Author Topic: Now you've done it  (Read 5528 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #150 on: January 19, 2021, 10:15:09 AM »
Look, of course there have been heinous violent acts committed by BLM rioters. I don't think that's in question. What is in question, Deamon, is that you seem to be under some confusion about what happened to people who punch, kicked, threw rocks at, and otherwise attacked law enforcement and others. I haven't heard of such a person being let off the hook. You seem to be suffering under the misconception that Portland and other places were operating like "The Purge".

Nevertheless, understand that assaulting cops, as bad as that is, is not as bad as an assassination attempt that was wildly supported. But we don't have to play the "as bad as" game anyway. They are both bad, and they both get punished if they can be identified.

So deamon, In other words, you don't have any such example?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #151 on: January 19, 2021, 12:46:20 PM »
Is it a coincidence, do you think, that the Republicans released the racist 1776 Commission Report on Martin Luther King Jr day?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #152 on: January 19, 2021, 12:53:46 PM »
Do you think it's also a coincidence that the closest they got to an historian was a BA in History?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #153 on: January 19, 2021, 03:04:22 PM »
Look, of course there have been heinous violent acts committed by BLM rioters. I don't think that's in question. What is in question, Deamon, is that you seem to be under some confusion about what happened to people who punch, kicked, threw rocks at, and otherwise attacked law enforcement and others. I haven't heard of such a person being let off the hook. You seem to be suffering under the misconception that Portland and other places were operating like "The Purge".

Nevertheless, understand that assaulting cops, as bad as that is, is not as bad as an assassination attempt that was wildly supported. But we don't have to play the "as bad as" game anyway. They are both bad, and they both get punished if they can be identified.

So deamon, In other words, you don't have any such example?

Portland has them, as there were complaints from law enforcement at the time about the County Prosecutor refusing to charge, although that might have been mitigated by the Federal Government's deputizeation that happened later(although I'd expect the older cases to be grandfathered and uncharged even now).

It isn't lack of examples, its lack of bothering to go digging.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #154 on: January 20, 2021, 02:41:44 AM »
Look, of course there have been heinous violent acts committed by BLM rioters. I don't think that's in question. What is in question, Deamon, is that you seem to be under some confusion about what happened to people who punch, kicked, threw rocks at, and otherwise attacked law enforcement and others. I haven't heard of such a person being let off the hook. You seem to be suffering under the misconception that Portland and other places were operating like "The Purge".

Nevertheless, understand that assaulting cops, as bad as that is, is not as bad as an assassination attempt that was wildly supported. But we don't have to play the "as bad as" game anyway. They are both bad, and they both get punished if they can be identified.

So deamon, In other words, you don't have any such example?

Portland has them, as there were complaints from law enforcement at the time about the County Prosecutor refusing to charge, although that might have been mitigated by the Federal Government's deputizeation that happened later(although I'd expect the older cases to be grandfathered and uncharged even now).

It isn't lack of examples, its lack of bothering to go digging.

Why don't you go dig? In other words you have no example of a person who injured someone in law enforcement who didn't get charged?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #155 on: January 20, 2021, 07:54:59 AM »
And in an obviously cynical move, Trump removes his pledge to drain the swamp and lets staffers work for the Gov right after they leave office.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-frees-former-aides-ethics-101626180.html

What was meant to be a way to drain the swamp is reversed as soon as it hurts Trump.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #156 on: January 21, 2021, 04:19:02 AM »
Although this event on the 18th was an annual protest/demonstration event in Virginia, but still...

https://twitter.com/rdevro/status/1351297701619658754
Quote
Heard a 20-year-old Boogaloo Boi call a passing group of Proud Boys, “boot licking statist cucks.” The Proud Boy dismissed the boog as “anarchists.” The “Original Black Panther Party” just seemed happy to be there.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #157 on: January 21, 2021, 10:33:27 PM »
Had these brought back to my attention, and they are relevant:

Quote
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”
― Noam Chomsky

Quote
“If we do not believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all.”
― Noam Chomsky

Quote
“With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards. It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths.”
― Noam Chomsky, Chomsky On Anarchism

Quote
“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”
― Noam Chomsky

Quote
“It's only terrorism if they do it to us. When we do much worse to them, it's not terrorism.”
― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda

Quote
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
― Noam Chomsky

Quote
“If by 'intellectual' you mean people who are a special class who are in the business of imposing thoughts and forming ideas for people in power, and telling people what they should believe...they're really more a kind of secular priesthood, whose task it is to uphold the doctrinal truths of the society. And the population SHOULD be anti-intellectual in that repect.”
― Noam Chomsky


fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #158 on: January 22, 2021, 04:35:13 AM »
Well, the answer to that thing of free speech is in 2 parts:
1. Free speech, in your own jurisprudence that you are so eager to quote every time is useful to you, is limited to speech that is not "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
2. Free speech means that the government can't punish you for what you says. It says nothing about anybody having to listen to you or providing you a platform for your expression. That's left to your precious free enterprise. Summed up quite well from the XKCD guy: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #159 on: January 22, 2021, 07:31:19 AM »
TheDeamon, cherry, does that mean you oppose the recent suspension of certain prominent antifa-linked Twitter accounts?  (https://www.opindia.com/2021/01/twitter-suspends-antifa-accounts-riots-joe-biden-inauguration-portland-seattle-oregon/)

Or is your support of free speech specifically only about Trump's free speech?

