Knights of Glory and Beer

Serving the online community since 1997

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 18 of 22 1 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
#145716 - 01/09/19 12:33 AM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
I hope you heard about Sokal hoax. There was a newer, much more extensive repeat of the hoax, with 7 out of 20 papers getting through, including publishing feminist-ized chapter of Mein Kampf.

So in response Portland University started discipline proceedings against one of the authors implementing this hoax.


#145717 - 01/09/19 05:19 AM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
rhaikh Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
rhaikh  Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
Portland, OR
Originally Posted by Sini
I fundamentally disagree with you that censorship is hypothetical. ... I also disagree with you that we can't do anything about it legislatively. We absolutely can and should.


Now you're being inconsistent again. We agreed that regulation of freedom of expression should be limited in application to monopolies. You know, for sake of argument I would love it if you made some absurd suggestion about forcing non-monopolies to give up their freedom of expression. Unfortunately, implying that but never stating it directly leaves you with no actual position we can discuss. This is what I meant when I said "vapid" earlier.

Originally Posted by Sini
Your "the next step" and "the sails of this fascist movement" is a cliche and absurd knee jerk into guilt by association


I'm happy to state this as directly as possible. I'm saying that this argument has no substance, and that authoritarians of all stripes are actively promoting it to further their own cause. I understand you believe your motives are separate. If these words make you feel "guilty," find your resolution in yourself.


Finally...

Originally Posted by Sini
if these people don't have freedom of speech then nobody does. Do you at least agree with me on this proposition?


Yes, I agree. Despite open hostility by many large companies, ultimately all of your examples are enjoying freedom from governmental censorship and the ability to continue to express their ideas. They are not entitled to platform. This is status quo and this is working. Your alternative needs to work better.


[Linked Image]
#145718 - 01/09/19 11:59 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: rhaikh]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
if these people don't have freedom of speech then nobody does. Do you at least agree with me on this proposition?


Yes, I agree. Despite open hostility by many large companies, ultimately all of your examples are enjoying freedom from governmental censorship and the ability to continue to express their ideas.


I am glad we are finding some points of agreement, however "freedom from governmental censorship" is necessary but not sufficient condition for freedom of speech to exist.

Quote
They are not entitled to platform. This is status quo and this is working. Your alternative needs to work better.


This is where we fundamentally disagree. The only way to see what is currently happening as "working" is if you agree with deplatfoming political opponents, as this goes beyond just censoring Nazis. I see what happening over social media as censorship, as collusion of high tech corporations with what used to be fringe groups in pushing our society into illiberality. Similar is happening in academia and now starting to happening in entertainment and arts.


#145721 - 01/15/19 04:59 AM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
rhaikh Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
rhaikh  Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
Portland, OR
Originally Posted by Sini
This is where we fundamentally disagree. The only way to see what is currently happening as "working" is if you agree with deplatfoming political opponents, as this goes beyond just censoring Nazis.


I don't want to go around in circles here any more. This is "working" in the sense that this is exactly what it means to support the freedom of expression: you tolerate the freedom of groups independent from the government to exercise their speech, while maintaining your ability to speak against them for their actions. It's "working" in the sense that you have no legitimate alternative solution, because the only alternative involves the coercive suppression of speech by the government. Until and unless you can argue for something we haven't already discussed here, you will need to prove that a) those you regard as being "censored" have no (as in zero, empty set) legitimate alternative outlets for speech and b) there exists a legislative remedy for this "censorship" which does not, in turn, outweigh itself in the suppression of speech of private organizations.

Or, you can just admit that your narrative that there's a vast left-wing conspiracy to dismantle freedom of speech is a crock of shit. I know which would be easier.


[Linked Image]
#145722 - 01/15/19 04:52 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: rhaikh]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 636
Brutal Offline
KGB Knight
Brutal  Offline
KGB Knight
*****

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 636
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Or, you can just admit that your narrative that there's a vast left-wing conspiracy to dismantle freedom of speech is a crock of shit. I know which would be easier.


I hate to sound petty because everything you say up to this phrase is very reasonable; but.. This phrase is exactly the sort that people who believe in a "vast left-wing conspiracy" point to as ammunition for their argument.

