. Well if you had legal protections for speech on online public spaces (twitter, youtube, FB, IG and so on) and a strong court system, that would actually protect subaltern groups from being deplatformed, yes. It's a lot easier for the "bigots" (though I would have chosen the word zealots myself) to deplatform subaltern groups when that's an accepted method of dealing with dissent, as opposed to being something that's just not done. The (quite common) view you're espousing of "We should censor and deplatform exactly the set of people *I* find morally abhorrent" stinks of "This is classic "I'm right, so political systems should cater to me."" type thinking. For what it's worth I think Tate is an absolute piece of shit.

UncleMeat 4y ago
I don't believe that the court system in the US has any influence on the legal rights of gay people in Iran. But even if we ignore the point about the middle east and focus entirely on one nation, legal defenses for majority groups have observably failed to protect subaltern groups for the entire history of the country. I do not have confidence that a strong court system protecting white male misogynists will actually consistently protect black gay women, for example. I believe that your statement about the ease of oppression is not actually supported by historical or modern evidence.
- zen_1 4y ago
  Ignoring the whataboutism about Iran (I brought up middle eastern governments as an example of the effects of deplatforming when it's organized by people with different biases to you, not to imply some kind of ridiculous tit for tat). Really? You don't think the main reason the US is as desegregated as it is today is because of a strong supreme court that issued rulings such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia? Clearly these are all examples of the supreme court failing to protect subaltern groups, which is why all white primaries are still the norm, schools and buses are still segregated, and interracial marriage is still illegal. Is any court system perfect? Of course not, but the American court system is infinitely better than the court of public opinion when it comes to protecting individual rights for all individuals, regardless of identity. What planet's history were you even referring to, again? I'm not even American and I'm still aware of these civil rights victories. But oh no "white (well mixed-race in Tate's case) male misogynists" will also have their speech protected, so I guess these rights have got to go. Your rights are not predicated on your identity or your beliefs, no matter how abhorrent.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    The courts have indeed been part of the steps towards justice. I didn’t say the courts have never done good. I said that enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media.
    - zen_1 4y ago
      > enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. Virulent bigotry alone is not, and should never be, a crime. You are literally advocating for thoughtcrimes to be punished by the courts. > And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media. Well I was suggesting that governments regulate the tech monopolies to protect speech on their platforms, given that they are the de facto public square of modern political discourse. I recognize that Tate's freedom of speech was not violated by private platforms censoring him, I'm asserting that those platforms should either be regulated as public squares with the same duty to uphold freedom of (legal) speech, or have their monopolies broken up (i.e. Open APIs and interchange format, with social media monopolies ideally switching to a federated model where nobody has the power to "deplatform" someone else unilaterally).
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        You can have the opinion that these corporations should not be able to deplatform Tate. I disagree, but that's a fine opinion. Where I become frustrated is when people claim that there is a logical connection between platforming people like Tate and protecting the rights of oppressed groups so that we must platform Tate in order to ensure that the state does not crush gay people or whatever. The state has happily abandoned its own stated principles used to protect white men so that it can crush women, gay people, and racial minorities countless times throughout our history.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > You don't think the main reason the US is as desegregated as it is today is because of a strong supreme court Well ... > Dred Scott v. Sandford,[a] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[3][4] The Supreme Court's decision has been widely denounced, both for how overtly racist the decision was and for its crucial role in the start of the American Civil War four years later.[5] Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".[6] Historian Junius P. Rodriguez said that it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision."[7] Historian David Thomas Konig said that it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever."[8] So if you mean, it's desegregated because a really racist Supreme Court decision helped precipitate a civil war that killed a lot of people, because a few rich and powerful people benefitted from enslaving other human beings and refused to give that up, despite it's obvious clash with basic legal principles, then yeah, you might be right.

by zen_1 4y ago

UncleMeat 4y ago

I don't believe that the court system in the US has any influence on the legal rights of gay people in Iran. But even if we ignore the point about the middle east and focus entirely on one nation, legal defenses for majority groups have observably failed to protect subaltern groups for the entire history of the country. I do not have confidence that a strong court system protecting white male misogynists will actually consistently protect black gay women, for example. I believe that your statement about the ease of oppression is not actually supported by historical or modern evidence.

zen_1 4y ago
Ignoring the whataboutism about Iran (I brought up middle eastern governments as an example of the effects of deplatforming when it's organized by people with different biases to you, not to imply some kind of ridiculous tit for tat). Really? You don't think the main reason the US is as desegregated as it is today is because of a strong supreme court that issued rulings such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boynton_v._Virginia? Clearly these are all examples of the supreme court failing to protect subaltern groups, which is why all white primaries are still the norm, schools and buses are still segregated, and interracial marriage is still illegal. Is any court system perfect? Of course not, but the American court system is infinitely better than the court of public opinion when it comes to protecting individual rights for all individuals, regardless of identity. What planet's history were you even referring to, again? I'm not even American and I'm still aware of these civil rights victories. But oh no "white (well mixed-race in Tate's case) male misogynists" will also have their speech protected, so I guess these rights have got to go. Your rights are not predicated on your identity or your beliefs, no matter how abhorrent.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  The courts have indeed been part of the steps towards justice. I didn’t say the courts have never done good. I said that enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media.
  - zen_1 4y ago
    > enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. Virulent bigotry alone is not, and should never be, a crime. You are literally advocating for thoughtcrimes to be punished by the courts. > And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media. Well I was suggesting that governments regulate the tech monopolies to protect speech on their platforms, given that they are the de facto public square of modern political discourse. I recognize that Tate's freedom of speech was not violated by private platforms censoring him, I'm asserting that those platforms should either be regulated as public squares with the same duty to uphold freedom of (legal) speech, or have their monopolies broken up (i.e. Open APIs and interchange format, with social media monopolies ideally switching to a federated model where nobody has the power to "deplatform" someone else unilaterally).
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      You can have the opinion that these corporations should not be able to deplatform Tate. I disagree, but that's a fine opinion. Where I become frustrated is when people claim that there is a logical connection between platforming people like Tate and protecting the rights of oppressed groups so that we must platform Tate in order to ensure that the state does not crush gay people or whatever. The state has happily abandoned its own stated principles used to protect white men so that it can crush women, gay people, and racial minorities countless times throughout our history.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > You don't think the main reason the US is as desegregated as it is today is because of a strong supreme court Well ... > Dred Scott v. Sandford,[a] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[3][4] The Supreme Court's decision has been widely denounced, both for how overtly racist the decision was and for its crucial role in the start of the American Civil War four years later.[5] Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".[6] Historian Junius P. Rodriguez said that it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision."[7] Historian David Thomas Konig said that it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever."[8] So if you mean, it's desegregated because a really racist Supreme Court decision helped precipitate a civil war that killed a lot of people, because a few rich and powerful people benefitted from enslaving other human beings and refused to give that up, despite it's obvious clash with basic legal principles, then yeah, you might be right.