On my part I certainly respect the principled position that everyone should be allowed equal time on the pulpit, if by everyone you include any groups you despise also, even Al Qaeda or NAMBLA or whomever else you may personally despise.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 07:38:16 AM by Aris Katsaris »

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #160 on: January 22, 2021, 08:12:50 AM »
Everyone should oppose those suspensions. You should be asking yourself why is twitter banning them now?  They have been active and spewing their hate for years.  Maybe it's because now that the democrats are in power they are no longer useful to them?

Edit:  Oh, and I forgot to ask...  I thought you guys told us that Antifa doesn't exist?


Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #161 on: January 22, 2021, 08:33:18 AM »
Everyone should oppose those suspensions. You should be asking yourself why is twitter banning them now?  They have been active and spewing their hate for years.  Maybe it's because now that the democrats are in power they are no longer useful to them?

Your explanation doesn't make sense because that'd similarly imply that the only reason they only banned Trump's account after the Capitol Riot (rather than years ago, since he's been active and spewing his hate for years) is because... Trump is no longer useful to them? So were both Trump & Antifa useful to Twitter during the Trump years?

My explanation is simpler: After the Capitol Riot, Twitter has finally changed its effective policy about suspending accounts, and has decided it will no longer give a pulpit to such people who seek to instigate violent attacks on democracy.

This explains *both* why they're no longer tolerating Trump *and* why they're no longer tolerating antifa.

Quote
Edit:  Oh, and I forgot to ask...  I thought you guys told us that Antifa doesn't exist?

I don't think I personally ever said any such thing, but feel free to give me a citation/quote if I somehow ever erred in this manner (I don't think I did).
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 08:36:30 AM by Aris Katsaris »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #162 on: January 22, 2021, 11:24:12 AM »
TheDeamon, cherry, does that mean you oppose the recent suspension of certain prominent antifa-linked Twitter accounts?  (https://www.opindia.com/2021/01/twitter-suspends-antifa-accounts-riots-joe-biden-inauguration-portland-seattle-oregon/)

Or is your support of free speech specifically only about Trump's free speech?

Depends on the AntiFa  page, as there is a case by case basis for them. Many of the pages taken down were used to co-ordinate and overtly advocate for violent and/or destructive actions by any reasonable man standard. They cannot even claim figurative speech. (Compared to say, Sarah Palin's "Targeted congressional districts" nearly 10 years which many Democrats wanted her banned for as a threat to the lives of the relevant Congress persons)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #163 on: January 22, 2021, 11:29:19 AM »
My explanation is simpler: After the Capitol Riot, Twitter has finally changed its effective policy about suspending accounts, and has decided it will no longer give a pulpit to such people who seek to instigate violent attacks on democracy.

This explains *both* why they're no longer tolerating Trump *and* why they're no longer tolerating antifa.

If that's the case, why did they wait until after the groups attacked the DNC Headquarters building in Portland? Why not purge them at the same time they were purging all of those "right wingers" from Twitter over the week prior? It isn't like AntiFa in Portland had stopped protesting/rioting in the interim. Oh right, until the 20th they were protesting/rioting against Trump.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #164 on: January 22, 2021, 11:36:51 AM »
2. Free speech means that the government can't punish you for what you says. It says nothing about anybody having to listen to you or providing you a platform for your expression. That's left to your precious free enterprise. Summed up quite well from the XKCD guy: https://xkcd.com/1357/

All this means is that the laws have fallen far behind the available technology, as is usually the case. The notion that free speech rules should only apply to government implies that only the government can enshrine a tyranny. But this is increasingly not the case. In fact it was scarcely even the case back in imperial days, when companies like the East India Company ran little kingdoms of their own. Of course these were effectively partnerships with the actual government, owned by prominent members of the upper crust, but nevertheless as 'private companies' they most likely had full control over the language and culture of those under them. But even in the current "free societies" we see increasingly that lateral tyranny is just as likely as top-down tyranny, insofar as controlling language and expression of ideas. Noting that the laws such as they are only stop government controlling your speech is true, but also not necessary a good thing. What does it matter who controls speech, so long as it's being controlled?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #165 on: January 22, 2021, 11:48:55 AM »
How exactly is a Twitter ban controlling anybody's speech, specifically?  Does that stop somebody from posting on Parler? From hosting their own blog? From publishing their own newspaper?  From speaking to other people? Or is it the contention that free speech means forcing specific people to listen, or forcing specific people to host your speech?

If Twitter or Facebook become effective monopolies, that's an argument for breaking them apart, not for treating them like a government.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #166 on: January 22, 2021, 12:00:14 PM »
All or almost all of the major trade companies required periodic bailing out by the government which made them less private than they appear. As far as I know, only one, The Hudson's Bay Company, survived until the present.

The problem, especially for free market conservatives, with extending the First Amendment restrictions to private corporations is that it would reinforce precedent for ever greater government interference in the market. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #167 on: January 22, 2021, 12:05:33 PM »
How exactly is a Twitter ban controlling anybody's speech, specifically?  Does that stop somebody from posting on Parler?

Except for when Parler itself is shut down because Amazon doesn't like the politics of people making use of a platform holding to free speech, and other hosting providers are unwilling to take up the job because they're afraid of the social, political, business (left-wing boycott), and other associated risks.

