6 ms·

He's given people like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes a platform—something that McInnes himself (for example) has said directly helped recruitment to the Proud Bo

He's given people like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes a platform—something that McInnes himself (for example) has said directly helped recruitment to the Proud Boys.

zmgsabst 3y ago
Oh no! Recruitment to a group led by an Afro-Cuban that opposed the organized street violence across our nation, from over a billion dollars in arson damage to dozens of murders (including Antonio Mays Jr and David Dorne)?!?!? Say it isn’t so!
- GavinMcG 3y ago
  > McInnes is open about his glorification of violence. In a speech, he described a clash with Antifa outside a talk he gave at NYU last year: “My guys are left to fight. And here’s the crucial part: We do. And we beat the crap out of them.” He related what a Proud Boy who got arrested told him afterward: “It was really, really fun.” According to McInnes: “Violence doesn’t feel good. Justified violence feels great. And fighting solves everything.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-poisonous-violence/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-b...
local_crmdgeon 3y ago
Alex Jones is nuts but also not part of the alt right. McInness might be tangentially related. I'm saying this as someone who spends a lot of time in far right spaces. These people are only ever made fun of, same with Ben Shapiro and TPUSA. Most of the major people at this point are anonymous.
- GavinMcG 3y ago
  > These people are only ever made fun of That doesn't mean they're "tangentially related." They sow the seeds that grow into extreme right wing commitments and actions like insurrection. McInness didn't raid the capitol himself, but the organization he founded has five members standing trial right now, including its current national leader.
  - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
    [flagged]
whatshisface 3y ago
If we're willing to extend amnesty to AT&T we should extend it to individuals.
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Proof?
    - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - operatingthetan 3y ago
        What casual dishonesty on display here to suggest "F.B.I. Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest" means they are "all feds."
        local_crmdgeon 3y ago
        [flagged]
        operatingthetan 3y ago
        You're just offering conspiracies and when pressed for a source provided one that doesn't even agree with your statement.
        local_crmdgeon 3y ago
        [flagged]
clnq 3y ago
Should we deplatform people we don’t agree with?
- krapp 3y ago
  If we own the platform, yes, we should (and do) have the right to do just that. We can also kick people out of our house we don't agree with, and businesses can refuse service to people they don't agree with. The news doesn't have to print everything it's given. TV stations don't have to broadcast every tape that comes in the mail. The alternative is to be forced to platform people you don't agree with, and who may even seek to do you harm, which would be a violation of freedom of speech, freedom of association as well as personal liberty.
  - clnq 3y ago
    I did not speak about forcing anyone to do anything, but rather about what would be the right thing to do. Could you steel-man this idea instead?
    - krapp 3y ago
      I don't believe there is an objectively right thing to do. Inherent in the right to free speech is the right to allow dangerous speech to spread - speech isn't value neutral. It balances against the right of association - the right to speak is not de facto a right to be heard on all platforms. Choosing where to draw the line is a matter of personal preference. Personally, I believe even reprehensible people have the right to speak, congregate and spread their ideas, but also that society has a moral duty to prevent the spread of harmful speech even in the name of free speech (see the paradox of tolerance,) and they aren't entitled to an arbitrarily large platform. Of course such a position is fraught with the potential for abuse, since the definitions for "harmful" and "useful" speech are arbitrary (speech against slavery was considered harmful at one point of course.) but I still think this position is preferable to the alternatives.
      - clnq 3y ago

He's given people like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes a platform—something that McInnes himself (for example) has said directly helped recruitment to the Proud Boys.

zmgsabst 3y ago

Oh no! Recruitment to a group led by an Afro-Cuban that opposed the organized street violence across our nation, from over a billion dollars in arson damage to dozens of murders (including Antonio Mays Jr and David Dorne)?!?!? Say it isn’t so!

GavinMcG 3y ago
> McInnes is open about his glorification of violence. In a speech, he described a clash with Antifa outside a talk he gave at NYU last year: “My guys are left to fight. And here’s the crucial part: We do. And we beat the crap out of them.” He related what a Proud Boy who got arrested told him afterward: “It was really, really fun.” According to McInnes: “Violence doesn’t feel good. Justified violence feels great. And fighting solves everything.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-poisonous-violence/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-b...

local_crmdgeon 3y ago

Alex Jones is nuts but also not part of the alt right. McInness might be tangentially related. I'm saying this as someone who spends a lot of time in far right spaces. These people are only ever made fun of, same with Ben Shapiro and TPUSA. Most of the major people at this point are anonymous.

GavinMcG 3y ago
> These people are only ever made fun of That doesn't mean they're "tangentially related." They sow the seeds that grow into extreme right wing commitments and actions like insurrection. McInness didn't raid the capitol himself, but the organization he founded has five members standing trial right now, including its current national leader.
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  [flagged]

whatshisface 3y ago

If we're willing to extend amnesty to AT&T we should extend it to individuals.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago
[flagged]
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Proof?
  - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - operatingthetan 3y ago
      What casual dishonesty on display here to suggest "F.B.I. Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest" means they are "all feds."
      - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
        [flagged]
        operatingthetan 3y ago
        You're just offering conspiracies and when pressed for a source provided one that doesn't even agree with your statement.
        local_crmdgeon 3y ago
        [flagged]

clnq 3y ago

Should we deplatform people we don’t agree with?

krapp 3y ago
If we own the platform, yes, we should (and do) have the right to do just that. We can also kick people out of our house we don't agree with, and businesses can refuse service to people they don't agree with. The news doesn't have to print everything it's given. TV stations don't have to broadcast every tape that comes in the mail. The alternative is to be forced to platform people you don't agree with, and who may even seek to do you harm, which would be a violation of freedom of speech, freedom of association as well as personal liberty.
- clnq 3y ago
  I did not speak about forcing anyone to do anything, but rather about what would be the right thing to do. Could you steel-man this idea instead?
  - krapp 3y ago
    I don't believe there is an objectively right thing to do. Inherent in the right to free speech is the right to allow dangerous speech to spread - speech isn't value neutral. It balances against the right of association - the right to speak is not de facto a right to be heard on all platforms. Choosing where to draw the line is a matter of personal preference. Personally, I believe even reprehensible people have the right to speak, congregate and spread their ideas, but also that society has a moral duty to prevent the spread of harmful speech even in the name of free speech (see the paradox of tolerance,) and they aren't entitled to an arbitrarily large platform. Of course such a position is fraught with the potential for abuse, since the definitions for "harmful" and "useful" speech are arbitrary (speech against slavery was considered harmful at one point of course.) but I still think this position is preferable to the alternatives.
    - clnq 3y ago