The KGB Oracle

Is the left eating itself?

Posted By: Sini

Is the left eating itself? - 04/21/18 04:22 PM



My answer also aligns with this - modern left is regressive and reactionary. As a classical liberal, I found myself marginalized by prudish, censorious, reactionaries that call themselves "Left" these days. Even on this forum these bad actors had influence and say.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/22/18 02:33 PM

That's a good video, and I'm happy that some people on the left are finally taking cognizance of the problem.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/23/18 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
That's a good video, and I'm happy that some people on the left are finally taking cognizance of the problem.


Do I still count as "people on the left" in your book?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/24/18 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Derid
That's a good video, and I'm happy that some people on the left are finally taking cognizance of the problem.


Do I still count as "people on the left" in your book?


I didn't intend it literally, as in finally one person - but rather in the sense that people who attend public left wing forums and create widely watched videos are starting to push back on the issue. To answer more directly, yes I generally consider you as someone more or less on the left side of things... though I wouldn't necessarily pin you as a hard leftist, simply because current state of American political discourse as well as the general etymological state of things is so completely absurd that such labels themselves have lost much of their meaning.

Our current state of civilization prompts me to recall a quote from Confucius's Analects remarking on precisely this issue:

"If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. "
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/28/18 12:42 PM

This position is highly controversial on the left. That is, many will be worked into a froth at mere suggestion that we shouldn't lightly apply Racist label to things that merely proximal to racism. Having discussion on race is a highly taboo behavior and orthodoxy of "race is a social construct" is zealously protected.

This is just one of the areas of 'eating itself', where anything but public displays of right-thinking would get someone shamed and expelled from the Left ranks. Personally, I have been "eaten" many times at this point, where I am actively looking at saner (e.g. libertarians) groups of people to align on specific priorities or values (e.g. freedom of speech).

So personally, I don't even know if I consider myself left anymore.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/30/18 09:41 AM

I'll take the bait. The suggested tiptoeing around the imaginary right wing snowflake whose pure ideology holds no bigoted intention is both a disservice to the real effects of their rhetoric, and to the efficacy of the only remaining arena in which impactful debate can still be formed, after indulging one participant in their desire to shed the burden of accepting facts and figures when forming ideology (e.g. voter ID laws)
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/30/18 09:48 AM

The action of students at Evergreen was shameful, but far less so than those of the Goldwater campaign and architects of the Southern strategy. Both should engage in penance commensurate with the damage dealt
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/30/18 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
The action of students at Evergreen was shameful, but far less so than those of the Goldwater campaign and architects of the Southern strategy. Both should engage in penance commensurate with the damage dealt


Even if we accept this as true (which I don't, the spirit of both actions is the same even if the scale differs in regards to the examples used. In fact, the SJWs are basically attempting to engage in precisely the same behaviors you speak of, using the flimsy excuse of "they did it first" - calling them reactionary and regressive is no accident and quite accurate.) there is a major difference between the old Southern Strategy GOP architects and modern day SJWs: the old pols are long dead from old age.

Either old resentments and actions are something to move past, or they are something to justify yet a new generation of wrongs. It is clear that the 'new left' is mostly bent on abandoning the spirit of (though they will still hypocritically parrot the words of) figures like MLK, and are pursuing the latter.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/30/18 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I'll take the bait. The suggested tiptoeing around the imaginary right wing snowflake whose pure ideology holds no bigoted intention is both a disservice to the real effects of their rhetoric, and to the efficacy of the only remaining arena in which impactful debate can still be formed, after indulging one participant in their desire to shed the burden of accepting facts and figures when forming ideology (e.g. voter ID laws)


Seems like you actually believe that every Republican is racist, and aren't shy about sharing that view. When a Democrat passes/signs legislation that leads to mass minority incarceration or similar, (ie; Clinton) is it not racist, simply because you generally align with the party?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/30/18 08:45 PM

What a worthless, low effort retort.

Scale matters, and history matters. To move past the racist history of the Republican party, they need to show something resembling remorse. What they've done instead, consistently since Nixon, is double down on the Southern strategy's play of stopping just on the other side of cutting out the Actual Racism from their dog whistle policies. They vote for a racist president, they happily take collection from certified racists, they present policies which measurably and surgically serve to disenfranchise minorities, they downplay the prevalence of racism - and the punchline is they get injured when we call it for what it is.

All the students involved in Evergreen should take a 10 hour lecture on freedom of speech and academic freedom.

All members of the Republican party should dissolve or acknowledge everything they've done to empower racism.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/30/18 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
What a worthless, low effort retort.

Scale matters, and history matters. To move past the racist history of the Republican party, they need to show something resembling remorse. What they've done instead, consistently since Nixon, is double down on the Southern strategy's play of stopping just on the other side of cutting out the Actual Racism from their dog whistle policies. They vote for a racist president, they happily take collection from certified racists, they present policies which measurably and surgically serve to disenfranchise minorities, they downplay the prevalence of racism - and the punchline is they get injured when we call it for what it is.

All the students involved in Evergreen should take a 10 hour lecture on freedom of speech and academic freedom.

All members of the Republican party should dissolve or acknowledge everything they've done to empower racism.


Low effort retorts are a natural response to low effort posts. You are the one who made the comparison of Evergreen to Southern Strategy, as if the two things somehow bore comparison, or the presence of one excused or somehow mitigated the other. Also, scale matters when examining the magnitude of effects of a particular incident - however scale is irrelevant when evaluating the moral implications of the same. If suddenly, only ten robberies occurred in a year, would it thereby become a moral act? Or perhaps less immoral than it previously had been, when thousands of robberies occurred in a year? I think not.

The problem with Evergreen is what it represents, and the fact that similar thoughts and sympathies currently infect the self-identifying left. Thus, when comparing, it should be a given that moral quality is the issue and not magnitude.

Your attitude towards people who hijack race for their own political gain and social power-grasping is obviously skewed in favor of those you feel a more general sense of comradery with. In this, at least, you are not dissimilar to the political bloc you are attempting to pillory. In fact, your typical responses to bad-faith actors closer to your own social-political sphere are "yeah they did X, but So-and-so did Y" which is rather similar, in my view, to how a certain Trump supporter around here responded to criticism of Trump with tales of what Hillary or Obama did. As is the presence of one had anything to do with the other. One coin, two sides. I find it particularly unimpressive because I also believe much of the GOP platform in recent years is garbage. However, instead of thinking that GOP garbage mitigates the garbage coming out of the new left, I instead feel somewhat depressed at the overwhelming amount of overall garbage.


As for talking about showing remorse, one has to wonder what good that would do? It seems to be an admission on your part that the goal going forward is not a re-alignment of policy, but rather, moralistic posturing.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/30/18 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Derid

Low effort retorts are a natural response to low effort posts. You are the one who made the comparison of Evergreen to Southern Strategy, as if the two things somehow bore comparison


They do in the context of this thread and the Atlantic article posted.


Originally Posted by Derid
or the presence of one excused or somehow mitigated the other


They don't, which is why I prescribed remedies for both.


Originally Posted by Derid
Also, scale matters when examining the magnitude of effects of a particular incident - however scale is irrelevant when evaluating the moral implications of the same. If suddenly, only ten robberies occurred in a year, would it thereby become a moral act? Or perhaps less immoral than it previously had been, when thousands of robberies occurred in a year? I think not.


I strongly disagree with this, and this is central to my point, because the actions of the Republican party are not discrete. They build upon a foundation of racist history and racially motivated political power, and without major reversal or acknowledgement of the damage done - universal Rubio-like affirmation - future policies which could reasonably be described as having racist effects might as well have all the moral implications of the racist policies from the civil rights era which they replaced.

Originally Posted by Derid
As for talking about showing remorse, one has to wonder what good that would do? It seems to be an admission on your part that the goal going forward is not a re-alignment of policy, but rather, moralistic posturing.


Again, when you remove facts and figures from your policy analysis, you have to accept what is left over. The policies of the current Republican party are about moralistic posturing, not about fixing problems and addressing reality, this is demonstrable. I would rather that all sides agree with the scientists, statisticians, and accountants before they come to the table offering moral posturing; but of all the remedies I've offered here, this seems the most unlikely to occur.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/30/18 11:40 PM

There is a strong social norm that it is wrong to judge someone simply for how they were born. That is a good thing as it allows for stigmatization of actual racists. But now the left is abusing the same term we traditionally used for violating THAT norm, to describe 'Doing things one believe might contribute to inequality in society. These people will soon discover that accusations of racism carry no weight and have no stigma attached. You already can see this, as accusations of racism did nothing to harm Trump's standing.

More so, what constitutes 'things that might contribute to inequality in society' is not settled even on the left, least throughout wider society. Consequently, the more radical one's interpretation of this concept, the more opportunities one would have to accuse others of racism. Such misuse allows "Judge someone … how they were born" people to pretend they are being criticized for "Doing things … contribute to inequality" and normalize themselves within society. This is universally undesirable outcome and is largely the result of the radical left's misuse of Racism! label.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/01/18 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh

All members of the Republican party should dissolve or acknowledge everything they've done to empower racism.

Originally Posted by rhaikh

I strongly disagree with this, and this is central to my point, because the actions of the Republican party are not discrete. They build upon a foundation of racist history and racially motivated political power, and without major reversal or acknowledgement of the damage done - universal Rubio-like affirmation - future policies which could reasonably be described as having racist effects might as well have all the moral implications of the racist policies from the civil rights era which they replaced.


History is an awful place with many bad things done to many people. For example, democratic party supported slavery and impeded and even reversed reconstruction effort. Originally, KKK was an arm of Southern Democratic machine. Today all of this is irrelevant, as this isn't the same Democratic party.

What is not irrelevant is trying to paint entire movement of conservatism as racist. Not only this is grossly, maliciously inaccurate, it also prevents any kind of discourse or finding a common ground that is necessary to govern. Unless you think dissolution of The United States is a good thing, you shouldn't engage in such behavior or thinking.

---

Now, lets play a game. I will call out ideas, until Rhaikh loses it and calls me a racist, then I demonstrate how he is not justified in doing so.

1. Islam is NOT religion of peace

Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/01/18 01:03 AM

I offer that common ground is truly made inaccessible by those denying the realities of history, and the dynamics of power which have resulted from them, from being presented as relevant to how we've ended up in our status quo. Modern conservatism wishes to maintain status quo using almost exclusively moralistic rhetoric, but refuses to acknowledge how we got there since it's morally dubious and inconvenient to their argument.

Religion is construct for the enforcement of morals and subduing progressivism, and as such cannot be fundamentally peaceful
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/01/18 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
History is an awful place with many bad things done to many people. For example, democratic party supported slavery and impeded and even reversed reconstruction effort. Originally, KKK was an arm of Southern Democratic machine. Today all of this is irrelevant, as this isn't the same Democratic party.


The ham fisted implication here being that neither is the Republican party, which is such a broad rewrite of history that I almost refused to acknowledge it, but here I am.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/01/18 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
They do in the context of this thread and the Atlantic article posted.


And I answered to the relevant concern - the moral one. Just because there was an issue in the past with one side, is not reason to passively watch as a deadly cancer metastasizes and spreads on the other side.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I strongly disagree with this, and this is central to my point, because the actions of the Republican party are not discrete. They build upon a foundation of racist history and racially motivated political power, and without major reversal or acknowledgement of the damage done - universal Rubio-like affirmation - future policies which could reasonably be described as having racist effects might as well have all the moral implications of the racist policies from the civil rights era which they replaced.


Racially motivated political power? I think you assume far too much about peoples motivations, which are generally far more selfish. Most of what you are calling actual racism, is actually just side effects of longstanding social and political jockeying. Just because Politician-A does something that say, impact all poor people in a negative way does not make them a racist, even if some minority groups have a higher percentage of poor people than majority group.

Let me ask you this - if more people who lacked proper ID voted GOP, would the GOP in some areas still be trying to institute voter ID laws? I think not. Therefore, though that policy is one I would agree is shitty, it doesn't follow that it is racially motivated.

Also, and this is the most important point: politics is complex. Many people who vote or voted GOP agree with many on the left about a great many things. However, there are still some things that the left and Democrats in particular wish to do that are drastically unpopular among large swaths of voters. Like Obamacare, anti-gun rights, abortion rights, and so forth. None of which touches of race. Same thing goes for tax policy, which most people will vote on based on reasons that have nothing to do with race.

To wit: just because many people do not put racial concerns as their over-riding issue by which they make political decisions, does not make them racist. (If they did, even the Democrats would look drastically different. For all their talk, it is still mostly that - talk. Minority vote is more or less taken for granted, to be perfectly honest about it. )


Originally Posted by rhaikh
Again, when you remove facts and figures from your policy analysis, you have to accept what is left over. The policies of the current Republican party are about moralistic posturing, not about fixing problems and addressing reality, this is demonstrable. I would rather that all sides agree with the scientists, statisticians, and accountants before they come to the table offering moral posturing; but of all the remedies I've offered here, this seems the most unlikely to occur.


Neither major party has much of anything positive to offer the world at the moment. What is your point? That the Deep South GOP has more recently been racist than an equivalent percentage of Democrats? Ok, fine - point granted. It still doesn't make most contemporary GOPers racist, and it still doesn't make the moralistic flag-waving by the new left any better. Its mostly all cynical posturing and social power-grabbing on both sides.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/01/18 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
There is a strong social norm that it is wrong to judge someone simply for how they were born. That is a good thing as it allows for stigmatization of actual racists. But now the left is abusing the same term we traditionally used for violating THAT norm, to describe 'Doing things one believe might contribute to inequality in society. These people will soon discover that accusations of racism carry no weight and have no stigma attached. You already can see this, as accusations of racism did nothing to harm Trump's standing.