That and Parler is still offline as a service at this time.

Quote
From hosting their own blog? From publishing their own newspaper?  From speaking to other people? Or is it the contention that free speech means forcing specific people to listen, or forcing specific people to host your speech?

I believe Facebook and Twitter have options for blocking users you find to be odious? And starting a blog on a random hosting provider doesn't have the same cachet as having a presence "in the public space" that Twitter and Facebook want to present themselves as being.

It's like the United States deciding that the 1st Amendment only requires that so long as they allow you speak your mind in designated areas(20 miles from "any significant population") your freedom of speech needs are met, and they can institute draconian punishments for anything you say that is deemed unacceptable outside of that "Free speech zone."

Quote
If Twitter or Facebook become effective monopolies, that's an argument for breaking them apart, not for treating them like a government.

Most of this comes back to section 230. Under Section 230, they're claiming to be a public space (1st Amendment applies), while simultaneously claiming they're a private space and thus entitled to being able to exercise editorial control over their content but entitled to protection under 230.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #168 on: January 22, 2021, 12:35:37 PM »
Except for when Parler itself is shut down because Amazon doesn't like the politics of people making use of a platform holding to free speech, and other hosting providers are unwilling to take up the job because they're afraid of the social, political, business (left-wing boycott), and other associated risks.

That and Parler is still offline as a service at this time.
Is it your contention that there are no other platforms, and anybody wanting to create their own platforms to host speech is being prevented from creating them?  Whenever you pick at this argument, it always seems to unravel into "we must control businesses from acting independently"

A public utility must be open to everybody, but that doesn't mean that it must be open to people breaking the space's rules.  Should a business really be forced to host content that is calling for violence, murder or insurrection?  What about child pornography, or snuff films?  Which illegal content should companies be forced to host?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #169 on: January 22, 2021, 12:37:54 PM »
Decided to do some further digging and this seems to have a good overview, even better that it's Berkley presenting this:

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/1400_panel_-_pruneyard.pdf

Quote
Public Forum Doctrine
  • Federal law
    • Traditional
      • “a place that by long tradition has been used by the public at large for the free exchange of ideas”
      • Examples:
        • Public streets
        • Sidewalks
        • Parks
      • Test
        • Content-based restriction: strict scrutiny
          • “necessary to serve a compelling state interest”
          • “narrowly drawn to achieve that end”
        • Content-neutral: intermediate scrutiny
          • “Time, place, and manner” restrictions
          • “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest”
          • “leave open ample alternative channels of communication”
[/list][/list][/list][/list]

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #170 on: January 22, 2021, 12:52:47 PM »
Is it your contention that there are no other platforms, and anybody wanting to create their own platforms to host speech is being prevented from creating them?  Whenever you pick at this argument, it always seems to unravel into "we must control businesses from acting independently"

No, it is my contention that if someone wants to shelter under section 230, they become a public space, and in exchange for the section 230 protections, they surrender certain rights. If they don't want to surrender those right, then they should not be using section 230.

Kind of like if you want to fly using a commercial passenger airline, you cede your 4th amendment right against "unreasonable search and seizure." You agree to go through airport security and subject yourself to being searched and having things seized. Your alternative option is the fly privately from a private airfield, or not fly.

If you want to practice your right to freedom of association, don't shelter under section 230's liability protections.

Quote
A public utility must be open to everybody, but that doesn't mean that it must be open to people breaking the space's rules.  Should a business really be forced to host content that is calling for violence, murder or insurrection?  What about child pornography, or snuff films?  Which illegal content should companies be forced to host?

No. We've been clear on this, the is no constitutional requirement for people to tolerate illegal activity. This is a strawman you and others really need to give up on.

Your problem is that in the context of Amazon vs Parler, is you have Amazon pulling the equivalent of terminating Parler's lease on a property on the basis of there having been "a pattern of illegal activity on the premises" even though there is no evidence that Parler itself was acting in bad faith.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #171 on: January 22, 2021, 12:54:30 PM »
I'm sure you are trying to make a point there, but it is not clear.  You excerpted rules on restricting federal laws, not private entities, and even so, those rules leave open the ability restrict speech in certain scenarios, scenarios which have been observed in many of the parties having been kicked out by Twitter.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #172 on: January 22, 2021, 12:56:45 PM »
As for Amazon v Parler - there have been contentions on both sides that the other party was not respecting the contract.  I won't believe one side or the other until it makes its way through the court system.  I definitely won't blindly take one side's position as gospel.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #173 on: January 22, 2021, 01:04:12 PM »
How exactly is a Twitter ban controlling anybody's speech, specifically?  Does that stop somebody from posting on Parler? From hosting their own blog? From publishing their own newspaper?  From speaking to other people? Or is it the contention that free speech means forcing specific people to listen, or forcing specific people to host your speech?

If Twitter or Facebook become effective monopolies, that's an argument for breaking them apart, not for treating them like a government.

