3 ms·

That's a strange metric to measure "free speech", as this metric would be very high in campus where free speech is strongly suppressed and where students are pu

by cauch 3y ago

That's a strange metric to measure "free speech", as this metric would be very high in campus where free speech is strongly suppressed and where students are punished to complain about discourse that are dangerous for their own safety. After all, some deplatforming attempts are themselves an exercise of free speech, where people who feel excluded from the platform are trying to rebalance the debate by asking that we stop focusing on debunked theories. Sure, not all attempts are like that, there are abuses everywhere, in all direction. But 1) as long as there is no way to handle that aspect properly, this metric is just meaningless, 2) it cuts both ways: you cannot complain about complainers without exposing yourself to the same criticisms (and, I know "it's not the same because I'm just expressing my opinion, but that person who said 'can you, just, not?' want to steal my freedom and kill my family")

hotdogscout 3y ago
>some deplatforming attempts are themselves an exercise of free speech, where people who feel excluded from the platform are trying to rebalance the debate by asking that we stop focusing on debunked theories. Bizarre paradox where a group is disenfranchised enough in academia it needs to protest dissent yet it can consistently expel people from it for disagreeing.
- cauch 3y ago
  Do they "consistently expel people" though? The very very large majority of requests to deplatforming are not followed by deplatforming. There are _tons_ of university and _tons_ of people complaining. If the majority was reaching their goal, everyone would be deplatformed all the time. (there are plenty of deplatforming protests from the "left", but as much from the "right", just look at all the banning laws discussed in states like Florida, for example) Also, why are they organizing a protest if they are the ones deciding of everything in the first place?
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    different spaces have different harassment problems. Academia can have an extreme concentration of leftist dogmatism while political society can have a far right one. Both can happen at the same time in different communities.
    - cauch 3y ago
      I'm not sure how it answer to what I say. What I've said is that: 1) the majority of attempts are not successful, so "yet it can consistently expel people from it for disagreeing" is just incorrect, so there is no paradox. 2) the people organising or allowing the events in the first place are the one in charge. If indeed the "complainers" are in charge, how is that possible that the event got the initial green light, or that the event is not simply shut down by the ones in charge when they realise they don't like it? 3) attempts are from every directions. For example, Christian student groups are organising lobbying to deplatform some stuffs they don't like for ages. It feels like this idea that it's now "all leftist" is in fact slightly "now the leftists are doing what the others were doing all along, so long that we did not notice". (not saying it's not the case, just that it's slightly biased: people trying to deplatform something you think is fair to talk about are "against free speech", people trying to deplatform something you think is stupid are just "reacting normally")
      - hotdogscout 3y ago
        >1 I'll need to look at data on that before conceding or disagreeing. (Not your job I'll look later) >the people organising or allowing the events in the first place are the one in charge How come? If I go to a town square to speak and I get lynched, am I the one in power because I organized my speech? You're extrapolating a lot of power from being able to allocate time in a anphitheater from the University. >3 Sure but it's been some years since leftism has been the worst offender when it comes to harassment in universities. I very much am against when it is the right doing the harassment (Dylan Mulvaney comes to mind).
        cauch 3y ago
        For 1: I guess I'm on the clear, because the affirmation "obviously, the majority are successful" was made without checking the exact numbers. On my side, it's just a guess, but based on the fact that there are tons of universities, tons of events, and tons of people disagreeing with these events, I would say it is very reasonable to expect that if the majority was successful, the amount would be overwhelming. > How come? If I go to a town square to speak and I get lynched, am I the one in power because I organized my speech? But people don't just "show up" to universities and, bam, they can jump on stage and do an event. The events are always vetted by the people in charge. The events and their contents are reviewed and agreed. If it was not the case, how do you explain that companies don't go there to do a "speech" that happens to promote their product, or that extremists communities cannot easily go there and do their sermon, or that politicians cannot just go there and do their campaigning? > being able to allocate time in a anphitheater from the University Do you ever participate to such process? (not an attack, a genuine question. Maybe I'm wrong on how I imagine it works) For 3: How do you judge "worst offender"? As I've said, it's very tricky, especially if the harassment from the "right" has become the norm. Or worst, when the harassment from the "left" is partially organised by the "right" (https://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/ https://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolli...) But does it even matter to the initial argument? Even if the "right" was the worst offender, the metric used in the article is still flawed. And even if the "left" is the worst offender, if there is 95% of "right-wing" events cancelled and 5% of "left-wing" events cancelled, then, the presence of 5% is the demonstration that the left-wing is not in power (otherwise, it would be 0%). More realistically, left-wing is the worst offender because they are the one using the protest tool more, while the people in power are not left-wing, they are just trying to ease the protest, but would act the same way if it was a right-wing demand.