Much this. I can't imagine Trump's racist shenanigans having no impact on election if it wasn't for the bitter ACA fight, where far too many loud voices tried to pin opposition to Obama's policies and legislative prerogatives on the fact that Obama has some African descent, which was absurd. In retrospect, I think this is really where both sides started to break down and start terminally malfunctioning. Both the left and the right spin machines went into overdrive, with neither caring much for objectivity nor sanity any longer. When opposing the president becomes racist, then suddenly half the country is racist, and it no longer carries the same stigma. (edited to change /seriously malfunctioning/ to /terminally/ - our political system began to seriously malfunction after the NYC Twin Towers)


Of course, after Romney lost is when the right continued a decoupling from any objective reality in terms of policy or rhetoric. The patient has taken over the asylum, and conservative talk radio is now the tail wagging the dog... and the results aren't pretty.

As an aside, I don't find it a coincidence that both Hillary and Romney were expected to win (at least by their own party, though Hillary by mostly everyone) leading to inner complacency - followed by an immense inner breakdown and loss of whatever sanity each party had left, after their respective failures.


Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/01/18 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
And I answered to the relevant concern - the moral one. Just because there was an issue in the past with one side, is not reason to passively watch as a deadly cancer metastasizes and spreads on the other side.


Yet again you ascribe dichotomy where none exists.

Originally Posted by Derid
I think you assume far too much about peoples motivations, which are generally far more selfish.


Both racism, and unexamined privilege, are side effects of narcissism and selfishness.

Originally Posted by Derid
if more people who lacked proper ID voted GOP, would the GOP in some areas still be trying to institute voter ID laws?


This question is a tangent. The right question is, why are the people who are effectively disenfranchised by voter ID laws minorities? I've already provided the answer.

Originally Posted by Derid
Also, and this is the most important point: politics is complex.


I agree. Which is why, to move on from constant claims of racism, which were accurate in the past and have provided the Republicans a position of power, they need to now actively disclaim it. The GOP needs to affirm the realities of the situation and it needs to analyze their policies from this perspective. Which they blanketly, historically and contemporaneously not only refuse to do, but backpedal and complain that the notion that this is in any way necessary is in itself unfair. It denies the common ground as I said above.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/01/18 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Yet again you ascribe dichotomy where none exists.


Dichotomy exists in how you and many SIL (self-identifying leftists) treat the situation, occasionally publicly reprimanding some of your more psychotic brethren in a gentle manner with a wink and a nod that signifies you actually mostly approve of the behavior. Similar in many regards to how the larger conservative movement would occasionally chide, but generally encouraged its own brand of wingnuts. We saw how that ended up, its currently sitting in the White House. Would like to believe the SIL would learn from this example before its too late.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Both racism, and unexamined privilege, are side effects of narcissism and selfishness.


Actually, fear lies at the heart of most actual racism. Sure, narcissism and selfishness are not precluded from influencing racism by any means, but to say racism is a side effect thereof is wholly incorrect. Besides, selfishness is inherent in all humans.

Also, the left lost any qualifications to have meaningful conversation about 'privilege' when it collectively decided that the ultimate answer to perception of privilege was tear others down instead of build others up.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
This question is a tangent. The right question is, why are the people who are effectively disenfranchised by voter ID laws minorities? I've already provided the answer.


Incorrect, on both counts. You are ignoring cause and effect here. Both parties are happy to disenfranchise and abuse anyone if they can achieve their goals in the process. When politics devolves to zero sum game, this is result.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Which is why, to move on from constant claims of racism, which were accurate in the past and have provided the Republicans a position of power, they need to now actively disclaim it. The GOP needs to affirm the realities of the situation and it needs to analyze their policies from this perspective. Which they blanketly, historically and contemporaneously not only refuse to do, but backpedal and complain that the notion that this is in any way necessary is in itself unfair. It denies the common ground as I said above.


GOP disavowed racism for years, but its just words. Words you don't seem to take seriously, and in this aspect, I don't particularly blame you. Doesn't change the fact that accusations of racism are ultimately politically motivated for posturing and advantage, and in most regards, the Democratic party is not much better when it comes to policies that have racial disparity in outcomes. Isn't it somehow odd that elements of GOP were the ones spearheading political efforts to bring some sanity to racially disproportionate DOJ practices? Efforts that Obama and most Democrats received in a very lukewarm manner, because political considerations were king and allowing the GOP to take any credit for race issues would be rather counter productive to Dem goals of maintaining iron grip on minority voting blocs.

Both parties actually operate in much the same manner, using similar calculus. Singling one party, and especially conservatives in general, out as racist due to some realpolitik matters from half a century ago is somewhat disingenuous. Just because the GOP is shitty, and racism is shitty, it does not follow that the GOP is racist.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/01/18 05:09 PM

I disagree largely with your opinion, but on a basis which is immaterial to my case as to why perceptions of racism are relevant to discussions of most GOP policy. I recognize that the Democrats are no saints, but their modern history and the foundations of their political power are also not tainted in explicit racism.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/01/18 11:59 PM

Unless you define it as "since the last elections", why is modern history relevant? Both parties operate in 'next election' mode and hyper partisanship is a recent development. You could claim that Democratic party in recent history advocated worker's rights, and was the party of labor. However, it isn't the case right now, as they become a party of identity politics.

For example, immigration. Democrats absolutely love malign conservative as racists over this. However, as a critical thinker you must acknowledge that there are non-racist reasons to oppose it. Especially illegal economic immigration. Yet, such acknowledgment is completely absent from any Democratic narrative.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/02/18 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Unless you define it as "since the last elections", why is modern history relevant? Both parties


You answered your own question with those two words. These parties, their platforms, personas, etc exist wholly because of the developments of modern history.

Originally Posted by Sini
For example, immigration. Democrats absolutely love malign conservative as racists over this. However, as a critical thinker you must acknowledge that there are non-racist reasons to oppose it. Especially illegal economic immigration. Yet, such acknowledgment is completely absent from any Democratic narrative.


I'm not defending the Democrats, I'm making the case that their talking point here is relevant and worthy of affirmation and response rather than recoil. If I were, though, I'd offer that they don't really need TWO good points to meet the bar of reasonable objection.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/02/18 02:19 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
These parties, their platforms, personas, etc exist wholly because of the developments of modern history.


This raises an important point: how far back, exactly, do you think should be gone? Everything that happens is influenced in some manner by everything that came before. So, how far back do you want to go to demand that the past be accounted for?

If you had a principled stance on this point that was universally applied, then that would go a long way towards achieving validity for your other points that mostly seem to follow from your premise that X was responsible for Y, and needs to do Z because their current situation followed from or benefitted in some manner from Y.

I mean, we could hypothetically go back to the Ottoman years and demand restitution for Muslim invasions of the West. In fact, many fraught areas of the world, specifically in the Balkans, still do. However, I don't think that is an example anyone should be interested in following. Conversely, if someone was doing racist crap yesterday, I would still hold it against them today - even if they uttered contrite words. So, how far back should we go and why?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/02/18 03:38 AM

I'm following the backbone upon which some "conservative" policy hangs, which starts with Goldwater using euphemisms like "bullies and marauders," Nixon standing with Thurmond, Reagan talking about states rights in Neshoba County, and which eventually traveled down the escalator.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/02/18 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I'm following the backbone upon which some "conservative" policy hangs, which starts with Goldwater using euphemisms like "bullies and marauders," Nixon standing with Thurmond, Reagan talking about states rights in Neshoba County, and which eventually traveled down the escalator.


And years after that, Hillary was dog whistling about "super predators" while her husband signed legislation that would begin an era of mass minority incarceration. Yet more years later she was personally representing party in recent election.

Your point?

If you want to say both parties are racist, then sure. Just to be clear, I'm not defending GOP shittyness - I'm simply pointing out selectivity on your part. But it seems to me that to call GOPers blanket racist by your metrics, one would also have to concede that Democrats are also very racist. Any "pass" that the Democrats might have gotten for electing Obama was given up when they pushed Hillary. Quite a few prominent Democrats, including much of their congressional leadership, has family power base rooted in same racist culture you invoke - extending well into the period of time you are talking about.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/02/18 06:53 AM

Again, I'm not here to defend Democrats, you are dangling yet another thread of Whataboutism that does a disservice to the difference in magnitude to which my arguments apply to the modern Republican agenda.

I will say this, though: The rise of identity politics from the left, which manifests as issues of race being in the limelight this decade, is not simply some spontaneous coincidence. The Democrats do share the blame for helping to put the lid on the pressure cooker of the status quo (seen most clearly in W and Gore having nothing left to debate), which is now explosive.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/03/18 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Again, I'm not here to defend Democrats, you are dangling yet another thread of Whataboutism that does a disservice to the difference in magnitude to which my arguments apply to the modern Republican agenda.

I will say this, though: The rise of identity politics from the left, which manifests as issues of race being in the limelight this decade, is not simply some spontaneous coincidence. The Democrats do share the blame for helping to put the lid on the pressure cooker of the status quo (seen most clearly in W and Gore having nothing left to debate), which is now explosive.


No, it's not whataboutism - I'm highlighting lack of objectivity and equal application of principles. This is important, because generally speaking I think Sini is correct in regards to the effects of calling people racists. That is, a net negative effect, and one that numbs people to the issue and gives actual racists a free pass. Maybe you don't see this on a first hand personal basis up in your section of the Pacific Northwest, but here in the Midwest it couldn't be more apparent. This is a real thing, and has a real impact, one I suspect you actually wouldn't be happy about or feel was a good thing if you saw it on a large scale in person, and not through the lens of people you possibly don't much care for, who happen to be chiding your tactics over the internet.

The one thing that would at least validate your stance, would be if it was result of equal application of principle and not arbitrariness borne of political motivation.

As far as magnitude, what has the GOP done that has had greater impact than Clinton era policies? Not to mention, even Obama wasn't great when it came to cracking down on racially charged localities - that shit didn't even get attention until Ferguson, and the response wasn't exactly aggressive. Democrat/liberal strongholds like NYC have even lived by broken window policies, and aggressive racial profiling.

It's not whataboutism to point out that among other things, you are making the same mistakes conservatives made when they ignored birtherism and Obama-is-a-muslim rhetoric. Both by ignoring and silently encouraging your own strain of psychotic wingnuts, and by throwing stones from a glass house. For all the sins of the GOP, the agenda and methods being employed by large swaths of self-identifying liberals and Democrats isn't any better.

Liberals have chance to take high road, and say "we wont made the same mistakes, and be like them" but all signs point towards engaging is the same type of activities. This is unfortunate.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/04/18 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
I'm highlighting lack of objectivity and equal application of principles.

The one thing that would at least validate your stance, would be if it was result of equal application of principle and not arbitrariness borne of political motivation.


This is important distinction. If your position is "I am going to hold my nose and vote for these people, because alternative is horrible racists and we can't have THAT", then you have been had. People you are voting for are not any better. This is just another wedge issue, maybe because abortion and guns no longer enough, or maybe because you can never have enough wedge issues.

The same applies to conservatives, only instead of racism you have to substitute deficit spending.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/04/18 12:44 AM

What party is running on a platform of reforming criminal justice system and end mass incarceration? No party.
What party is running on a platform of good job opportunities for poor and lower middles class? No party.
What party is running on a platform of putting in public transportation infrastructure so inner cities aren't dead zones for everything? No party.
What party is running on a platform of improving education and making post-secondary education affordable? No party.

So no party is actually willing to help minorities in any meaningful way.

As to talk about diversity and intersectionality and all other bullshit, that is just a bunch of out-of-touch academics trying to reinvent Marx's class struggle theory.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/04/18 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Sini


Now, lets play a game. I will call out ideas, until Rhaikh loses it and calls me a racist, then I demonstrate how he is not justified in doing so.

1. Islam is NOT religion of peace



2. Diversity is not a universal good
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/04/18 03:01 AM

When you look around and see the myriad effects of racism around you, do you start to wonder where all the klan hoods must be hiding for the number of Actual Racists necessary to perpetuate this situation? No, obviously. Racism is more than bigotry, it's institutionalized. This is the claim I'm making, that the GOP as a whole is the largest contributor to the perpetuation of racism (institutionally and therefore individually) in America today, and in large part because of the facts of history. Since the Civil Rights Act it has been empowered through overt racism, empowerment it continues to enjoy today and which has permanently shaped its platform.* Therefore it is relevant to discuss GOP policy through the lens of racism, and proponents of its policy should accept this perception and affirm it and make all reasonable guarantees to ease that perception, rather than become indignant and deny reality.

To say that this would do more harm than good by offending the sensibilities of Not Quite Actual Racists, I disagree. We cannot move past institutional racism without acknowledging its existence and causes, and neither is it acceptable to live with institutional racism and hoping it goes away on its own, since it never has.

To say that some Democrats have done their own work perpetuating racism, obviously I agree. I also agree that the party has done significant damage to our democracy by being complicit in the plutocracy and oligarchy of the two party system, especially since the Clintons, and through this have done their own share of perpetuating institutional racism by preventing real progressive remedies from emerging. However, as an organization, they are simply not comparable to the GOP to the degree of which overt racism contributes to their policies.

