4 ms·

I think you know jack-shit about totalitarian regimes. For example USSR used a shit-ton of unofficial punishment styles. E.g. small time dissidents would have

by mantas 3y ago

I think you know jack-shit about totalitarian regimes. For example USSR used a shit-ton of unofficial punishment styles. E.g. small time dissidents would have a hard time getting a job. Employers would be in the know about certain people they should steer away from. But it was illegal to not work in USSR :) So technically nobody was punishing those dissidents. But they had a hard time to make ends meet AND they could be easily sentenced for being unemployed if they started causing trouble. Influential groups of society punishing people for wrongthink is pretty damn close.

wvenable 3y ago
What is protesting then? If I protest against a Nazi speaker at a university, which side of this totalitarianism am I on? Am I the influential group punishing someone for wrongthink? The implication here is yes I am. So apparently a healthy "non-totalitarian" society cannot allow protest...
- mantas 3y ago
  Many (if not 99%) of silenced speakers were not nazis. Unless everything right of X is nazi and everything left is commie. Which is bullshit. The „influential group“ refers to „consequences“ like making people loose their jobs after spamming their employers for controversial (at best) speech. Protest is fine. But preventing speech is fine. Do you want to stay outside of a meeting room with a banner? Cool. Do you want to politely ask uncomfortable questions? Great. Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? That's where it gets bad.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    I agree they don't have to Nazis. > Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? Nobody is prevented from speaking. It's never been easier in the history of the world to get your message out. But again, nobody is required to have a forum to speak and I'm not required to give that forum directly or indirectly. I can also use my speech to convince others to not provide that forum. > spamming their employers That's harassment. Harassment is already bad on it's own it doesn't have to be mixed into this. But outside of harassment if an employer doesn't want to associate with someone because of their speech, they're free to do that.
    - mantas 3y ago
      When a group of people sets up a speaker and another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking. Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. Especially if they cleanly separate political and professional lives. Few years ago we had an ex-politician fired from stocking shelves in a supermarket. Arguably dude did have some contraversial opinions in his heyday. But he left the politics long ago and was trying to make a fair living. Then his opponents from the other far- side tracked him down and „informed“ the employer about the dude's past.
      - wvenable 3y ago
        > another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking. How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed? > Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. You can hold whatever political views you want. But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. One might want to change the law so short people can't vote -- so they broadcast that view far and wide to make that consequence happen. But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change. The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused.
        mantas 3y ago
        > How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed? Looks like that does happen. No? Or just pushing university administrations to cancel speakers they just approved. > But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. <...> But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change. In a democracy, people decide on political views by voting. As long as people keep their views to themselves and don't harass coworkers, why would we care what views they hold? Unless the person in question starts calling for physical abuse etc. But then it's a police matter, not lynching crowds. That specific case is very wrong in many cases. Dude basically caved in and got out of politics. Yet his political enemies carried on. What's the lesson? If you ever say something contraversial, the only way is to double-down, because you'll be hunted forever? Is voicing a contraversial opinion in one's youth worse than doing heavy crimes? Since ex-prisoners re-integration is quite a big thing. I don't understand the point. Make people scared to step out of line? Create whole underclass of people who have nothing to loose for the rest of their lives? Both options are straight out of USSR playbook. > The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused. Today's social pressure is used for barbarism. And it's so twisted that it's not only not stopping good thing, but even pushing wrong things. E.g. we had LGBT protest. Some people held a counter-protest. Then one famous LGBT dude went to counter-protesters, forced himself onto one of the main counter-protesters and kissed him. Sexual assault in public right there. Yet many shitheads went on to proclaim how cool this is. And LGBT dude didn't get into any legal problems. Wonder what would happen if a counter-protester would do the same to some girl on the other side. Somehow I really doubt the consequences would be the same :) Sort of like black vs White capitalisation BS.

by mantas 3y ago

wvenable 3y ago

What is protesting then? If I protest against a Nazi speaker at a university, which side of this totalitarianism am I on? Am I the influential group punishing someone for wrongthink? The implication here is yes I am. So apparently a healthy "non-totalitarian" society cannot allow protest...

mantas 3y ago
Many (if not 99%) of silenced speakers were not nazis. Unless everything right of X is nazi and everything left is commie. Which is bullshit. The „influential group“ refers to „consequences“ like making people loose their jobs after spamming their employers for controversial (at best) speech. Protest is fine. But preventing speech is fine. Do you want to stay outside of a meeting room with a banner? Cool. Do you want to politely ask uncomfortable questions? Great. Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? That's where it gets bad.
- wvenable 3y ago
  I agree they don't have to Nazis. > Do you want to prevent those people from speaking? Nobody is prevented from speaking. It's never been easier in the history of the world to get your message out. But again, nobody is required to have a forum to speak and I'm not required to give that forum directly or indirectly. I can also use my speech to convince others to not provide that forum. > spamming their employers That's harassment. Harassment is already bad on it's own it doesn't have to be mixed into this. But outside of harassment if an employer doesn't want to associate with someone because of their speech, they're free to do that.
  - mantas 3y ago
    When a group of people sets up a speaker and another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking. Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. Especially if they cleanly separate political and professional lives. Few years ago we had an ex-politician fired from stocking shelves in a supermarket. Arguably dude did have some contraversial opinions in his heyday. But he left the politics long ago and was trying to make a fair living. Then his opponents from the other far- side tracked him down and „informed“ the employer about the dude's past.
    - wvenable 3y ago
      > another group prevents speaker from making his speech... That is preventing from speaking. How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed? > Allowing to fire people because of their political views is a very fine line. You can hold whatever political views you want. But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. One might want to change the law so short people can't vote -- so they broadcast that view far and wide to make that consequence happen. But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change. The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused.
      - mantas 3y ago
        > How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed? Looks like that does happen. No? Or just pushing university administrations to cancel speakers they just approved. > But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. <...> But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change. In a democracy, people decide on political views by voting. As long as people keep their views to themselves and don't harass coworkers, why would we care what views they hold? Unless the person in question starts calling for physical abuse etc. But then it's a police matter, not lynching crowds. That specific case is very wrong in many cases. Dude basically caved in and got out of politics. Yet his political enemies carried on. What's the lesson? If you ever say something contraversial, the only way is to double-down, because you'll be hunted forever? Is voicing a contraversial opinion in one's youth worse than doing heavy crimes? Since ex-prisoners re-integration is quite a big thing. I don't understand the point. Make people scared to step out of line? Create whole underclass of people who have nothing to loose for the rest of their lives? Both options are straight out of USSR playbook. > The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused. Today's social pressure is used for barbarism. And it's so twisted that it's not only not stopping good thing, but even pushing wrong things. E.g. we had LGBT protest. Some people held a counter-protest. Then one famous LGBT dude went to counter-protesters, forced himself onto one of the main counter-protesters and kissed him. Sexual assault in public right there. Yet many shitheads went on to proclaim how cool this is. And LGBT dude didn't get into any legal problems. Wonder what would happen if a counter-protester would do the same to some girl on the other side. Somehow I really doubt the consequences would be the same :) Sort of like black vs White capitalisation BS.