What you are describing sounds to me is a difference in functional efficiency, not in type. Let me explain: if the government wants to stop certain speech, it has a unified administrative apparatus and controls its entire enforcement system. So from an effectiveness standpoint they are 'better equipped' at stopping speech than an oligarchy would be. Unless the oligarchy in question is so far-reaching that it is effectively the government. In our present state I would say that there are unquestionably oligarchic structures in the U.S., and that they have a great capability to stifle expression. Not complete, and not as good as government would be at trying to do the same. But although historically private vs public was the big divide, I see that way of calling it a bit obsolete. The question is more about how free you really are speech without getting messed up by someone or other. It doesn't really matter to the person being blocked who's doing it. Getting deplatformed by a behind-the-scenes agreement of 'private' companies doesn't mean you are left with zero options, that's true. But it's also not true that you'd have zero options even if government tried to stop you. I mean you'd have zero legal options, but mechanically speaking you could find ways, just like people during prohibition did.

I'm not even thinking of apps being deplatformed, so much as individuals feeling afraid to say their opinion in public for fear of being fired or lambasted. I can tell you, for instance, that there are certain things I think - non-partisan topics, just various opinions -  that I could not share with the people I know in the arts community without being blacklisted (they are predominantly far-left). You can always say, hey just go to another community! Or in some other case, just go get another job! Just move! Sure, there are options. But they are not good options. For better or worse social force will be just as effective, and in many cases is more effective, than government force in keeping you in line. In fact De Tocqueville talked about this sort of thing, that the mores of the society and how people believe in their culture are going to be more important in a way than what the laws happen to be. The laws follow ploddingly behind the culture, always bowing to it in the end (according to him), but it's the attitude and beliefs of the people that move it where it goes. So I don't put a great stock in the 'safety' of free speech only being a stopgap against government tyranny. If the people have bad ideas things will go bad.

Btw I am not outright saying that the 1st amendment should be modified to include all private entities. It would actually be weird for your employer not to be able to tell you what you can and can't say on the job. In fact it might even be weird for them to have no control at all on your speech outside of work. It would be a tough sell for a Jewish bakery to keep an employee spouting Nazi slogans on social media, for instance. All I am saying is that I wouldn't be too proud of this notion of free speech laws not applying to your fellow man. It's not a good thing. But I'm not sure what would be a better alternative, either.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #174 on: January 22, 2021, 03:25:40 PM »
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequence, and yes, laws don't universally prevent even the most highly penalized actions.  I'm trying to see the relevance.

As for this: "So from an effectiveness standpoint they are 'better equipped' at stopping speech than an oligarchy would be", get back to me when either Twitter or Facebook start imprisoning people or killing them for their opinions.

And why you feel the need for pride in either supporting or opposing free speech laws, I have no idea.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #175 on: January 22, 2021, 05:23:56 PM »
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequence

Every time I hear someone say something like this I can't help but hear it as being pseudo-fascist. I know you are saying it in a neutral way, but in almost all contexts it is a dog whistle for "the law may allow it, but we are gonna mess you up." And in almost all cases it involves enforcing particular dogmas, not universally agreed upon standards (e.g. yelling fire in a theatre).

Quote
And why you feel the need for pride in either supporting or opposing free speech laws, I have no idea.

I thought this was self-evident, but I guess I'll explain. When people say that free speech is only a restriction on government, this is (lately) usually in context of the issue of trying to cancel or block people from speaking. And in all cases I have seen it is specifically an enthusiastic remark, celebrating the fact that people are 'free' to enforce speech codes on each other. So when we hear "never meant freedom from consquences", although you may have meant it neutrally, it is rarely neutral, but is rather a way of saying that "we are going to wreck people who say things we don't like." Well I also acknowledge that this is a fact, but I am not enthusiastic about it. Obviously being able to socially control conduct is not invariably a bad thing. But it is bad when there is a mob mentality attached, even a glee of being able to smash those who you disagree with through a sort of public power. There is nothing to be enthusiastic about with people wielding social power over each other in the form of bullying. That is why I specified that I'm not sure how to avoid it, but I wouldn't celebrate it. When people cancel other people you bet they are celebrating it. They think it's good because the power seems to be in their hands. I'll refer you to the "until they came for me" quote.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #176 on: January 22, 2021, 06:37:16 PM »
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequence

Every time I hear someone say something like this I can't help but hear it as being pseudo-fascist. I know you are saying it in a neutral way, but in almost all contexts it is a dog whistle for "the law may allow it, but we are gonna mess you up." And in almost all cases it involves enforcing particular dogmas, not universally agreed upon standards (e.g. yelling fire in a theatre).

Of course, every time I hear a conservative defend the right of the Right to say whatever they want, it's a dog whistle for "I can say anything I want, but you should shut up, and I'm not responsible for the consequences."

Because the conversation usually goes along these lines.

Conservative: [Says something a Liberal finds stupid.]

Liberal: "That was stupid and bigoted."  (Sometimes goes on to show how it was stupid and bigoted.)

Conservative: "How dare you call me stupid and bigoted!  I have the right to free speech!"  (First says the other person doesn't have the right to criticize him, i.e. shouldn't use his right to Free Speech.  Then doesn't address how his words might have been stupid and bigoted, just uses Free Speech as an excuse to say whatever he wants.)

Liberal: "Your words inspired others to do stupid and bigoted things."

Conservative: "I have the right to Free Speech!  I can say whatever I want!" (Again, wants the other person not to exercise his right to Free Speech.  Then uses the Right to Free Speech as a way to not to take any responsibility for what he said and how it affected people, such as inspiring them to do violence.)