This is clear just by looking at the GOP's platform. They mention race and racism exactly twice, once to say they "denounce it," and another one to take credit for the policies of Abraham Lincoln. https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/static/home/data/platform.pdf They pay some lip service to discrimination, but half the time it's in a way which dilutes the meaning completely, i.e. trying to equate it with abortion.

The Dems platform, to their credit, does talk about criminal justice reform, the wealth gap, and education all in a context of race. https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

So yes, clearly the Dems have a political advantage here by making institutional racism an issue, but that is insultingly far from the reason of doing so. The reason for making it an issue is that it remains to be an issue. The advantage they could gain from it is constructing a pathway for enlightening opponents about the detrimental effects of ignoring it, a pathway which ideally would lead them to progressive policy. I think the Clinton campaign specifically completely failed to use this advantage. The basket of deplorables was literally a demolition of that pathway, a shortsighted rejection of this advantage.

This leads me into my opinions about what the left should do with the concepts of identity politics and freedom of speech, but frankly I'm out of quarters to continue the conversation - I am stuck on this first level having made no progress and I fail to envision a scenario where I present new ideas and you two don't immediately try to lead me in new tangental directions. again.

*: Also out of quarters for providing you with the entire modern history of the republican party, sorry, also Broken window policy in NYC was Giuliani's platform
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/04/18 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Racism is more than bigotry, it's institutionalized.


The key problem I have with this is that such claim is not falsifable. I could substitute satanism into any modern claim and have it be superficially as valid.

Originally Posted by Democrats.org
Ending Satanism
Democrats will fight to end satanism in our society. We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting worship of Satan. Democrats will promote lack of satanism through fair, just, and equitable governing of all public-serving institutions and in the formation of public policy. Democrats support removing the Confederate battle flag from public properties, recognizing that it is a symbol of our nation's satanist past that has no place in our present or our future. We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that our souls matter and that there is no place for satanism in our country.


Institutional racism traditionally defined as a government's action against certain race. For example, Internment of Japanese Americans during WW2.

Today, the meaning of 'Institutional racism' is quite different. It is defined as unseen biases that lead to any and all problem that minorities experience. Somehow, without any kind of clear explanation as to why, institutional racism doesn't impact people of Chinese and Indian ancestry. The claims of institutional racism are almost always paired with calls for restitution, compensation, or affirmative action.

Racism certainly exists in our society. Racist people are very obviously racist and some of them are card-carrying GOP members. Attributing racism to everyone else, and further attributing it to unconscious biases within large and diverse group of people is just bullshit artistry. Just like it is a complete bullshit to call entire GOP racist, no matter what post modernist concept you use in attempt to justify your bullshit. It is still bullshit. You are wrong, and despite thinking that you are helping, you are not.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/04/18 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh


This leads me into my opinions about what the left should do with the concepts of identity politics and freedom of speech, but frankly I'm out of quarters to continue the conversation - I am stuck on this first level having made no progress and I fail to envision a scenario where I present new ideas and you two don't immediately try to lead me in new tangental directions. again.

*: Also out of quarters for providing you with the entire modern history of the republican party, sorry, also Broken window policy in NYC was Giuliani's platform


It's called a discussion, and expecting people to swallow your premise without comment would be silly.

I never said that broken window policing didn't originate with Giuliani, I said NYC was a liberal/Dem stronghold, which it is. Was highlighting a case of "do as I say, not as I do." One of the issues with the left, is it is the social group of Weinstein, both figuratively and literally. And yes, before anyone mentions it, the GOP is also the party of Hastert - figuratively and literally. That is, rampant hypocrisy.

Policies continue past Giuliani btw, even to this day. De Blasio, to his credit, seems to have attempted headway on some of these issues - but runs into quite the institutional opposition from what I recall.

But to be real, retreating to actual written party platform kind of shows how weak you premise actually is - because everyone knows that the 'official' platform doesn't actually matter. What Sini referenced earlier about party platforms was remarking about the real platform - what they actually do when in power. Both parties, for example, claim to want better education and jobs. However, despite both parties having windows where they fully controlled govt, neither party made great efforts in those directions, and instead focus on score-settling and wedge-driving. You can clearly see what a party's real platform is when they control Oval Office and both houses of Congress.

Also, please bear in mind that the issue here is specifically calling all GOP racists while merely finger-wagging bad actors closer to your ideological spectrum. Were you simply claiming that the Democrats are somewhat better on issues of race, well, their additional lip-service on the topic might well justify that. I just find it hard to believe that paying verbal homage to race, as you previously suggested, would have any positive impact. In the mouths of politicians, words are usually just words. Largely, because it is well known that memories are short and politics is a game of "what have you done for me lately." Fundamentally, politicians sell promises, not results. Wedge issues are no accident on either side, nor is lack of real progress on issues.

If Democrats actually solved minority issues, then before long, there wouldn't be any reason for minorities to vote for them. Thus, we see introducing of new wedge issues, as opposed to solid policy improvements.

BTW, for what its worth, I'll be the first to decry the GOP's similar tactics. We see just how important deficit reduction really is to them, for example, when they have power. That is, they open govt spigot and spend like madmen - without forgetting to embark on some score-settling with perceived Democrat allies in the process, when it comes to cuts.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/05/18 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
Were you simply claiming that the Democrats are somewhat better on issues of race, well, their additional lip-service on the topic might well justify that.

While it is possible to disagree with the above position, it would be a justifiable opinion to hold.

What isn't justifiable is rhaikh position:

a. GOP is intrinsically racist organization and that makes every GOP member a racist
b. Calling out actual racism, things that contribute to racism, things that may contribute to racism, and things that the racist party advocates is necessary to improve our society's racial relations


Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/05/18 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
When you look around and see the myriad effects of racism around you, do you start to wonder where all the klan hoods must be hiding for the number of Actual Racists necessary to perpetuate this situation?

I am all but certain you will call me racist for pointing this out, but why do you assume that every ill is a result of racism? Could it be the case that some of it is self-inflicted? Also why only some visible minorities experience these ill effects? Why is systemic racism only applies to African-american, but not to Jews? Supremacists are violently anti-Jew, yet Jew population in America is more prosperous than even White.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/09/18 11:30 AM

I never said every Republican is racist. This is why I'm done with the discussion.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/09/18 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
All members of the Republican party should dissolve or acknowledge everything they've done to empower racism.


My worthless, low effort contribution to the discussion.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/10/18 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I never said every Republican is racist.


So what is your position then? Could you restate it in clearer terms so it is possible for us to better understand it?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/12/18 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by Sini

1. Islam is NOT religion of peace



Originally Posted by Sini

2. Diversity is not a universal good


By the way, these are mutually exclusive.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/12/18 05:26 PM

I don't see how. Still, I am surprised and pleased that I got as far as #3.

3. The concept of cultural appropriation is deeply flawed, and people who attempt to shame because of it are anti-diversity.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/12/18 05:29 PM

The last one was a soft-ball, so here is good one:

4. The people who advocate for First Nations restitution are themselves advocates of oppression
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/13/18 10:39 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/...e-not-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are.html

Quote
Self-righteousness can also get things wrong. Especially with the possibility of Mr. Trump’s re-election, many liberals seem primed to write off nearly half the country as irredeemable. Admittedly, the president doesn’t make it easy. As a candidate, Mr. Trump made derogatory comments about Mexicans, and as president described some African countries with a vulgar epithet. But it is an unjustified leap to conclude that anyone who supports him in any way is racist, just as it would be a leap to say that anyone who supported Hillary Clinton was racist because she once made veiled references to “superpredators.”

Liberals are trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle. When they use their positions in American culture to lecture, judge and disdain, they push more people into an opposing coalition that liberals are increasingly prone to think of as deplorable. That only validates their own worst prejudices about the other America.

Those prejudices will be validated even more if Mr. Trump wins re-election in 2020, especially if he wins a popular majority. That’s not impossible: The president’s current approval ratings are at 42 percent, up from just a few months ago.

Liberals are inadvertently making that outcome more likely. It’s not too late to stop.


edit: added quote, bold emphasis my own (though it doesn't appear to be showing up)
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/14/18 01:43 AM

Derid, I wonder if we will ever find out if this is natural or manufactured phenomena. To me it seems too convenient that everyone fights over pointless bullshit while wars, deficits, wealth inequality, and slide to oligarchy remain unaddressed.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/15/18 07:20 AM

https://medium.com/s/story/we-need-to-talk-about-reactionary-centrists-f0e6f8c4d58
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/15/18 07:44 PM

The linked Medium story, insofar as I got reading it, is dishonest.

Quote
There are fewer moderates than ever in the Republican Congress.


While this is clearly a problem, attribution or cause of this problem isn't clear. The implication here is that it is GOP's fault that polarization happens. There are good theories that blame GOP (e.g. gerrymandering leading to polarization) and there are good theories that blame other factors (e.g. social media is a radicalization engine).

Quote
Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has thrown out the rule book to undermine healthcare


This is hysterics not based in reality. McConnell hasn't done anything on healthcare that wasn't first done to pass ACA. If you believe otherwise, please provide citations and links.

Quote
and steal a Supreme Court seat.


This is very true, appointment should have been Obama's. No idea why this wasn't a much bigger deal.

Quote
The United States is the only country with a major political party that denies the scientific reality of climate change.


Unjustifiable generalization.

Quote
Republican state legislatures are attacking people’s voting rights instead of trying to win their support.


This is true, but now there is conflation of state and federal branches. If this is the standard, how about holding Democratic party responsible for actions, for example, of California state legislature?

Quote
And right wing media routinely promotes conspiracy theories, from questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship to suggesting that the Parkland student activists are “crisis actors.”


Again, intentionally ambiguous definition of media. While Fox is horrible, conspiracy theories are more feature of Facebook groups and fringe sites. If you apply the same standard, then Greenpeace and Jezebel should be considered a left wing media and Democrats should be held accountable for their views.

Quote
Taking a political position is a cheap form of political action. But a lot of our thinking about politics is grounded in the idea that positions are more important than what political actors actually do to build and use power.


How and why was this not also applied as a criticism of Democrats?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/15/18 08:43 PM

That analysis is exactly why I can't debate with you guys. You made it four paragraphs before you stopped listening and started changing the debate.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/15/18 08:59 PM

I mean that's not to say that you shouldn't take down ideas presented which don't support the thesis. But that is question 3 on the high school reading comprehension exam.

Question 1, summarize the central idea the author is presenting
Question 2, what are the major points the author makes to support his idea
Question 3, are there any points the author presented which undermines his idea

I guarantee you that most of your comments above won't even fit in the answer box to 3 in the end.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/15/18 09:04 PM



Somewhat interesting article that ironically, and likely unintentionally, solidifies the points I have been making.

Lets take a closer look at this Kafkaesque piece.

Quote
Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has thrown out the rule book to undermine healthcare and steal a Supreme Court seat. The United States is the only country with a major political party that denies the scientific reality of climate change. Republican state legislatures are attacking people’s voting rights instead of trying to win their support. And right wing media routinely promotes conspiracy theories, from questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship to suggesting that the Parkland student activists are “crisis actors.”


So, the writer is obviously extremely partisan. Fair enough. I do find it odd that he lumps together the entire "right wing", and by this the context clearly identifies such as "people he disagrees with", into a false association - as if the people who dislike Obama's ACA agenda and people who live by Alex Jones are by necessity birds of a feather. (well, they seem to be -in his mind, at least.) Interesting that he uses the term "throws out the rule book" to invoke a moral high ground, by which he surely means bypassing filibuster rules for 60-vote requirements to proceed, when Harry Reid did exactly the same thing on multiple occasions, including but not limited to the byzantine maneuverings to get the previously mentioned ACA through the Senate. Well, faulty premises and blatant and obvious hypocrisy doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong so lets keep looking, shall we?

Quote
But despite these developments, a great deal of popular political commentary still approaches our politics with a strange form of unearned evenhandedness.


So, he is arguing that because theres plenty of shit on the right, that political commentary should not be even handed? I take this to mean that he believes that the existence of shit in Y means that people should rightfully support X - X being his own positions.

Quote
I’ve come to call these pundits “reactionary centrists.”
Reactionary centrist (n) — Someone who says they’re politically neutral, but who usually punches left while sympathizing with the right.
Reactionary centrism is an ideological stance that isn’t really centrist at all. It can elevate a speaker in the mainstream media as a liberal-ish critic of liberalism and make someone feel good about being above it all and not taking sides, but it’s increasingly a stance that leads to sloppy thinking, especially as the Republican party continues to lurch rightward and away from democratic rule. We should identify reactionary centrism when we see it, challenge it, and ask what reactionary centrists could be doing instead to more productively contribute to public debates.


So he conjures up his own pejorative terminology to throw a traitorous critic label at people who have the temerity to question his own ideology or tactics. Yeah, this guy seems a lot different than the bad actors that exist on the opposite side of his political spectrum. /s

Quote
Reactionary centrists think politics is about positions, not actions
Did you know Exxon supports a carbon tax? Well, that’s what they say when they’re challenged to do something about climate change. But you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone on Capitol Hill whose ever felt pressured by the company’s lobbyists to actually pass a carbon tax.
Taking a political position is a cheap form of political action. But a lot of our thinking about politics is grounded in the idea that positions are more important than what political actors actually do to build and use power. Positional thinking leads reactionary centrists to the conclusion that if only the left and right could meet in the middle, wherever that middle is, we could settle contentious debates.


