4 ms·

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 d

• 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.