If you doubt this, consider Trump's last four years. :)

So while you see it as a dog whistle for mind control, I see your defense as a dog whistle for trying to make the other side to shut up and to evade responsibility for the results of your words.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #177 on: January 22, 2021, 06:44:50 PM »
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequence

Every time I hear someone say something like this I can't help but hear it as being pseudo-fascist. I know you are saying it in a neutral way, but in almost all contexts it is a dog whistle for "the law may allow it, but we are gonna mess you up." And in almost all cases it involves enforcing particular dogmas, not universally agreed upon standards (e.g. yelling fire in a theatre).

And even if every does agree to the fact that there should be a consequence for what was said. There is that whole other matter of "proportionate and appropriate response." Which would need to be brought into it.

Destroying someone's life because they declare their like for Pilsner Beers, while you favor Ale is not an appropriate, or proportionate, response.

Quote
Quote
And why you feel the need for pride in either supporting or opposing free speech laws, I have no idea.

I thought this was self-evident, but I guess I'll explain. When people say that free speech is only a restriction on government, this is (lately) usually in context of the issue of trying to cancel or block people from speaking. And in all cases I have seen it is specifically an enthusiastic remark, celebrating the fact that people are 'free' to enforce speech codes on each other. So when we hear "never meant freedom from consequences", although you may have meant it neutrally, it is rarely neutral, but is rather a way of saying that "we are going to wreck people who say things we don't like." Well I also acknowledge that this is a fact, but I am not enthusiastic about it. Obviously being able to socially control conduct is not invariably a bad thing. But it is bad when there is a mob mentality attached, even a glee of being able to smash those who you disagree with through a sort of public power. There is nothing to be enthusiastic about with people wielding social power over each other in the form of bullying. That is why I specified that I'm not sure how to avoid it, but I wouldn't celebrate it. When people cancel other people you bet they are celebrating it. They think it's good because the power seems to be in their hands. I'll refer you to the "until they came for me" quote.

Pretty much. But a LOT of this comes from the weaponization of speech mostly by the political left. That isn't to say that speech wasn't being used as a weapon before, after all we also have the adage about "the pen is mightier than the sword" and the perils of fighting against someone who "buys ink by the barrel."

It's that issues have been turned into life-of-death items of contention. Climate Change? "If you disagree with the consensus, you must want to destroy humanity's future." And in the face of that, the fate of the human race, any recourse becomes easy to justify.

Likewise with popular portrayals of how words themselves can be just as violent as weapons, and why it is thus important to do things like use a person's favored pronouns are gaining momentum. You used the wrong pronoun? "You're a violent gender-denialist who must be a natural ally of Nazi's," and because your an ally of the Nazi's at best, any means necessary is justified in silencing you.

The list goes on, and on, and on. You hold a view that disagrees with "the consensus" and you are a danger in some way, shape, or form, and need to be stopped.

It doesn't matter that "the consensus" isn't controlled by a government. The fact that deviating from it can be used to justify your destruction should be alarming to everyone. "The Consensus" is not always right, sometime it is wrong. Creating a society where any challenger to it is immediately destroyed is a society that doesn't want progress. It wants the status quo, forever.

I favor a world where change can, and does, happen. What's currently being pushed by the self-declared "progressives" in the Western World is anything but progressive, its regressive. Except they can point to the conservatives as the ones fighting to keep things (kind-of) how they are as cover for what they're really doing.

"Pluck not out the mote in thy brother's eye, whilst ignoring the beam in thine own eye" has never been more relevant. People need to be more self-aware of exactly what they're advocating for when they try to hamper the dissent of people they disagree with.

Let the fool speak, allow the consequence to be that everyone can the fool for what he is. Of course, that requires you to have faith in the marketplace of ideas and be willing to engage in it honestly yourself. Dishonest actors will always be a problem, but pretending they don't exist by pushing them to the fringes rather than properly defanging them doesn't help.

To put it another way, we don't practice animal control by banishing unwanted animals into the wilderness(the fringes). The more humane among us also try to forgo euthanasia. The favored approach in general is to spay and neuter, but for that, you need to take them to a medical practitioner.

What the "there are consequences" group is doing at present is the banishment option, no spay, no neuter. No other countermeasures against letting mis-information run rampant and breed further. Nope, just paper over the mold and rot in the walls. It won't be a problem going forward, no need to address the root cause.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #178 on: January 22, 2021, 06:47:51 PM »
WS, your variant, also known as "it's a free country!!1!" is not unknown to me, and is frankly totally unrelated to the issue I was addressing. It's also annoying, and also speaks to the character of the American public. It's a sort of spoiled brat attitude if anything you do is amazing and you should be praised for it, and if people don't like it I'm going to my mommy kind of thing. It's got a pinch of narcissism, as you suggest, although I don't think this attitude is restricted to bona fide narcissists.

But it's different from what I was talking about because you're referring to, essentially, idiots. I think you could find idiots of other dispositions who have other tropes they follow, although I'll agree the one you mention is a particularly insufferable one. But I am not talking about beer swilling morons, I'm talking about people who some snidely call the intelligentsia, bloggers, and others who are quite clear-headed and philosophical about the fact that people who express wrong opinions need to disappear. It's a thoroughly considered position I'm talking about, although of course we can assume many who parrot it are in fact idiots of a different disposition than the right-wing hick type you're talking about. But the group I'm talking about is not restricted to moronic hicks, it's an entire swathe of the population. There is a very large artistic population on my social media, and although they aren't completely uniform in disposition, there is a fairly strong mainstream majority who enthusiastically and triumphantly post about wrongthink being stopped and punished. So I don't think this is comparable to a mindless goon like in your example. But both goons and zealouts do have one thing in common: you can't reason with them. The difference is that the goon may be a bull in a china shop, but until he's part of an organized and powerful social movement, he doesn't worry me. He may aggravate me; he may cause me to wonder about humanity; but he doesn't make me fear that anyone is coming for me.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #179 on: January 22, 2021, 06:49:49 PM »
Of course, every time I hear a conservative defend the right of the Right to say whatever they want, it's a dog whistle for "I can say anything I want, but you should shut up, and I'm not responsible for the consequences."