The first part of this bloc is actually true, and a point I myself like to make. I'm fairly certain after reading his body of work that he does not examine his own ideological allies too closely in terms of talk vs action, but even a broken clock is right twice as day, and he is correct to separate stated position from actions, lip service from real policy. I do wonder if he means to imply that this trait is somehow unique to people he would deem as "reactionary centrists" though.

Quote
For instance, writing in Enlightenment Now, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker posits that if only the left embraced nuclear power, they could compromise with the right on climate solutions. But he doesn’t account for the fact that mainstream environmental groups have been exploring deals like this for years with little to show for it.

...

More fundamentally, Pinker’s book admonishes the left to change its stances on climate policy. But why not tell the right to change their stances instead? It’s a question we too often fail to ask because conservative movements have made antipathy to compromise a key part of their political worldview. In admonishing the left to find more ways to work with the right, reactionary centrism does the right’s job for them.


So, because Plinker advocates for a particular position that many people find reasonable, this is evidence of the piece author's neologism? If the 'right' indeed rejected nuclear power simply because the idea came from Democrats, that would in fact be rather unfortunate. Of course, the writer of the piece talks in vague terms of 'mainstream environmental groups' and the 'right' - which right does he speak of? The W Bush administration? The GOP run congress? Some garbage online right-fringe newsletter?

In actually it seems like starting with the Democrats would have been a good place: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/06/01/obamas-uneven-scorecard-on-nuclear/#5a280c4261e5

Quote
And it feels good to believe that there’s a noble compromise to be had in the center. But the Republicans who are in power right now are telling us with their words, their actions, and their political muscle, that they’re not interested in one. Failing to listen to them—and blaming the left for not doing enough to compromise with them—is a recipe for sloppy thinking.
In political science terms, what the right is doing is shifting the Overton Window in their direction, trying to make extreme ideas such as climate denial, undermining voting rights, and dismantling the social safety net appear mainstream. Reactionary centrists, in urging the left to compromise with the right, play into this strategy.


Perhaps the piece writer was asleep for the past nine years as well? A look in the mirror might be interesting as well - so far we have seen myriad examples of poisoning the well, false association, inductive fallacy, cherry picking and many more in an attempt by the piece writer to assert that he is correct in accusing people who are critical of the vaguely defined 'left' of argument to moderation. This would be more convincing if he wasn't blatantly trying, in actuality, to paint his political critics as traitorous.

Theres more than enough sloppy thinking to go around, unfortunately. After all, both himself and his ideological compatriots also attempt to shift what he refers to as the Overton Window in their direction. This obviously does not by nature invalidate critiques made against the 'right' does it? Of course not, and I'm sure the piece writer would agree with me, at least on the last point.


Quote
This is a tougher, longer-term path to walk than negotiating a grand bargain on nuclear power. But it has the helpful advantage of being grounded in reality and enjoying the support of actual climate advocates. The fact that Pinker doesn’t lead with work like this suggests that his own politics are more focused on appeasing the right than building power on the left.


So even though he provided no actual evidence or reason beyond his circular critique of his own critics, he asserts once again that someone who disagrees with him is by necessity traitorous. Gotta give it to him, he's a genuine piece of work. I think I've seen people like this before, kinda reminds me of a leftist Sean Hannity, once I think of it. Apparently new left tactic is to take much of what they loath about certain elements of the right and copy it. That will lead to a wonderful society for sure. /s

Also interesting that he suddenly claims that his preferred approaches to climate change are longer and more difficult than the nuclear compromise, when one of his chief complaints about the nuclear issue seemed to be that some vague mainstream environmental groups had attempted it, and it didn't work? Was this piece written by one person?

Quote
Reactionary centrists need an intolerant left to match the intolerant right
Pinker is among many scholars who worry that intolerance on the right is being matched by a different kind of intolerance on the left. To be clear, reactionary centrists don’t deny that the hard right is bad and terrible. They see the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, the conspiracy theories, the voter suppression, the censorship of government researchers, the ICE agents picking people up off the street. But then they look for something, anything on the left to balance this out so they can stay in the middle.


I read this, and some of the examples that follow and can't help but laugh. This guy is seriously trying to say that leftist intolerance doesn't exist, or is a non-issue. He uses examples of things that happened, to try and assert that something isn't happening, which is ridiculous.

Quote
This analysis lacks a sense of who actually has power on each side. Do we really think that a student activist group protesting a controversial speaker is as much of a threat to free speech as a Republican president who calls for jailing journalists and firing protesting NFL players?


A specific 'student activist group' might not have more influence than a sitting president, but the idea that shutting out, unjustifiably smearing, and physically attacking people with whom you disagree is not only acceptable but proper conduct is FAR FAR FAR more dangerous than a dozen Trumps. Trump is a tumor, where that idea is cancer itself.


Not to mention, one might also ask him if a president that unconstitutionally has all our communications spied upon and executes citizens via executive fiat is possibly a danger, because we also had one of those - from the other party no less.

Quote
Reactionary centrists also elevate these incidents, in part, because they believe that intolerance on the left somehow causes polarization on the right. But the mechanism by which this occurs is never explained. Amy Chua, a Yale law professor who has written a book about political tribalism, blames the left for the rise of Trump and the so-called “alt-right” white nationalists. In her telling, if the left had more tolerance for mainstream right wing views or tamped down discussions of topics like cultural appropriation, the right wouldn’t be as tribal.


Something the writer of the piece forgets, I think, is that many of the people concerned with the left simply live in the real world. They know real people, such as siblings, offspring, or perhaps even they themselves come into contact with the absurdity of cultural appropriation politics. The people who watch Fox news and such are probably not going to suddenly vote Democrat, but those aren't the Obama voters that switched to Trump, now are they?

I personally know some self-professed 'liberals' who have become rather intolerant and obnoxious with their PC crap. Even my brother has become disturbed by it from seeing it firsthand, and he has always been super-liberal, to the point in literally joining various 'Obama Brigades' (they weren't actually called that, Brigade is my term not his) and other lefty activism. Rational people in general will take to the antics of the new left very poorly, this should be expected.

So, the writer makes a really weak argument that the left being tolerant wouldn't win over Fox News adherents as a justification for being intolerant. (though he claims elsewhere that left intolerance is not a thing and/or a non-issue? how many people worked on this piece, surely more than one, and they couldn't have cross-checked each other it would seem.)

Also, the mechanisms by which polarization occurs have been widely explained - just perhaps not by his cherry picked example.


Quote
The truth is that if everyone on the left followed the advice of Peterson, Weiss, Rubin, and Chua, Fox News would still lie to its base to keep them whipped up about something. It’s just what they do.


This much is true.

Quote
Reactionary centrists often enter into political debates with the presumption that they should always be cool, level-headed, and respectful. And that’s nice, but politics is a very contentious field precisely because it’s how we resolve otherwise unresolvable conflicts. Further, a lot of reactionary centrists are part of a chattering class in publishing and academia that views respectful discussion as the central goal of politics rather than the building or use of power, the granting of rights, or the distribution of resources and wealth. Thus, they work overtime to elevate the views of what they consider moderate or reasonable voices on the right, even though those voices have very little power in policymaking. And they give far too much credit to actual powerful political actors on the right for being reasonable when they’re actually quite extreme.


Yes, means do not matter - only purported ends. /s

Quote
But what is the nature of this anarchy and its loosening? This is left to the reader’s imagination. I doubt most Americans even know who Kevin Williamson is.


As is most of this writers 'facts' - and about as many people have probably heard of Kevin Williamson as have heard of No Labels, which were featured in an example I haven't bothered to quote here. I love how this writer holds to consistent standards of any sort as basis of criticism. /s

Quote
Similarly, Sam Harris flipped out at Vox Media for publishing a criticism of an interview he did with Charles Murray, a right wing political scientist whose uses data about race and IQ to argue for dismantling civil rights programs.


This is a lie, and the link provided by the piece reader eventually leading to interview transcript basically proves it as such. Seems to be enough misrepresentation to go around, on all sides of political spectrum eh?

Quote
And he’d rather invest his time, energy, and considerable podcast platform into presenting a moderate version of Charles Murray’s views than elevating the voices of civil rights activists or scholars who work on ending racial discrimination.


Yeah, don't talk about anything the piece writer doesn't want to hear from you. Otherwise you're a traitor.

Quote
That discussion reminded me of so many others I’ve had with researchers who participate in political debates. They think the middle is where they’re supposed to be regardless of where the sides stand in a debate, but they can’t quite explain why. If you point out their political biases and the effects of their political advocacy, you’ll get a blank stare, a denial, or simply have accusations of bias thrown back at you.


Given the evidence presented in his own words, in the form of this article, it seems evident that the piece writer's reception of blank stares is most likely because he was spouting bullshit - and the accusations of bias probably came because the guy wears his bias on his sleeve, and seems totally incapable of accepting any way of thinking other than his own as valid.

It was an interesting article to say the least, more than vaguely reminiscent of similar pieces on Breitbart or even the smaller sites run by Infowars adherents. Flip the political perspective, and it reads much the same. A piece so deep in its own swamp, it thinks the whole world resides in there with it.


Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/16/18 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
as if the people who dislike Obama's ACA agenda and people who live by Alex Jones are by necessity birds of a feather.


Yes, I would say this idea is actually central to this piece. Fox's narrative does in fact overlap with the Alex Jones set far too often these days - and this same propaganda tactic used wrt Parkland is applied wholesale across the their criticisms of the left.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-mainstreams-conspiracy-theory-about-parkland-students

Originally Posted by Derid
So, because Plinker advocates for a particular position that many people find reasonable, this is evidence of the piece author's neologism?


Yes, and again I think this is a central idea. There is an incredible amount of *money* coming from the likes of the Koch brothers, propping up these figureheads with some liberal tendencies willing to say these taglines which could be distorted to justify the positions of the right and especially the alt right. By and large I believe these people would be completely unknown otherwise. They are willing to allow their personas to be distorted in this way for money or "personal branding" or whatever. Pinker's nuclear example is, I think, the author's attempt to ease into this subject. Rubin, Peterson and Weinstein etc are more to the point relevant to this discussion.

The money amplifies this noise to the point where, now, here we are debating the noise.

Originally Posted by Derid
A specific 'student activist group' might not have more influence than a sitting president, but the idea that shutting out, unjustifiably smearing, and physically attacking people with whom you disagree is not only acceptable but proper conduct is FAR FAR FAR more dangerous than a dozen Trumps. Trump is a tumor, where that idea is cancer itself.


Again central to the point. The idea that small groups of students equates to a metastasized cancer on the whole of politics (while simultaneously ignoring actual measurable political power) is, itself, the cancer.

Originally Posted by Derid
Quote
Reactionary centrists often enter into political debates with the presumption that they should always be cool, level-headed, and respectful. And that’s nice, but politics is a very contentious field precisely because it’s how we resolve otherwise unresolvable conflicts. Further, a lot of reactionary centrists are part of a chattering class in publishing and academia that views respectful discussion as the central goal of politics rather than the building or use of power, the granting of rights, or the distribution of resources and wealth. Thus, they work overtime to elevate the views of what they consider moderate or reasonable voices on the right, even though those voices have very little power in policymaking. And they give far too much credit to actual powerful political actors on the right for being reasonable when they’re actually quite extreme.


Yes, means do not matter - only purported ends. /s


I suggest that you are missing the point here about how this relates to "Reactionary centrists think politics is about positions, not actions," even though earlier you agreed, and how power dynamics are important, and further how giving platform to noise is not just free speech but empowerment.

For example, it isn't to say that we should deny the ideology of the Milos of the world from being shared at Berkeley, but it is absolutely fundamental to our democracy that a reasonable society, after analyzing his bankroll and unstated agenda, use those metrics to determine an appropriate platform. I would say that beaming it directly into millions of households is not the appropriate platform in this example, and yet it happens every day.

To then distort that concept into "intolerance" is simply dishonest and an extension of the agenda.

By the way, I think the author is muddying the language of "intolerance" throughout the piece, but the above comment is part of the point I believe he's trying to make with that word - if this makes one "intolerant," then we should be.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/17/18 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
That analysis is exactly why I can't debate with you guys. You made it four paragraphs before you stopped listening and started changing the debate.


You can't build a valid argument out of failed premise. When I start with: "Suppose Derid is a lizard person..." everything that follows may still be true, but you no longer have to consider the argument because I don't offer a valid justification for my beliefs. It is possible to believe right things for a wrong reason, but it isn't possible to be justified in doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/17/18 12:03 AM

Conor Friedersdorf rarely disappointing to read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...e-left-fuel-bigotry-on-the-right/560285/
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/17/18 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Derid
Apparently new left tactic is to take much of what they loath about certain elements of the right and copy it.


I wish I could disagree with this.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/17/18 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Sini


First off, I don't buy the parallel between inciting terrorism and the coddling of the right - There are obvious and extreme socioeconomic and geopolitical differences at play amongst the targeted populations, which has been conveniently ignored here.

However, if you accept that it is a valid comparison, then the reverse statement is also true: The right is being hypocritical in their demands for coddling now, when they rejected it then for others.

I agree with Jamelle Bouie's followup to the quoted tweet which is
Quote
and this is granting the claim that there is an epidemic of liberals labeling Americans racist, which is asserted but not actually supported with evidence in this piece.


and therefore disagree with the premise Claire Lehmann presents which is based on direct insult. When those on the right are personally insulted when presented with evidence of racially motivated policy and power derived from bigotry, perhaps it is due to projecting.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/17/18 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini


First off, I don't buy the parallel between inciting terrorism and the coddling of the right - There are obvious and extreme socioeconomic and geopolitical differences at play amongst the targeted populations, which has been conveniently ignored here.