"..just be quiet and accept it.." or "..admit that you don't know what's going on.." or "..wouldn't it just be easier to accept that you are wrong.." and the like, even if not phrased exactly this way all sound like "..I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU.." which is a pretty big turn-off. If you care enough about the argument and the other individual, and you believe you do know better than they do, then you should want to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are right and they are wrong, or to be proven wrong yourself! I know that in this case you believe you have done the former, and that Sini is just being contrary, but even though I tend to agree with many of your arguments I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other. I'd hate to see what looks to me like a productive argument abandoned so easily.

Last edited by Brutal; 01/15/19 04:53 PM.
#145723 - 01/15/19 06:20 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Brutal]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
rhaikh Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
rhaikh  Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
Portland, OR
Originally Posted by Brutal
I'd hate to see what looks to me like a productive argument abandoned so easily.


Well then, for your sake, I hope his next reply contains some substance or self reflection. Otherwise I don't see anything more productive coming out of this, which is why I said that. What I do predict is a continued stream of anecdotes from his favorite sources of.. uh, ammunition

Last edited by rhaikh; 01/15/19 06:21 PM.

[Linked Image]
#145727 - 01/17/19 12:26 AM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
How satisfactory evidence of collusion would look like? A dump of internal emails where executives discussing censorship strategies? Transcripts of private conversations? Even if I were to somewhow provide such evidence, then still it would be too easy for you to dismiss it as few bad apples or exceptional circumstances or misguided actions of a few overzealous players. To me, it is very clear that Rhaikh is asking for impossible to meet standard of proof.

I can never meet such standard of proof, as it designed to be unmet, however I can share how I reached my conclusions. I listened to what conservatives have to say, first skeptically and then with the realization that they are largely justified when complaining about social media. Constant shadowbans, demonetization, suspensions are commonplace for anything outside what I call California-Left political thought. You don't encounter this in any form if you are vanilla semi-woke Left. I started seeing this when I took interest in critiques of third-wave feminism. Anyone daring to speak up against orthodoxy in this area is immediately find themselves under constant siege of harassment that is unchecked, and any even marginal transgression is heavyhandedly and disproportionately punished. I can interpolate that this happens to most conservative ideas, and not just to opponents of feminism. It got so ridiculous, and so eat-your-own, that a prominent feminist was recently banned from Twitter for making "men aren't women" post with a stated justification that such statement is transphobic.

Now, your standard for being censored (i.e. "have no (as in zero, empty set) legitimate alternative outlets") is outright farcical. Applying your standard, banning anyone voicing support for Trump from FB, Twitter, WhatsApp, Youtube would not constitute censorship, because they still could write letters to the congress. A more objective standard would be "there are substantial impediments to speech of groups of people that adhere to certain ideology".

Last but not least, your warped understanding of free speech, where you see censorship by social media corporations as exercise of their speech is offensive perversion of the idea. It is fruit of the same poisoned tree that brought us Citizens United v. FEC. It is absurd to think that corporations have rights of that kind, and it is offensive to consider that application of such rights can impede rights of actual humans. To put it bluntly - Twitter's ability to censor political views is not a right, while actual living human's ability to express political views on Twitter is.

As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, solution to this is very similar to what we already do. Just like it is illegal for a public bakery to refuse to serve cake to a homsexual couple, it should be illegal for Twitter to refuse to serve twits to conservatives they find deplorable.


#145728 - 01/18/19 06:02 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
rhaikh Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
rhaikh  Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 783
Portland, OR
I feel like we have made a lot of progress to get here, even though you don't directly say it.

Your complaints that actions from small publishers, twitter mobs, and the like have a chilling effect on speech have been deflated. You seem to have abandoned arguing for it. Please be respectful of this decision in the future.

Let's trim some more fat before moving on to what you're now arguing for.

In your previous examples, the people who have been "censored" have been removed by payment providers and domain registrars. I'd say the argument for being "guaranteed" service by these companies on grounds of speech is fairly less complex than social media, where you are literally encouraged to promote speech. They cited terms of service violations around hate speech and incitement of violence in some cases - they were being disruptive. So, do you think these companies should not have the right to refuse service? Social media companies also argue disruption and ToS violation, so where is the line you'd draw where this right is taken away?