Because the conversation usually goes along these lines.

Conservative: [Says something a Liberal finds stupid.]

Liberal: "That was stupid and bigoted."  (Sometimes goes on to show how it was stupid and bigoted.)

Conservative: "How dare you call me stupid and bigoted!  I have the right to free speech!"  (First says the other person doesn't have the right to criticize him, i.e. shouldn't use his right to Free Speech.  Then doesn't address how his words might have been stupid and bigoted, just uses Free Speech as an excuse to say whatever he wants.)

Nice strawman, I'm not going to deny it happens in reality because I'm pretty sure it does. More often than anyone should be comfortable with. But to think that is only a problem with Conservatives is pretty laughable. There are plenty of Democrat "true believers" who say, do, and believe dumb things and are likewise immune to facts and counter-evidence. So "Yay! Humanity?"

Quote
Liberal: "Your words inspired others to do stupid and bigoted things."

Conservative: "I have the right to Free Speech!  I can say whatever I want!" (Again, wants the other person not to exercise his right to Free Speech.  Then uses the Right to Free Speech as a way to not to take any responsibility for what he said and how it affected people, such as inspiring them to do violence.)

Because the reverse of this scenario has never happened.  ::)

Quote
So while you see it as a dog whistle for mind control, I see your defense as a dog whistle for trying to make the other side to shut up and to evade responsibility for the results of your words.

I'd stop short of calling it mind control. I do think it is very strongly authoritarian in nature though.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #180 on: January 22, 2021, 07:27:40 PM »
An example might be helpful.

Quote
Negy became a target of intense Black Lives Matter protests over the summer after he tweeted: “Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.”

He eventually got canned by his University. Now, this is certainly an insensitive comment to make in an environment when cops are killing black people, along with a host of other injustices. It implies that they are better off than white people somehow, which is simply ridiculous.

Do I agree with this type of "cancellation", and if not who deserves the blame? I don't think he should have gotten fired for it, personally, I would expect a more appropriate response like censure. Note that this tweet wasn't in isolation.

Quote
The professor, Charles Negy, is a prolific commentator on Twitter and the author of a book titled “White Shaming: Bullying Based on Prejudice, Virtue-Signaling, and Ignorance.”

The University affirmed that he was due his rights to make such comments in public, and they officially fired him for discrimination in the classroom or on campus. Whether true or not, we can certainly agree that the calls for his departure initiated the action.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #181 on: January 22, 2021, 07:53:33 PM »
When people say that free speech is only a restriction on government, this is (lately) usually in context of the issue of trying to cancel or block people from speaking.

From what I've seen, it's usually in the context of of someone saying something racist or otherwise so controversial that it immediately leads to some form of social censure, sometimes in the form of the loss of employment, or the loss of business opportunities, and then those people decrying said resulting censure, by stating they have free speech rights.

I suppose one person's "cancellation" is another person's boycott, although why people think boycotts are inherently bad - being as they are simply the result of people freely choosing to make their own economic decisions - is beyond me.  Or why people think that people making their own economic decisions somehow equates to fascism... Now, as for online abuse, trolling or stalking, and organizing people into attacking those they disagree with - that type of activity is problematic.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #182 on: January 22, 2021, 09:01:07 PM »
From what I've seen, it's usually in the context of of someone saying something racist or otherwise so controversial that it immediately leads to some form of social censure

See this is what I'm talking about: I could easily find two people, each stating their contrary opinions, and each convinced the other is a total racist. In fact we would see now right if, that is, if two people of such opposed views could be brought to actually talk to each other...

Controversial is itself a controversial word. It was very controversial to the old church communities to speak of fornicating, and you would no doubt be censured for suggesting people do so. That people can still exercise social control over each other for more updated mores is not in question. What is in question is that the same faction denouncing the old religious status quo for imposing morals (often wrong morals, it is added) on people are in fact quite happy to do exactly the same, so long as they are sure (just as the old religious communities were) that their morals are finally the correct ones. Quel surprise. It's as Frank Herbert said: show me a rebel, and I'll show you a closet aristocrat.

Quote
I suppose one person's "cancellation" is another person's boycott, although why people think boycotts are inherently bad - being as they are simply the result of people freely choosing to make their own economic decisions - is beyond me.  Or why people think that people making their own economic decisions somehow equates to fascism... Now, as for online abuse, trolling or stalking, and organizing people into attacking those they disagree with - that type of activity is problematic.