I will respond to your previous post when I get some time, but for now - I think its important to realize that principles remain constant even when details change. And the principle at work here is:

Originally Posted by Connor
Indeed, it is the easiest of cases: It merely requires being more rigorous about the truth.


It's really that simple. You cannot lump people together just because it feels good to do so, and expect rational people to fall in line with that. Just because Fox may attempt at various times to pander to both certain elements of the far-right, and elements of the center-right and center, does not mean that they are all the same. It just means that Fox tries to draw in many different markets.


I feel a need to once more quote Confucius:

Quote
If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately.


What Confucius was referring to was precisely rigor in applying labels, specifically social labels. To wit: if you allow your language and thinking to become muddled and inaccurate, chaos ensues and things go to shit.

No matter how strongly someone feels about some particular issue or how much they loathe people who hold different positions than themselves, in the long run no good will come from trying to achieve your ends by invoking logical fallacies to justify misusing labels.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/22/18 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
It's really that simple. You cannot lump people together just because it feels good to do so


Both Derid and rhaikh are two crazy homeless people shouting at each about racism. I won't listen to anything any crazy person have to say, because they are often wrong.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/31/18 04:06 AM

https://quillette.com/2018/05/28/sam-harris-not-ezra-klein-one-making-space-people-colour/

Covers about 80% of the points I would want to make, but have been too lazy to write up
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 05/31/18 03:21 PM

The risk of trying to engage in political debate as individuals is being drowned out by the various tribes in opposition. The reality is that as a matter of self interest it's better to throw your support behind the group that most closely identifies with your set of values. This is a shitty way to go about things, but better than jumping off a cliff.

But Sam Harris is probably right. The real irony is that if Sam Harris were to run for political office I would vote for him, as would many other people, because I think he would be a good representative my 'tribe.' In other words, in our current political system, it's next to impossible to separate identity politics from politics.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/01/18 09:07 AM

https://fair.org/home/the-tired-trope-of-blaming-trump-on-liberal-smugness/

Quote
One might expect a political science professor like Alexander would be eager to cite professional research or an academic study or two to finally prove the liberal-smugness effect. Notably, neither he nor his fellow conservatives ever bother with this step—and the mainstream op-ed editors giving them a platform don’t seem to care. Instead, it is enough to simply state the claim as self-evident, or to quote a handful of random people who make sweeping claims about the abuse they face from unnamed liberals, as a way to justify what could just as easily be fairly predictable, baked-in support for Trump by Republicans.


Quote
a University of Maryland working paper that studied reactions to the 2016 election cast doubt on the premise of liberal shaming driving conservatives further toward the right. As it noted, there was no statistically significant evidence of a backlash by conservative voters when confronted with liberal critiques of Trump being racist. In fact, the paper found that conservative racial animus in response to liberal election messaging was rooted in pre-existing biases, which is why those same conservatives also rejected claims of Trump’s racism that came from Republicans. Or, as the paper concludes:

"Racially conservative whites are resistant to a racialized counter-strategy. In other words, they are motivated to reject information critical of their preferred candidate because it is inconsistent with their existing racial attitudes and views about the candidate."

This study dovetails with an analysis done by The Nation (5/8/17) of pre- and post-election surveys which found that racial resentment, not economic anxiety, played an instrumental—and consistent—role in support for Trump during the last presidential campaign.


Harris et. al. are at best just enabling conservatives to prolong their avoidance of this introspection via their pseudointellectual drivel, and at worst can be legitimately blamed for being the actual ... (vanguard? storm front? I think I need a thesaurus) who are fueling the alt right.

https://www.wired.com/story/sam-harris-and-the-myth-of-perfectly-rational-thought/
https://www.splcenter.org/20180419/mcinnes-molyneux-and-4chan-investigating-pathways-alt-right
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/01/18 10:19 PM

Rhaikh, what are key ideas Harris is known for? Before I engage with you on this topic, I want to make sure we are actually talking about the same person.

As to your proposition that conservatives are inherently racist, do you realize that logical conclusion of this position is to conclude that racism isn't a big deal? After all, if X is a natural trait someone is born with, according to critical theory that is predominant at the left, it would be immoral to criticize a group of people on such basis.

So, I guess, stop racist-shaming conservative white folk, it is very racist of you to do so?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/03/18 12:28 PM



It took me some time to get through this incoherent mess. The key premise of this article is that there is no peer-reviewed papers that support the idea that Left's actions have a polarizing effect on Right. As counter-evidence, they offer a working paper (meaning, it wasn't peer reviewed) "The Effectiveness of a Racialized Counter-Strategy" by Antoine Jevon Banks from University of Maryland.

Here is his bio:
https://gvpt.umd.edu/facultyprofile/Banks/Antoine

Looking at his CV, here is other work he published:

Banks, Antoine J. and Heather Hicks. 2016.
“Fear and Implicit Racism: Whites’ Support for Voter ID laws” Political Psychology 37(5): 641-658.

Banks, Antoine J. and Nicholas A. Valentino 2014. “What Emotions Fuel Racism in America” American Journal of Political Science Blog, July 3, 2014

and so on...

---

Reading working paper that is cited by fair.org (https://www.dropbox.com/s/cufevh2ded015rh/Racialized%20Counter%20Strategy%20Draft_01_22_18.pdf?dl=0)

Abstract:
Quote
Our paper examines whether a politician charging a political candidate’s implicit racial campaign appeal as racist is an effective political strategy. According to the racial priming theory, this racialized counter-strategy should deactivate racism, thereby decreasing racially conservative whites’ support for the candidate engaged in race baiting. We propose
an alternative theory in which racial liberals, and not racially conservative whites,
are persuaded by this strategy. To test our theory, we focused on the 2016 presidential election. We ran an experiment varying the politician (by party and race) calling an implicit racial appeal by Donald Trump racist. We find that charging Trump’s campaign appeal as racist does not persuade racially conservative whites to decrease support for
Trump. Rather, it causes racially liberal whites to evaluate Trump more unfavorably. Our results hold up when attentiveness, old-fashioned racism, and partisanship are taken into account. We also reproduce our findings in two replication studies.


The cornerstone assertion of this paper is that racial priming theory is a thing. If you would like, we can have a separate discussion on this. However, to be charitable, this is a highly controversial theory with strong racist undertones. It also happens to be the kind of theory that is not falsifiable.

Reading on to methods:

Quote
We conducted an experiment through Survey Sampling International (SSI), a survey company which recruited participants to complete our study online in exchange for a variety of incentives; such as points, cash, and sweepstakes.


So it is a survey.

Quote
Participants are asked to read the article and watch the accompanying campaign ad. We created the political ad to resemble similar implicit racial appeals used in previous research... an image of young black men rioting in the streets appears on the screen.


They showed race-baiting video posing as a campaign add.

Quote
Our primary measure to capture whites’ racial attitudes is Kinder and Sander’s (1996) 4
-item Racial Resentment battery


To summarize, this is "have you stopped beating your wife" questionere. It first seen the light around Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action late 90s.

I won't bore you with critiques of statistical analysis used in the paper, but their method is inappropriate. They need to use multivariate analysis to make any kind of conclusion.

Some choice quote from results:

Quote
The findings show that racial conservatives do not feel significantly colder toward Trump after exposure to a politician’s charge of racism – relative to similar individuals in the implicit condition. In fact, resentful whites feel slightly warmer toward the Republican presidential candidate – though this difference does not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. This finding runs counter to the racial priming theory.


Quote
Racial liberals, in the explicit politician condition, are less likely to report voting for Trump relative to those in the implicit condition, but this difference is not statistically significant.


Then why are they talking about these differences?! A significant portion of this paper is "we didn't find statistically significant" and then proceed to talk about what it would mean if they did.


TL;DR This is a survey study that showed a fake racially-charged ad to a set of white people, asked them to self-identify on political spectrum, then used questionable method to measure effects of such ad. After that, questionable statistics were used to not find much of anything. From there, conclusions not supported by reported findings were reached.








Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/04/18 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
It took me some time to get through this incoherent mess. The key premise of this article is that there is no peer-reviewed papers


Nowhere in the article do they mention requiring only peer-reviewed papers. They are looking for any sort of citation.


Originally Posted by Sini
that support the idea that Left's actions have a polarizing effect on Right. As counter-evidence, they offer a working paper (meaning, it wasn't peer reviewed) "The Effectiveness of a Racialized Counter-Strategy" by Antoine Jevon Banks from University of Maryland.

Here is his bio:
https://gvpt.umd.edu/facultyprofile/Banks/Antoine

Looking at his CV, here is other work he published:

Banks, Antoine J. and Heather Hicks. 2016.
“Fear and Implicit Racism: Whites’ Support for Voter ID laws” Political Psychology 37(5): 641-658.

Banks, Antoine J. and Nicholas A. Valentino 2014. “What Emotions Fuel Racism in America” American Journal of Political Science Blog, July 3, 2014

and so on...



So in other words, he's a competent source for analyzing racial animus in politics for having studied it his entire academic career.

Secondly, that they are providing some evidence to the contrary which you happen to take technical issue with does not negate the need for the other side to present any sort of supporting evidence whatsoever.


Originally Posted by Sini
The cornerstone assertion of this paper is that racial priming theory is a thing.


So the cornerstone of your suspicion surrounding this work is the legitimacy of an academic study with 1300 citations?


Originally Posted by Sini
If you would like, we can have a separate discussion on this.


It sounds like you have the makings of your own working paper on the issue. I look forward to discussing it after you publish and it makes the rounds on the blogosphere.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/04/18 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Rhaikh, what are key ideas Harris is known for? Before I engage with you on this topic, I want to make sure we are actually talking about the same person.


I think it's sufficient for the purposes of this conversation to distill him down to these facts:

- As a philosophy and neuroscientist he rose to cultural prominence for views on atheism / religion
- He started forming let's say less-than-politically-correct ideas on Islam and subsequently collected some paychecks for TV appearances and faced backlash from the left
- He then found kindred spirit in Murray for what he observed as a similar unfair challenge to his ideas from the left
- He then went on to debate the merits of propping up the scientific racism Murray was peddling with Klein in an effort to collect even more paychecks


Fitting my mold of liberal willing to lend exactly just enough legitimacy to the basis of alt-right ideology in order to collect a paycheck, without admitting to holding such beliefs himself


Originally Posted by Sini
As to your proposition that conservatives are inherently racist


Which, again, is not something I've ever said or agree with.

Originally Posted by Sini
do you realize that logical conclusion of this position is to conclude that racism isn't a big deal? After all, if X is a natural trait someone is born with,


Both racism and conservatism are learned, not natural traits
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/07/18 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Rhaikh, what are key ideas Harris is known for? Before I engage with you on this topic, I want to make sure we are actually talking about the same person.


I think it's sufficient for the purposes of this conversation to distill him down to these facts:

- As a philosophy and neuroscientist he rose to cultural prominence for views on atheism / religion
- He started forming let's say less-than-politically-correct ideas on Islam and subsequently collected some paychecks for TV appearances and faced backlash from the left
- He then found kindred spirit in Murray for what he observed as a similar unfair challenge to his ideas from the left
- He then went on to debate the merits of propping up the scientific racism Murray was peddling with Klein in an effort to collect even more paychecks


Sam Harris, if distilled down to only few interests is known for advocacy of atheism, interest in free will, and relationship between science and religion. Only your first statement is even remotely neutral, the rest is knee-jerk ideology. Considering that you earlier agreed that Islam isn't a religion of peace, why is sudden regression and backslide to political correctness in your critique of Sam Harris? If we all agree that Islam is not a good thing, we only Harris is guilty of wrong-think?


Quote
Fitting my mold of liberal willing to lend exactly just enough legitimacy to the basis of alt-right ideology in order to collect a paycheck, without admitting to holding such beliefs himself


Alternatively, Sam Harris could be largely accurate in his criticisms of Islam and it is irrelevant whether alt-right agrees with him or not. It is also very telling that you consider that anything alt-right happen to agree with is automatically wrong and reprehensible. They probably also believe in gravity, does this make gravity a racist oppressive force that keeps minorities down (literally and otherwise)?


Quote
Originally Posted by Sini
do you realize that logical conclusion of this position is to conclude that racism isn't a big deal? After all, if X is a natural trait someone is born with,


Both racism and conservatism are learned, not natural traits



I am glad we both agree that racial priming theory is a bunch of bunk.


Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/07/18 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
The cornerstone assertion of this paper is that racial priming theory is a thing.


So the cornerstone of your suspicion surrounding this work is the legitimacy of an academic study with 1300 citations?


That, and bad statistics, questionable methods, lack of finding correlations for key arguments... and most importantly, the paper doesn't state what fair.org claims it says. It doesn't support their argument in any substantial way.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/07/18 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
I am glad we both agree that racial priming theory is a bunch of bunk.


Originally Posted by Sini
Alternatively, Sam Harris could be largely accurate in his criticisms of Islam and it is irrelevant whether alt-right agrees with him or not. It is also very telling that you consider that anything alt-right happen to agree with is automatically wrong and reprehensible. They probably also believe in gravity, does this make gravity a racist oppressive force that keeps minorities down (literally and otherwise)?


Shame on you for falling back on straw men when you run out of good points, and shame on me for using euphemisms. Gravity is not alt-right ideology, racism is. Racial priming works on people who have already learned to be racist.