As a head start on your main argument, and before you answer the above, the essential reason the cake shop was violating the Civil Rights Act is that refusing service was not on grounds of behavior disruptive to their legitimate business interests, and was not equivalent to compelling speech - e.g. the cake shop was not forced to promote the cake for the same-sex wedding, only to make it, and this had no impact on their business otherwise. The payment providers and domain registars (and social media) are all arguing that these customers DO represent a disruption to their legitimate business interests. (Social media, I would argue, is additionally compelled to promote speech in a limited way).

Addendum: If a publicly known Nazi wanted to make a website about cute kittens, I would agree that they should be allowed to do so as refusing them because they're a Nazi is not a legitimate reason for a business regarded as a "public accommodation". It's the act of disruption that has put their service in jeopardy. A private organization would be within their right to refuse service for any reason, including collusion, which is why I a) didn't bring that up and b) didn't address your desire to move the argument there.

Last edited by rhaikh; 01/18/19 06:18 PM.

[Linked Image]
#145729 - 01/19/19 01:05 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
Twitter mobs, actions of niche publishers are all part of the marauding left eating itself. Bad actors behind these actions are still agitating for naked censorship of ideas they find offensive or unacceptable. You haven't convinced me this isn't the case, however, you did manage to Godwin that discussion more than a few times. We did move on from that low point, but it was abandoned only insofar as I gave up on you being capable of moving past emotional arguments and rediscovering rationality.

Quote
In your previous examples, the people who have been "censored" have been removed by payment providers and domain registrars. ... They cited terms of service violations around hate speech ... do you think these companies should not have the right to refuse service?


These companies should not have the right to refuse service. If we agree that such right ought to exist, then it should also apply to Cake Shops, Catholic Hospitals and so on. You can't argue that refusing baking a cake for a gay wedding in any way different from refusing DNS registration for a supremacists site. What about Cake Shop implementing ToS with "You will not endorse or practice acts in contravention of Leviticus 18:22"? Would that in your eyes make refused service reasonable? There are too many ways to define hate speech for free speech to survive it. Plus, using "hate speech is against ToS" as justification in such cases is a clear case of parallel construction - you decide whom you want to exclude and then craft ToS to enable you to do so.

Quote
As a head start on your main argument, and before you answer the above, the essential reason the cake shop was violating the Civil Rights Act is that refusing service was not on grounds of behavior disruptive to their legitimate business interests, and was not equivalent to compelling speech - e.g. the cake shop was not forced to promote the cake for the same-sex wedding, only to make it, and this had no impact on their business otherwise. The payment providers and domain registars (and social media) are all arguing that these customers DO represent a disruption to their legitimate business interests. (Social media, I would argue, is additionally compelled to promote speech in a limited way).


This is a bunch of bullshit. If you argue "only to make it", then you can also argue "only to register" and "only to process". Nobody reasonable would confuse DNS registration with endorsing hate speech and nobody reasonable would consider registering stormfront website to be disruptive to other DNS registration. However, the whole point is that you don't want to be reasonable, you want to censor Nazis without owning up to your actions. Try being honest for a change, say it with me "I just want to censor Nazis". You will feel better afterwards.



#145731 - 01/19/19 04:59 PM Re: Is the left eating itself? [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by rhaikh
What I do predict is a continued stream of anecdotes from his favorite sources of.. uh, ammunition


Yes, favorite sources like this den of alt-right thought also known as The New Your Times. For example...

NYT: We're All Fascists Now

Quote

Christina Hoff Sommers is a self-identified feminist and registered Democrat with a Ph.D. in philosophy... In advance of the lecture, nine student groups... sent a letter protesting the appearance by this “known fascist.”

The letter added that her invitation amounted to an “act of aggression and violence” and went on to offer a curious definition of free speech: “Freedom of speech is certainly an important tenet to a free, healthy society, but that freedom stops when it has a negative and violent impact on other individuals.”

Yes, these future lawyers believe that free speech is acceptable only when it doesn’t offend them. Which is to say, they don’t believe in it at all.


This article seems to perfectly describe Rhaikh's values.



Page 18 of 22 1 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Moderated by  Derid 

Page Time: 0.047s Queries: 16 (0.015s) Memory: 3.1562 MB (Peak: 3.2661 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2019-06-24 15:17:21 UTC