Boycotts themselves are funny, because typically they don't amount to much. No doubt part of the reason for this is a lack of organization. The reason why cancelling works is because of successful orchestration - or at least perceived orchestration - of a large group of people. Despite the frequent claim that the social justice movements are grassroots and decentralized, which is largely true, nevertheless they just happen to function like highly organized think tanks. This no doubt has to do with mathematical functions like viral spread, timing of social media propagation, and other factors, but the bottom line is that these 'movements' are typically highly in lockstep, all booming at once, and with a striking uniformity of statement. If I may say so, the uniformity itself is the most noteworthy and alarming aspect to it. That should be a red flag for anyone. But I digress - it's precisely because it isn't just a few trolls tweeting their discontent that things are where they are now. Somehow the lateral communication method seems to be more or less as effective as hierarchical structure in terms of transmitting a message and a perceived threat. Another reason why public vs private is really an outdated concept.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #183 on: January 23, 2021, 04:09:45 AM »
Another aspect of these types of boycotts is how our so called media amplifies a few twits from Twitter to give traction to political assassinations against any business owner who dared to donate to Trump. So a few people on Twitter get outraged and decide to boycott. So what? But then the media in the guise of a so called "news story" works to silence support for Trump and Republicans. I've never seen a story the other way around where the media did the same thing when a few conservatives get outraged on Twitter at some person for donating to Pelosi or Biden and then did their damnedest to destroy that person and their livelihood. It's all just too transparent an attempt to silence and destroy political opposition under the guise of "free speech" and "news" and some of it even includes lies and fake news like about Trump being the one who started putting kids in cages when that was Obama.


https://news.yahoo.com/parents-furious-learning-beloved-baby-193633791.html

"This week, news of Dumaplin's political persuasions exploded after fellow parenting blogger Jamie Grayson shared a screenshot of showing Federal Election Commission records of Dumaplin's multiple donations to Trump's campaign.

"You cannot take cara babies if the person you're supporting puts them in cages. Full stop," Grayson wrote in a caption accompanying the FEC screenshot."

---------------------------------------

If anyone responded that, "You also cannot take cara babies if they get aborted first" how much would anyone like to bet that wouldn't make it into the story?

Just as an aside we also all saw what happened to our favorite author and his movie too.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #184 on: January 26, 2021, 12:51:19 PM »
Quote
In an affidavit filed in federal court, a special agent with the US Capitol Police says the man, John Lolos, was identified by a Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority police officer after Lolos was kicked off a Delta flight the afternoon of January 8 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The crew had decided to turn the plane around while it was taxiing, according to the agent, because Lolos was causing a disturbance by "continuously yelling 'Trump 2020!'"

Antifa is everywhere! Lolos now in custody. No doubt his paedophile masters will soon get him released and the charges dropped. I hope they have allocated enough storage for the no fly list, between deranged Trumpians and antimaskers.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #185 on: January 26, 2021, 02:50:11 PM »
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1354035548524957697/

Quote
The mob who stormed the capitol to try to stop Congress from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities were behaving like domestic enemies of our country. But let us be clear, the John Brennan's, Adam Schiffs and the oligarchs in Big Tech who are... [1/3]

... trying to undermine our constitutionally-protected rights and turn our country into a police state with KGB-style "surveillance" are also domestic enemies—and much more powerful, and therefore dangerous, than the mob which stormed the capitol. ... [2/3]

President Biden, I call upon you & all of Congress from both parties to denounce efforts by Brennan & others to take away our civil liberties endowed to us by our Creator & guaranteed in our Constitution. If you don’t stand up to them now, then our country will be in great peril.[3/3]

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #186 on: January 26, 2021, 03:17:21 PM »
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1354035548524957697/

Hmmmmm.  I don't think I can recall John Brennan, Adam Schiff, Jack Dorsey, and Mark Zuckerberg breaking into the Capitol to stop Congress from fulfilling it's constitutionally mandated duties.  How again are they more powerful and more dangerous?   

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #187 on: January 26, 2021, 03:30:05 PM »
What I find hilarious with the faux outrage of Trump getting de-platformed from Twitter and Facebook, is that he spent years breaking the terms of service, doing things (and worse) that got other users suspended and banned - and Trump got a pass because he was president.

When his actions, actions that were already against the stated rules, were linked to an attack on the US government and the associated deaths, injuries and arrests, and coincidentally just two weeks before he was to lose his get-out-of-social-media-jail-card anyway, it was only then that Trump was finally treated like other users of the platforms. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #188 on: January 26, 2021, 03:32:27 PM »
Hmmmmm.  I don't think I can recall John Brennan, Adam Schiff, Jack Dorsey, and Mark Zuckerberg breaking into the Capitol to stop Congress from fulfilling it's constitutionally mandated duties.  How again are they more powerful and more dangerous?

Because Schiff controls some of those levers of state, Brennan has the ear of people who control some of those levers, Dorsey and Zuckerberg have considerable ability to control the dialogue.

While the January 6th people were "obvious threats" they also were ineffectual.

Meanwhile Schiff, Bennan, Dorsey, and Zuckerberg are making like the Wizard of Oz and demanding you pay no attention to the men behind the curtains.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #189 on: January 26, 2021, 03:35:16 PM »
Effectuality should not really be a measuring stick.  I mean attempted murder may not be as bad as murder, but it is still attempted murder.

Just because they failed at insurrection should not change what they tried to do. Over throw the legitimate election results of the country.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #190 on: January 26, 2021, 03:37:19 PM »
Hmmmmm.  I don't think I can recall John Brennan, Adam Schiff, Jack Dorsey, and Mark Zuckerberg breaking into the Capitol to stop Congress from fulfilling it's constitutionally mandated duties.  How again are they more powerful and more dangerous?