by cauch 3y ago

hotdogscout 3y ago

>some deplatforming attempts are themselves an exercise of free speech, where people who feel excluded from the platform are trying to rebalance the debate by asking that we stop focusing on debunked theories. Bizarre paradox where a group is disenfranchised enough in academia it needs to protest dissent yet it can consistently expel people from it for disagreeing.

cauch 3y ago
Do they "consistently expel people" though? The very very large majority of requests to deplatforming are not followed by deplatforming. There are _tons_ of university and _tons_ of people complaining. If the majority was reaching their goal, everyone would be deplatformed all the time. (there are plenty of deplatforming protests from the "left", but as much from the "right", just look at all the banning laws discussed in states like Florida, for example) Also, why are they organizing a protest if they are the ones deciding of everything in the first place?
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  different spaces have different harassment problems. Academia can have an extreme concentration of leftist dogmatism while political society can have a far right one. Both can happen at the same time in different communities.
  - cauch 3y ago
    I'm not sure how it answer to what I say. What I've said is that: 1) the majority of attempts are not successful, so "yet it can consistently expel people from it for disagreeing" is just incorrect, so there is no paradox. 2) the people organising or allowing the events in the first place are the one in charge. If indeed the "complainers" are in charge, how is that possible that the event got the initial green light, or that the event is not simply shut down by the ones in charge when they realise they don't like it? 3) attempts are from every directions. For example, Christian student groups are organising lobbying to deplatform some stuffs they don't like for ages. It feels like this idea that it's now "all leftist" is in fact slightly "now the leftists are doing what the others were doing all along, so long that we did not notice". (not saying it's not the case, just that it's slightly biased: people trying to deplatform something you think is fair to talk about are "against free speech", people trying to deplatform something you think is stupid are just "reacting normally")
    - hotdogscout 3y ago
      >1 I'll need to look at data on that before conceding or disagreeing. (Not your job I'll look later) >the people organising or allowing the events in the first place are the one in charge How come? If I go to a town square to speak and I get lynched, am I the one in power because I organized my speech? You're extrapolating a lot of power from being able to allocate time in a anphitheater from the University. >3 Sure but it's been some years since leftism has been the worst offender when it comes to harassment in universities. I very much am against when it is the right doing the harassment (Dylan Mulvaney comes to mind).
      - cauch 3y ago
        For 1: I guess I'm on the clear, because the affirmation "obviously, the majority are successful" was made without checking the exact numbers. On my side, it's just a guess, but based on the fact that there are tons of universities, tons of events, and tons of people disagreeing with these events, I would say it is very reasonable to expect that if the majority was successful, the amount would be overwhelming. > How come? If I go to a town square to speak and I get lynched, am I the one in power because I organized my speech? But people don't just "show up" to universities and, bam, they can jump on stage and do an event. The events are always vetted by the people in charge. The events and their contents are reviewed and agreed. If it was not the case, how do you explain that companies don't go there to do a "speech" that happens to promote their product, or that extremists communities cannot easily go there and do their sermon, or that politicians cannot just go there and do their campaigning? > being able to allocate time in a anphitheater from the University Do you ever participate to such process? (not an attack, a genuine question. Maybe I'm wrong on how I imagine it works) For 3: How do you judge "worst offender"? As I've said, it's very tricky, especially if the harassment from the "right" has become the norm. Or worst, when the harassment from the "left" is partially organised by the "right" (https://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/ https://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolli...) But does it even matter to the initial argument? Even if the "right" was the worst offender, the metric used in the article is still flawed. And even if the "left" is the worst offender, if there is 95% of "right-wing" events cancelled and 5% of "left-wing" events cancelled, then, the presence of 5% is the demonstration that the left-wing is not in power (otherwise, it would be 0%). More realistically, left-wing is the worst offender because they are the one using the protest tool more, while the people in power are not left-wing, they are just trying to ease the protest, but would act the same way if it was a right-wing demand.