3 ms·
This argument falls over as soon as you recognize it's not engaged in the discourse it is criticizing, but "working the ref," and going upstream to destroy the
by motohagiography 3y ago
This argument falls over as soon as you recognize it's not engaged in the discourse it is criticizing, but "working the ref," and going upstream to destroy the discourse itself instead.
While speech is not violence, political action outside of it to suppress it is necessarily bringing to bear the upstream providers local monopoly on force and ultimately the state's monopoloy violence on speech. It demoralizes violence by using it in tiny increments, and then affects shock when it escalates.
This style of argument needs more of the ridicule it earns. In any conversation, the parties are free to walk away, but when one returns with a bunch of their friends to make sure the conversation doesn't continue, it is no longer a conversation.
- lovich 3y agoSkipping over my question which is divorced from the court ruling and referring back to the article then. Wouldn’t that make this ruling completely ok? Kiwifarms was a coordinated group of friends making sure others couldn’t have their own speech
- lovich 3y agoContinuing the response to my question separate from the article. Where does the line get drawn on the spectrum of “everyone involved in this pressure campaign is part of a coordinated group” and “everyone involved in this pressure campaign is acting completely independently on their own views”? Is it the coordination? Does 20% of your customer base dropping you as their vendor all independently because of another client of yours not allow you to drop said client because they all responded similarly? Some other metric?
- bitwize 3y agoAll Liz is doing is holding ISPs' feet to the fire, getting them to enforce their own ToS and crack down on sites that violate them (and the law in many jurisdictions, including U.S. states with anti-doxxing laws).
- neonsunset 3y ago[flagged]
- bitwize 3y ago[flagged]