Because Schiff controls some of those levers of state, Brennan has the ear of people who control some of those levers, Dorsey and Zuckerberg have considerable ability to control the dialogue.

While the January 6th people were "obvious threats" they also were ineffectual.

Meanwhile Schiff, Bennan, Dorsey, and Zuckerberg are making like the Wizard of Oz and demanding you pay no attention to the men behind the curtains.

And that would be different from McConnell how exactly?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #191 on: January 26, 2021, 03:49:40 PM »
Am amused that the danger posed by rich people who by their accumulation of capital and their wealth disproportionately affect discourse (as they've always done, see e.g. Robert Murdoch) is somehow seen as a *communist* threat to democracy, rather than a capitalist one.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #192 on: January 26, 2021, 03:49:43 PM »
Effectuality should not really be a measuring stick.  I mean attempted murder may not be as bad as murder, but it is still attempted murder.

Just because they failed at insurrection should not change what they tried to do. Over throw the legitimate election results of the country.

This.

Here's a hint - if only successful insurrections are eligible for punishment, then there would be no deterrent effect of having rules against insurrection.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #193 on: January 26, 2021, 03:55:58 PM »
Why doth treason never prosper?

If it prospers, none dare call it treason.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #194 on: January 26, 2021, 04:16:37 PM »
Because Schiff controls some of those levers of state

Is that not his constitutionally appointed duty to control those levers of state?  Is that not his job which the people of California elected him to do?  Are you against Schiff exercising his office? 

Quote
Brennan has the ear of people who control some of those levers

So does Rush Limbaugh, apparently.  I'm sure they have the ears of different people, though.  Is it unconstitutional and illegal for these elected representatives to listen to people? 

Quote
Dorsey and Zuckerberg have considerable ability to control the dialogue

No more than OrneryMod and OSC has on controlling the dialogue on this forum.  No more than you have in controlling the dialogue on your Ham radio set.  Is it illegal or unconstitutional to control your own property? 

Quote
While the January 6th people were "obvious threats" they also were ineffectual.

I don't understand how you can be an obvious threat but be ineffectual at the same time.  It's like saying the NVA and Viet Cong are bigger problems than the Wehrmacht and IJN.  After all, the Wehrmacht and IJN were ineffectual.

What exactly did the January 6th people threaten?  Let's see. If they were successful they would have overturned an election using violence and installed an unconstitutional dictator as POTUS and made ineffectual the Legislative branch of the US Government.  Thank goodness they were ineffectual. That didn't seem to stop them from trying. 

Quote
Meanwhile Schiff, Bennan, Dorsey, and Zuckerberg are making like the Wizard of Oz and demanding you pay no attention to the men behind the curtains.

So their crime is sending teenage girls with a team of oddballs to steal broomsticks from witches?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #195 on: January 26, 2021, 04:27:19 PM »
Treason is throwing the borders wide open especially during a pandemic.

And Biden's treason is indeed prospering which is why it won't be called the treason that it is.

And Biden isn't just betraying America either. He's betraying Latin America too, to the extent that we owe them the common decency not to make their troubles worse right now by encouraging mass migrations. You have countries where when people enter they have to go into a two week quarantine, and that's fine and prudent. As these tens of thousands of migrants are traveling from one end of Latin America to the other on their way to America to accept Joe Biden's gracious invitation are they stopping and quarantining for two weeks whenever they get to to a new population center? Biden is responsible super-spreading Covid-19 more than any other single person in the world right now.

Now that Trump is out, perhaps it's a good time to start looking at Joe Biden's lies. Here's a whopper about Covid-19:

"If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data."

The histrionics over the D.C. riot are just over the top. The people weren't trying to overturn any election. They were trying to keep an election from getting stolen. If they were wrong about it being stolen then fine but it was a protest that got out of hand, not an insurrection or sedition or treason. Good grief people get a grip.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #196 on: January 26, 2021, 04:37:49 PM »
Well from their own words they were trying to stop the certification of Joe Biden. they may have thought the election was stolen, but that was because they were misled and lied too by Trump and his cronies.  They wanted to stop the change of the Executive Office from Trump to Biden and some of them were willing to kill to stop it.  It is almost just blind luck that none of the Reps or Senators were injured or killed.  Some of the rioters had that intention and say they were just doing what Trump told them to do.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #197 on: January 26, 2021, 05:07:44 PM »
There were a few nuts mixed in with the bag but that hardly represents the vast majority of the protesters. Only when it's conservatives is that the case. Every other time with any other protest they are considered outliers and not representative of the whole.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #198 on: January 26, 2021, 05:08:19 PM »
"If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data."

Yup. This was clearly a stupid thing to say.  And he almost certainly knew it was a lie.

1 down, 29,999 to go.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Now you've done it
« Reply #199 on: January 26, 2021, 05:09:35 PM »
Treason is throwing the borders wide open especially during a pandemic.

And Biden's treason is indeed prospering which is why it won't be called the treason that it is.

Do you have links to any Biden policy initiatives to show how Biden is going to throw the boarders wide open?
If in a year or so and the boarders remain secure and not 'wide open' will you acknowledge that or will you continue to believe they are 'wide open' regardless of what Biden does?