Originally Posted by Sini
Sam Harris, if distilled down to only few interests is known for advocacy of atheism, interest in free will, and relationship between science and religion. Only your first statement is even remotely neutral, the rest is knee-jerk ideology. Considering that you earlier agreed that Islam isn't a religion of peace, why is sudden regression and backslide to political correctness in your critique of Sam Harris? If we all agree that Islam is not a good thing, we only Harris is guilty of wrong-think?


He found purchase (multiple meanings implied) with controversy. It's not relevant to this topic his ideas on atheism, what's relevant is that he has become literally a peddler of controversy, and that is the reason he is giving platform to scientific racism. And herein is the intersection with the central point of this topic: Weinstein appearing on Fox is him following the same formula.

Originally Posted by Sini

That, and bad statistics, questionable methods, lack of finding correlations for key arguments... and most importantly, the paper doesn't state what fair.org claims it says. It doesn't support their argument in any substantial way.


I personally disagree with multiple facets of your assessment, but again, a) where's Gerard Alexander's evidence? and b) where's the formal refutation you are presenting? I think it's fair to leave criticism of academic work to academia.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/07/18 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh

Shame on you for falling back on straw men when you run out of good points, and shame on me for using euphemisms. Gravity is not alt-right ideology, racism is. Racial priming works on people who have already learned to be racist.


You have no moral standing to shame anyone, as this would imply that you could have a moral high ground on this issue. I don't see how this would ever be possible after you attempted guilt-by-association.

I am also not clear how to take your response on Harris. Are you conceding that accusations of racism against him are baseless, or are you doubling-down on calling him alt-right because his atheism includes opposition to Islam? Please clarify.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
He found purchase (multiple meanings implied) with controversy. It's not relevant to this topic his ideas on atheism, what's relevant is that he has become literally a peddler of controversy, and that is the reason he is giving platform to scientific racism. And herein is the intersection with the central point of this topic: Weinstein appearing on Fox is him following the same formula.


So you are doubling-down.

Restating your argument for clarity:

P1. Harris general views on atheism are not relevant to his critiques of Islam
P2. Harris critique of Islam is controversial
P3. Alt-right criticizes Islam for racist reasons
P4. Alt-right is also controversial
---
C1 Therefore, Harris criticizes Islam for racists reasons
C2 Therefore, Harris is an alt-right

or

P1. Apples are round and small
P2. Baseballs are round and small
P3. Baseballs are sport implements
---
C1 Therefore, apples are sport implements

I don't think I even need to enumerate logical flaws in this, as it is plainly obvious that such argument is deeply flawed.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I personally disagree with multiple facets of your assessment, but again, a) where's Gerard Alexander's evidence? and b) where's the formal refutation you are presenting?


One valid, but weak, argument that fair.org has made is that polarization of conservative voters due to actions of Left have not been thoroughly researched. Everything else they say, including attempting to misinterpret a working paper to claim it as evidence to contrary, is bunk.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I think it's fair to leave criticism of academic work to academia.


I disagree. When academic work is core of your argument it behooves one to understand it. At the very least one must not misstate or overstate findings. It is also helpful to be familiar with statistics and research methods to spot flaws.

Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/07/18 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
You have no moral standing to shame anyone, as this would imply that you could have a moral high ground on this issue. I don't see how this would ever be possible after you attempted guilt-by-association.

I am also not clear how to take your response on Harris. Are you conceding that accusations of racism against him are baseless, or are you doubling-down on calling him alt-right because his atheism includes opposition to Islam? Please clarify.

So you are doubling-down.

Restating your argument for clarity:

P1. Harris general views on atheism are not relevant to his critiques of Islam
P2. Harris critique of Islam is controversial
P3. Alt-right criticizes Islam for racist reasons
P4. Alt-right is also controversial
---
C1 Therefore, Harris criticizes Islam for racists reasons
C2 Therefore, Harris is an alt-right

or

P1. Apples are round and small
P2. Baseballs are round and small
P3. Baseballs are sport implements
---
C1 Therefore, apples are sport implements

I don't think I even need to enumerate logical flaws in this, as it is plainly obvious that such argument is deeply flawed.



This post is complete garbage.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/08/18 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
This post is complete garbage.


I am sorry, my bad. I forgot you are allergic to reason and logic.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/08/18 02:22 PM

You’re so damn good at figuring out what I’m really trying to say, why don’t you give it a shot here. I’ll start replying again to stop you when you’ve figured out all the reasons why your post is garbage. As a hint, reason and logic is not correct, sorry.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/09/18 07:34 PM

You can't expect to say incoherent, illogical things here and hope I would go along with it. I would go out of my way to help you understand, but you need to ask instead of attacking. We won't move past illogical things you say until you stop saying illogical things.

In our recent discussion you called Harris alt-right. This is lunacy. If he is alt-right, then anyone right of SJW is also alt-right. Then with such definition being alt-right isn't a big deal, and probably is even a good thing. Is that what you really intended by trying to redefine terms? Somehow I don't think so.

You did in the past and continue engaging in sloppy thinking and based on that going on attack. In effect, you are charging at the windmills.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/10/18 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
In our recent discussion you called Harris alt-right. This is lunacy


Lunacy is continuously and unceasingly misrepresenting what I’ve actually said. I cannot engage with someone who doesn’t take the time to read what I say.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/10/18 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Harris et. al. are at best just enabling conservatives to prolong their avoidance of this introspection via their pseudointellectual drivel, and at worst can be legitimately blamed for being the actual ... (vanguard? storm front? I think I need a thesaurus) who are fueling the alt right.

I think I understood you perfectly when you called Harris " Stormfront who are fueling the alt right".

Originally Posted by rhaikh
He then went on to debate the merits of propping up the scientific racism Murray was peddling with Klein in an effort to collect even more paychecks

Here is a quote of you further clarifying this point by directly accusing Harris of racism.

Quote
He found purchase (multiple meanings implied) with controversy. It's not relevant to this topic his ideas on atheism, what's relevant is that he has become literally a peddler of controversy, and that is the reason he is giving platform to scientific racism.

Here is a quote of you dismissing atheism as an explanation and insisting it must be racism. By doing so you also question Harris' own explanation for his motivation, compounding your attacks on him by accusing him of dishonesty.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Lunacy is continuously and unceasingly misrepresenting what I’ve actually said.

If you didn't intend to throw these accusation at Harris, what did you "actually" intended to say?


Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/10/18 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I offer that common ground is truly made inaccessible by those denying the realities of history, and the dynamics of power which have resulted from them, from being presented as relevant to how we've ended up in our status quo. Modern conservatism wishes to maintain status quo using almost exclusively moralistic rhetoric, but refuses to acknowledge how we got there since it's morally dubious and inconvenient to their argument.

Religion is construct for the enforcement of morals and subduing progressivism, and as such cannot be fundamentally peaceful


Earlier in this thread we had a short discussion regarding "1. Islam is NOT religion of peace". How is you stating "Religion [Islam] is construct for the enforcement of morals and subduing progressivism, and as such cannot be fundamentally peaceful" categorically different from Harris' views?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/11/18 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Fitting my mold of liberal willing to lend exactly just enough legitimacy to the basis of alt-right ideology in order to collect a paycheck, without admitting to holding such beliefs himself


Those quotes can be summarized by this one, the one you purposefully omitted / ignored.

So given that there are two possible explanations for your misbehavior (both of which you have clearly demonstrated already in this thread in other places):
- one is that you didn't read what I wrote / you rushed to reply before understanding it
- the other that you intended to miscategorize my thoughts in order to present an argument against a weaker version of my own

having quoted the majority of my thoughts on Harris and continuing to miscategorize them shows me that you are generally more inclined to the latter, less flattering, interpretation
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/11/18 02:19 PM

In case any other readers out there are legitimately confused, I will summarize one last time:

I believe Harris is popular because he is a liberal willing to lend legitimacy to the foundations of alt-right ideology. He is being paid to do exactly that. As a result, he is fueling the alt-right by justifying some people's preexisting biases with dubious "rational" reasons, leading them to seek out even more polarizing justifications (see the SPLC article linked above).
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/11/18 04:24 PM

In fairness to Sini, the quote above seems to exactly imply that you believe Sam Harris is a closeted alt-right'er.
Originally Posted by Rhaikh
...without admitting to holding such beliefs himself.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/11/18 05:49 PM

That's precisely not the implication, because if he were to claim alt-right ideology he would lose his audience. My implication is that he is maximizing his revenue by including the alt-right audience.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/11/18 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Fitting my mold of liberal willing to lend exactly just enough legitimacy to the basis of alt-right ideology in order to collect a paycheck, without admitting to holding such beliefs himself


Those quotes can be summarized by this one, the one you purposefully omitted / ignored.

So given that there are two possible explanations for your misbehavior (both of which you have clearly demonstrated already in this thread in other places):
- one is that you didn't read what I wrote / you rushed to reply before understanding it
- the other that you intended to miscategorize my thoughts in order to present an argument against a weaker version of my own

having quoted the majority of my thoughts on Harris and continuing to miscategorize them shows me that you are generally more inclined to the latter, less flattering, interpretation


Your own body of work is the entirety of evidence I need to demonstrate that you are arguing in bad faith in the above post, and this is even before you compounded by insinuations and veiled attacks. You are wrong, your views are demonstrably illogical and indefensible, and you are dishonest in arguing them.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/11/18 10:28 PM

Part 2 to the original video:

Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/11/18 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I believe Harris is popular because [This is causal claim] he is a liberal willing to lend legitimacy to the foundations [This would be isolationism and racism] of alt-right ideology. He is being paid to do exactly that. [Implication - tainted motivations, he wouldn't do it unless paid] As a result [Another causal claim], he is fueling the alt-right by justifying some people's preexisting biases with dubious "rational" reasons [Claims are either rational or not, there isn't a third kind.], leading [Another causal claim] them to seek out even more polarizing justifications (see the SPLC article linked above).


Lets analyze this gem. [Comments Inserted] in the quote above. Additionally, here they are in line:

"I believe Harris is popular because he is a liberal willing to lend legitimacy to the foundations of alt-right ideology. He is being paid to do exactly that."

Restate for clarity:

Harris popular only as a result of his liberal credentials being used to justify racism. He does it for money.

---

"As a result, he is fueling the alt-right by justifying some people's preexisting biases with dubious "rational" reasons, leading them to seek out even more polarizing justifications..."

Restated for clarity:

Harris is at least partially responsible for alt-right by providing them with false reasons, causing further radicalization.


Pick any one of the highlighted points and justify your positions. For now they are just dubious accusations.

---

Here is alternative explanation, that is simpler.

Harris is an atheist, he opposes any religion, including Islam on this basis. He criticizes Islam rationally, and has an audience of atheists that listen to what he has to say. Your opposition to Harris is rooted not in his positions, that are justified and reasoned, but because it contradicts your narrative of unquestioning inclusivity above anything else. That is, ultimately you value inclusivity and diversity over free speech and personal liberty.


Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/13/18 09:09 PM

For clarity and perspective, lets imagine the shoe being on the other foot for a minute.

Calling Sam Harris an alt-right figure, or cynical panderer to such is the equivalent of calling Thomas Piketty a SJW Marxist or panderer to such because his body of work regarding systemic inequality can be shoehorned to fit into Marx's interpretation of Hegel's dialectic, and also tends to validate the assertion that a person's starting position in life heavily influences their likely ending position. He also asserts that 'elites' have captured political process across all major parties, making him somewhat popular with some radical leftists. (just YouTube marx piketty if you want examples of this)

However, trying to label him a SJW or Marxist is absurd, as he is neither of those things. Anyone who tried to dismiss his positions not by addressing his logic or facts, but by trying to poison the well and associate him with people who cherry-pick portions of his work to support their Marxist positions, would also be acting in an absurd manner.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/15/18 01:13 AM

The Rubin Report - recent talk with Harris. I think Harris does a very good job addressing issues that we discussed in this thread.



I also agree with Harris on social media, I don't personally participate in it because it warps your thinking. I think there is a good chance rhaikh got his intellectual herpes that became evident in this thread by over-using social media.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/15/18 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
And herein is the intersection with the central point of this topic: Weinstein appearing on Fox is him following the same formula.


Lets talk about Weinstein. I assume everyone here is familiar with what happened at Evergreen College and how speaking against black bigots got Weinstein in trouble. If not, it is fascinating case of run-away identity politics that is worth looking into.

This is another data point of rot that spread over the left. We have seen similar process play out on the right with the tea party and RINO phenomenon, where people questioning dogma were purged as faux conservative. This lead to the sorry state of GOP today and devolution into Trumpism. The same process is playing out on the left right now. Only the left is much nastier about this, not only these people (e.g. Harris, Weinstein) were cast out, but also viciously slandered on the way out. It may end up leading to left's version of Trumpism.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/19/18 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Pick any one of the highlighted points and justify your positions. For now they are just dubious accusations.


Congratulations on actually reading what I wrote for once. I think this is big step for you.

I grant that my claims are unfounded in this forum, but I reserve that they are based on rational analysis. Please do your own research as I'm done contributing to your bad faith discussion.

Originally Posted by Derid
For clarity and perspective, lets imagine the shoe being on the other foot for a minute.

Calling Sam Harris an alt-right figure, or cynical panderer to such is the equivalent of calling Thomas Piketty a SJW Marxist or panderer to such because his body of work regarding systemic inequality can be shoehorned to fit into Marx's interpretation of Hegel's dialectic, and also tends to validate the assertion that a person's starting position in life heavily influences their likely ending position. He also asserts that 'elites' have captured political process across all major parties, making him somewhat popular with some radical leftists. (just YouTube marx piketty if you want examples of this)

However, trying to label him a SJW or Marxist is absurd, as he is neither of those things. Anyone who tried to dismiss his positions not by addressing his logic or facts, but by trying to poison the well and associate him with people who cherry-pick portions of his work to support their Marxist positions, would also be acting in an absurd manner.


The difference is that Harris did not do original research with Murray, he is simply giving him platform and choosing to ignore valid rational arguments against the work itself to promote his agenda.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/19/18 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Personally, I have been "eaten" many times at this point, where I am actively looking at saner (e.g. libertarians) groups of people to align on specific priorities or values (e.g. freedom of speech)


Politico on Classical Liberal . I find my values align with many thinkers on "Intellectual Dark Web". However, this label is stupid, we are simply oppose authoritarians of all kinds. (Trump or ANTIFA)
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/19/18 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I grant that my claims are unfounded in this forum, but I reserve that they are based on rational analysis. Please do your own research. Please do your own research...


You are attempting to shift Burden of Proof .

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Please do your own research as I'm done contributing to your bad faith discussion.


Disagreeing with you does not make my arguments bad faith. Let me ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept to change your mind on Harris? For example, would $3.4mil settlement and unconditional appology from SPLC count?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 06/25/18 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sini

Disagreeing with you does not make my arguments bad faith.


Every single reply you make contains bad faith. This quote included.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 07/03/18 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
The difference is that Harris did not do original research with Murray, he is simply giving him platform and choosing to ignore valid rational arguments against the work itself to promote his agenda.


The difference is not meaningful in this context.


Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Pick any one of the highlighted points and justify your positions. For now they are just dubious accusations.


Congratulations on actually reading what I wrote for once. I think this is big step for you.

I grant that my claims are unfounded in this forum, but I reserve that they are based on rational analysis. Please do your own research as I'm done contributing to your bad faith discussion.


This doesn't make any sense. The examples you have put forth thus far demonstrate a high level of provable fallacy in your presented lines of reasoning, yet you are asking everyone to accept the correctness of your analysis on faith.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/05/18 03:49 PM

http://oracle.the-kgb.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/145510/video-thread#Post145510
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/21/18 01:32 PM

Are classical liberals eating themselves?

https://twitter.com/TheMadDimension/status/992991897395212288
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/21/18 05:13 PM

That's funny. I would dig up some "Stalin did nothing wrong" tweets from your fellow socialists, but twitter is worst than a waste of time - I genuinely have come to believe it rots your brain.

Now that I think about it though, it would be pretty funny if I made a bunch of twitter accounts that claimed to be socialist and said all white people should die from them to prove that socialists really just want white genocide.

(btw just in case someone somewhere doesn't realize I am being 110% tongue in cheek, I suppose these days I need to clarify that I am. p.s. avoid twitter and social media in general, as I am pretty sure that is how peoples perceptions are getting so warped to the point I feel the need to clarify what actually is and isn't tongue in cheek)

-

On a more serious note rhaikh, go read Law, Legislation and Liberty by F.A. Hayek - an actual Classic Liberal intellectual. If you want to criticize a viewpoint as racist, try criticizing actual bedrock intellectuals and academics espousing and defining the view, not random dumbfucks on twitter. Using random dubmfucks on twitter means your own discourse has fallen to the level of random twitter dumbfuckery, which isn't good for anyone. Twitter should seriously not be used for anything but the latest cat picture memes and dick jokes, seriously.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/22/18 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Are classical liberals eating themselves?

https://twitter.com/TheMadDimension/status/992991897395212288


Could you quote relevant parts? I would rather not stare into twitter myself.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/22/18 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Are classical liberals eating themselves?

https://twitter.com/TheMadDimension/status/992991897395212288


Could you quote relevant parts? I would rather not stare into twitter myself.


I hear it also stares into you
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/22/18 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
Using random dubmfucks on twitter means your own discourse has fallen to the level of random twitter dumbfuckery


Well he is a dumbfuck, but not really random.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kessler


Originally Posted by Derid
I would dig up some "Stalin did nothing wrong" tweets from your fellow socialists


That is essentially what the OP in this thread is doing - Part 1 of my point with this link. Part 2 backing up my previous claims about the IDW leading to the alt-right.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/22/18 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Are classical liberals eating themselves?

https://twitter.com/TheMadDimension/status/992991897395212288


Could you quote relevant parts? I would rather not stare into twitter myself.



I'd prefer if you never engaged with my content, actually.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/22/18 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Derid
Using random dubmfucks on twitter means your own discourse has fallen to the level of random twitter dumbfuckery


Well he is a dumbfuck, but not really random.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kessler


Originally Posted by Derid
I would dig up some "Stalin did nothing wrong" tweets from your fellow socialists


That is essentially what the OP in this thread is doing - Part 1 of my point with this link. Part 2 backing up my previous claims about the IDW leading to the alt-right.




I think the overarching point here, is were it not for twitter giving a platform, no one would even know about the guy. His rantings, as well as the stalin did nothing wrong and many other crowds would have an audience the size of their sleepy neighborhood tavern. Incidentally, twitters purpose in these cases seems to be helping a couple people who agree connect and giving a few thousand random people someone to yell at. You say he isn't random, but the whole problem with things like twitter is any random person can get an audience and any troll can be fed as long as he sufficiently pushes peoples emotional buttons one way or another. 140 characters (or whatever the limit is) isn't a platform for studious discourse, its a stage for trolls - most of which we would all be better off not feeding, left, right, fascist, communist or otherwise.

The fact that a huge chunk of dumbfuckery from all sides seems to originate or revolve around twitterverse is not lost on me. If you got famous (or infamous) on twitter, and not because of a cute cat pic, its because you said something that triggered peoples emotions. The whole environment self selects for people who engage in the trolliest possible behavior.

I remain unconvinced that the guy is evidence of anything leading to anything though, other that the loudest demagogues and most intentionally offensive getting the most attention on antisocial media.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/22/18 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Derid
I think the overarching point here, is were it not for twitter giving a platform, no one would even know about the guy.


I am not on twitter and don't know who this guy is. Had to read wikipedia stub that was linked. Any idea why rhaikh calling him libertarian?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/22/18 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Are classical liberals eating themselves?

https://twitter.com/TheMadDimension/status/992991897395212288


Could you quote relevant parts? I would rather not stare into twitter myself.



I'd prefer if you never engaged with my content, actually.


Try twitting about it, or even better start a hashtag. Unfortunately #epistemicclosure likely already taken.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/23/18 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
I am not on twitter and don't know who this guy is. Had to read wikipedia stub that was linked. Any idea why rhaikh calling him libertarian?


Maybe since you both only chose to read one of the links I provided, you can compare notes.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/23/18 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
I am not on twitter and don't know who this guy is. Had to read wikipedia stub that was linked. Any idea why rhaikh calling him libertarian?


Maybe since you both only chose to read one of the links I provided, you can compare notes.


I looked at the wiki thing, and my point stands. If it wasn't for him being a trolling troll on twitter no one would know or care

Look a bit deeper before making assumptions. If it wasn't for twitterverse, no one would know what he was doing, and even if he showed up at a physical 'protest' he'd be accompanied by maybe 2 people, the pigeons in the park, and maybe a couple motorists who rubbernecked and laughed
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 08/26/18 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
I am not on twitter and don't know who this guy is. Had to read wikipedia stub that was linked. Any idea why rhaikh calling him libertarian?


Maybe since you both only chose to read one of the links I provided, you can compare notes.


Your other link is Twitter. I even asked you to summarize/quote relevant parts, but you threw a fit instead.

So why do you think some random person on twitter is liberterian?
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/04/18 11:57 PM

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-twitter-partisan-politics-20180831-story.html

Quote


It was a different story for Republicans. Compared to those who did not follow the liberal bot, those who did “exhibited substantially more conservative views” after just one month. The greater the number of liberal tweets the Republicans absorbed, the more conservative they became. These results were statistically significant.

In other words, the experiment backfired.

But Bail and his colleagues from Duke, Brigham Young University and New York University said it’s too soon to give up on the idea that social media can help bridge the partisan divide.


I disagree, it is not too soon to give up on social media. Though well intentioned, these guys are trying to use more cyanide as an antidote to cyanide poisoning. It cant work.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/14/18 10:32 PM

It's frankly bizarre that I post a quote from the organizer of Unite the Right and what you guys take away from it is that Twitter is bad.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/15/18 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
It's frankly bizarre that I post a quote from the organizer of Unite the Right and what you guys take away from it is that Twitter is bad.

Here's the text of what you quoted, for anyone else who didn't bother to click on a twitter link the first time:

Originally Posted by twitter link
I'm a Classical Liberal, not a fascist. I believe part of what made white civilizations great is our respect for ideals like free speech and individual liberty.

If we descend into Might Makes Right we're no better than your average tribal warlord.

If I understand, and please correct me if I'm off base, your point is that this since person identifies as a Classical Liberal, the question "is the left eating itself" could be applied Classical Liberalism. There's no point in typing out the continuation of that line of thought here, I'm sure everyone can figure it out.

Is that right?

If so, then I would argue Derid already gave a valid response, which you have dismissed as "twitter is bad," and I would be interested in your response.

If not, I sincerely apologize that I've misunderstood your position, and ask that you clarify.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/16/18 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
It's frankly bizarre that I post a quote from the organizer of Unite the Right and what you guys take away from it is that Twitter is bad.


The only bizzare thing is that some people miss the point of 'twitter is bad' comments - to wit: anyone can say anything, and generally should not be taken as credible until proven otherwise, nor would anyone pay attention to them were it not for twitter giving others someone easy to hate.

"some alt-right guy said something" - so what? Who does he represent? is there reason to believe anything he says matters, that he is telling the truth and not trolling, or even has a clue as to what he is talking about? Or are you just shouting "look here at my straw man!!!" louder and louder? If not, then link the relevancy of whatever alt-right guy to conversation.

If your argument is that the right is also eating itself, well youre making a bad argument and example here - but i'm pretty sure everyone already knew that anyhow. See huge ass Trump thread. The right already ate itself, and then took a messy shit. Would be nice if the left didn't play copycat, but all indications are that it is trying really hard to do so - which frankly wont be good for anyone.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/17/18 12:27 AM

Leftist threat to free speech

Quote
Liberals need to be reminded of the origins of their ideology. In 1859, when governments around the world were still deeply repressive — banning books, censoring commentary and throwing people in jail for their beliefs — John Stuart Mill explained in his seminal work, “On Liberty,” that protection against governments was not enough: “There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose . . . its own ideas and practices . . . on those who dissent from them.” This classic defense of free speech, which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes later called the “freedom for the thought that we hate,” is under pressure in the United States — and from the left.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/18/18 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Brutal
Originally Posted by rhaikh
It's frankly bizarre that I post a quote from the organizer of Unite the Right and what you guys take away from it is that Twitter is bad.

Here's the text of what you quoted, for anyone else who didn't bother to click on a twitter link the first time:

Originally Posted by twitter link
I'm a Classical Liberal, not a fascist. I believe part of what made white civilizations great is our respect for ideals like free speech and individual liberty.

If we descend into Might Makes Right we're no better than your average tribal warlord.

If I understand, and please correct me if I'm off base, your point is that this since person identifies as a Classical Liberal, the question "is the left eating itself" could be applied Classical Liberalism. There's no point in typing out the continuation of that line of thought here, I'm sure everyone can figure it out.

Is that right?

If so, then I would argue Derid already gave a valid response, which you have dismissed as "twitter is bad," and I would be interested in your response.

If not, I sincerely apologize that I've misunderstood your position, and ask that you clarify.



The more complete of an answer I give on this forum, to basically any question, the more the frequent posters here wish to hijack my opinions into their own realm of displeasure. So in a sense this post of mine you are quoting is my distilled complaint about the other responders. While I understand that social media has had an effect on public discourse, and you could therefore explore that relationship as it applies to any modern political topic, I think that is not at all causal to this particular topic and yet they've managed to spin several pages of essentially tangental spam out of it.

What's far more interesting to me is the parallel between this behavior I've just described amongst this group, and the behavior of the people who are driving this "anti freedom leftist" narrative in the press. These people are spinning whole book tours of tangental spam out of the actions of teenagers at an unknown liberal arts college, taking money from and advancing the ideologies of the likes of Peter Thiel and the Koch brothers on that tenuous justification.

Which continues it's own feedback loop - they then go off on paid promotion tours to places they are likely to see ideological pushback (for good reason - I am quite justified in implementing my email spam filter, for example), and I bet in their five star hotel suite they are praying that some idiot teenager brings an airhorn so they can fund next year's tour.

Incidentally, or intentionally, or both, this creates a monster. Their audience get a feel good rush from reading 12 rules and cleaning your room and all of a sudden they're yelling at Muslims and showing up at Jason Kessler's rally to hear David Duke speak. It's okay, they're just Classical Liberals, not fascists. It's probably because they use twitter.

Anyway, I hope that's clear enough for you. I'm sure some will object to my lack of citation but unlike Evergreen College this place doesn't issue any credits and so my incentive to provide a complete bibliography is low.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/18/18 01:13 PM

Quote
...the people who are driving this "anti freedom leftist" narrative in the press.
Are you referring to Faux News, or something else? Honestly I won't presume speak for others in saying what the point of this topic is, but I think that most here would agree that the far right is deplorable. I no longer consider myself a Republican because the politics of the party have strayed too far towards that fringe. My problem is that I can't in good conscience embrace the Democrat problem for much the same reason.

From my perspective, here is what our two parties currently offer:

  • Republicans: thinly veiled or sometimes outright racist views and policies, religious zealotry (and an alarming push towards pseudo-theocracy), and nationalism
  • Democrats: welfare state, censorship, class warfare

Obviously there are others (like government oversight, gun control), but this list encapsulates my greatest fears from both sides.

Over the course of my adult life the left have regressed nearly as far towards the fringe as the right have, leaving me with no good political choices. If there was one political ideal that you could always count on the left to espouse above all others it was the protection of the 1st amendment. These days the left seem far greater enemies of free speech than the right.

Who the fuck am I supposed to choose from this shit show?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/18/18 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Brutal
These days the left seem far greater enemies of free speech than the right.


According to paid shills complaining about teenagers.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/18/18 10:35 PM

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that our democracy really is about to be destroyed by teenagers with airhorns. To solve the problem, I propose a new structure for universities to adopt when student organizations invite political pundits to speak on their campus:

- Deny the student org or the invited guest the ability to accept direct donations on behalf of any cause. Orgs found accepting donations related to guest appearances would be denied future guest visitation permits.
- Enforce an admission fee, price set by student body vote, may be selectively increased but not decreased by sponsoring organization
- Require 100% of proceeds above administrative costs to be allocated based on vote of the entire student body.


I think the teenagers with airhorns will accept this compromise because they know that the student body agrees with them, and the proceeds for an unimpeded event will directly benefit their interests.
I think the orgs inviting Milos and such will reject this, because they don't actually stand to benefit - their cause was never that of actual speech, but of promotion.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/19/18 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Just for the sake of argument, let's say that our democracy really is about to be destroyed by teenagers with airhorns.


If "teenagers with airhorns" was the entirety of the problem, then I would agree that your skepticism is justified. However, I see this issue widespread and metastasized. Just today I learned that editor at a well-know magazine was ousted after publishing essay by Jian Ghomeshi. Jian Ghomeshi was a Canadian radio broadcaster who was charged and found not guilty of sexual assault. Before that, I read about Jian's lawyer was being protested by students after getting invited to deliver unrelated talk. This is how unbelievably censorious the regressive left is. Deplatform. Unperson. Violently Attack.

I don't have to look hard for more examples, as they happen almost daily. Reducing this phenomenon to "teenagers with airhoorns" is not unlike calling WW2 a border skirmish between Poland and Germany.

Quote
- Deny the student org or the invited guest the ability to accept direct donations on behalf of any cause. Orgs found accepting donations related to guest appearances would be denied future guest visitation permits.
- Enforce an admission fee, price set by student body vote, may be selectively increased but not decreased by sponsoring organization
- Require 100% of proceeds above administrative costs to be allocated based on vote of the entire student body.


I think adopting University of Chicago Statement of Principles of Free Expression is by far more effective. Your solution presuppose convoluted causes, when simple and direct attribution - censorious thugs seeking political power - is simpler explanation without need for further and deeper analysis.

Quote
inviting Milos and such


Do you believe that "Milos and such" deserve freedom of speech?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/20/18 05:41 PM

No, I Will Not Debate You

Quote
Steve Bannon, like the howling monster from the id he ushered into the White House, exploits the values of the liberal establishment by offering an impossible choice: betray their stated principles (free, open debate) or dignify fascism and white supremacy. This weaponizes tolerance to legitimize intolerance. If we deny racists a platform, they feed off the appearance of censorship, but if we give them a platform, they’ve also won by being respectfully invited into the penumbra of mainstream legitimacy. Either way, what matters to them is not debate, but airtime and attention. They have no interest in winning on the issues. Their image of a better world is one with their face on every television screen.

The marketplace of ideas is just as full of con artists, scammers, and Ponzi schemes as any other marketplace, and as always, when the whole thing comes crashing down, it’s ordinary marks who lose everything.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/20/18 07:30 PM

The issue with denying a platform, in this example to fascists or white supremacist, goes back to the slippery slope argument. I know you disagree with this but I really hope you will try to play devil's advocate with yourself. Ultimately, who makes the decision about whose platform should be denied? The only reasonable answer is: society consensus. To this I would ask, if enough of society can agree that a thing is bad enough we should deny it a platform, why should be be worried about it having a platform in the first place? It's obvious that enough people agree that it is bad, and those reasonable people will have no trouble both rejecting the offensive position and educating their peers/children to do the same. I would argue that allowing deplorables to air their view gives us reasonable folk ammunition to use in ensuring their way of thinking is roundly rejected.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/20/18 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Brutal
The issue with denying a platform, in this example to fascists or white supremacist, goes back to the slippery slope argument. I know you disagree with this but I really hope you will try to play devil's advocate with yourself. Ultimately, who makes the decision about whose platform should be denied? The only reasonable answer is: society consensus. To this I would ask, if enough of society can agree that a thing is bad enough we should deny it a platform, why should be be worried about it having a platform in the first place? It's obvious that enough people agree that it is bad, and those reasonable people will have no trouble both rejecting the offensive position and educating their peers/children to do the same. I would argue that allowing deplorables to air their view gives us reasonable folk ammunition to use in ensuring their way of thinking is roundly rejected.



In a vacuum chamber you'd be right, but in our society an individual's speech is given weight based on the amount of wealth or celebrity they have access to, not the level of rationality behind their opinions.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/20/18 08:00 PM

I can't disagree with that, but that's an issue with society, not with the individual speaking. What you're suggesting sounds like "society can't be trusted to.." so some authority must step in and intervene. If I'm misunderstanding you please let me know.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/20/18 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Brutal
I can't disagree with that, but that's an issue with society, not with the individual speaking. What you're suggesting sounds like "society can't be trusted to.." so some authority must step in and intervene. If I'm misunderstanding you please let me know.


Well, when someone who is accused by 20 different women of sexual violence and somehow manages to avoid criminal conviction comes to your magazine with a whiney essay about how humiliated he's been, perhaps you should first consider the social and professional repercussions of giving that man platform before just accepting the essay due to the man's celebrity.

Perhaps it's fine if the students at a hyper leftist college don't wish to be complicit in platforming a racist.

These people are free to have speech, but society should also be free to dictate the platforms they are confined to based on ethical considerations.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/21/18 06:33 PM

Quote

Well, when someone who is accused by 20 different women of sexual violence and somehow manages to avoid criminal conviction comes to your magazine with a whiney essay about how humiliated he's been, perhaps you should first consider the social and professional repercussions of giving that man platform before just accepting the essay due to the man's celebrity.


rhaikh, if I accuse you of sexual violence against me, and maybe get Derid or Brutal to back me up, does that mere accusation automatically makes you a sexual predator? Should we then proceed to deplatform you, because you are now viewed as a horrible and irredeemable unperson? If you try to defend yourself by questioning my motives or honesty, how is that not a victim-blaming and your attempts to re-traumatize me? How would you reconcile your attempts to defend yourself with you advocating always trusting the victim?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/22/18 12:42 AM

Your hypothetical bullshit trolling is, as usual, unworthy of response, because it takes this argument out of the reality of the situation. It's as if you are allergic to reality... intellectually agoraphobic

What I want to know is, are you demonstrating moral bankruptcy by taking this position against this man's 24 accusers, or are you going to claim being uninformed of the accusations against the guy prior to bringing him up to attempt to score a political point? Do you believe Trump's 19 accusers are all lying also?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/22/18 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Your hypothetical bullshit trolling is, as usual, unworthy of response, because it takes this argument out of the reality of the situation. It's as if you are allergic to reality... intellectually agoraphobic

What I want to know is, are you demonstrating moral bankruptcy by taking this position against this man's 24 accusers, or are you going to claim being uninformed of the accusations against the guy prior to bringing him up to attempt to score a political point? Do you believe Trump's 19 accusers are all lying also?


After repeatedly trying to slime everyone disagreeing with you with ridiculous and outrageous accusations, you have negative moral authority to even broach the subject of moral standing. At this point getting shamed by you is a sign of good character and sound judgment.

The question that I asked exposes severe flaw in your reasoning that you chose to dodge and it is relevant for this conversation. It is relevant because bullshit artists that advocate these standards are unlikely to apply these insane standards to themselves. My point is that YOU will quickly discover reason and logic once YOU are on the receiving end of a baseless sexual misconduct accusation. This is because "Trust the victim" is obviously unworkable standard for any kind of prosecution, and it doesn't matter if it is one or 1000s of accusers.

Quote
rhaikh, if I accuse you of sexual violence against me, and maybe get Derid or Brutal to back me up, does that mere accusation automatically makes you a sexual predator?


Address the question. Is mere accusation against you sufficient to label you a sexual predator?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/22/18 05:56 PM

Libertarians have more in common with the alt-right than they want you to think

Quote
It was the very bareness of the idea of self-interest and liberty as such that allowed Chris Cantwell, the weeping neo-Nazi made infamous in Vice’s coverage of Charlottesville (and avid reader of Hoppe and Rothbard) to make conceptual space for racism: “People should be free to exercise complete control over their own person and property. If blacks are committing crimes, or Jews are spreading communism, discriminating against them is the right of any property owner.”

It’s a quick step from here to full-on white nationalism, which interprets history and politics as the story of different races pursuing their collective self-interest. It shouldn’t come as a great surprise that enshrining self-interest as the core of morality would lead to a cynical worldview that takes all action to be struggle or manipulation. The “liberty” of libertarianism is merely negative; and a mind guided with the mere concept of its own interest can be led to anything or to nothing. For this reason, the intellectual wasteland of libertarianism continues to provide a safe space for fascists: It simply has philosophical room for them, and no particular injunctions to turn them away.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/22/18 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by WaPo
The problem is that libertarian principles, which revolve the abstract notion of self-interest, are really not principles at all; they have no content and allow anything to be attached to them.
The core philosophical principle of right Libertarianism is Liberty. It's interesting to me that this writer conflates this with "abstract self-interest."

Aside from that, I'm not sure what to take away from this article, or what it has to do with this conversation.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 09/22/18 06:32 PM

There's your relevancy. Your cynical self interest and denial of reality is leading your fellow ideologues to misogyny, racism and fascism. Edit: Not you, Brutal
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/01/18 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
cynical self interest and denial of reality is leading your fellow ideologues to misogyny, racism and fascism


Personally, I think that anyone who disagrees with me is a latent rapist, but good old "misogyny, racism and fascism" works just as well.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/01/18 10:48 PM

The Atlantic's excellent Conor Friedersdorf wrote about Gomeshi's essay and The New York Review of Books scandal.

Quote
The mere possibility that the editor of a prestigious intellectual journal resigned under pressure from advertisers would normally provoke widespread attention and concern from mainstream publications––especially upon confirmation that a major advertiser issued a complaint––given the implications for journalistic independence.


Note that in the case of NYRB, advertisers are university publishers.

Quote
What would happen if the standards invoked by Buruma’s critics were applied universally? I suspect that some of those critics would come to regret their positions.


An excellent question that goes to the core of why "censorship for the right reasons" is just "censorship".
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/05/18 03:09 PM

While Friedersdorf tilts at censorship windmills, the NYRB itself issued a statement suggesting that his ouster was because he was a bad editor and subsequently lied about it.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/05/18 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by theatlantic
In contrast, Constance Grady of Vox rejects the notion that exposing readers to a new perspective can justify an essay like the one the NYRB published, arguing that to promote an essay like that “is not a harmless intellectual enterprise in free speech hypotheticals. It has real consequences” because such essays include ideas “fundamental to the widespread narrative that the #MeToo movement has gone too far.” (How curious for a journalist to imply that exercising free speech is most defensible when the attendant ideas have no larger consequences.)

In Grady’s telling, spotlighting such perspectives reinforces “a system in which men’s social status is considered to be more valuable than women’s bodily safety … in which accusations of sexual violence are brushed aside as so much shrill hyperbole, and in which powerful men are able to hurt those they have power over with impunity. It’s difficult to understand how these essays are doing anything more than striving to return to the system that necessitated the birth of the #MeToo movement.”
These two paragraphs are pretty damning. This is supposedly a journalist (I honestly have no idea how people perceive Vox as a journalistic publication, so I just assume this person is a respected journalist) who is willing to throw another journalist under the bus simply because he had the gall to publish a piece that she thinks has no business in the public sphere. Fuck off.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/05/18 03:48 PM

Brett Kavanaugh and the Information Terrorists Trying to Reshape America

This article describes in historic detail the political infrastructure which takes people from "political correctness has gone too far" to issuing death threats on Blasey Ford.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/05/18 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Brutal
because he had the gall to publish a piece that she thinks has no business in the public sphere. Fuck off.


Do you think the essay has intellectual value? Even Friedersdorf doesn't defend the essay itself. He is simultaneously trying to defend the right of the editor to publish garbage and the right of the editor to face no consequences for publishing garbage.

Edit:
To put this another way, I think most people would agree that the essay itself is self-serving and intellectually vacant noise that would fit best on Ghomeshi's livejournal.

The fact that he is able to write it is the extent to which his exercise of free speech is guaranteed.

I think it's a completely valid opinion that the act of publishing something so inherently worthless in a widely circulated format without "editing the article more thoroughly, commissioning another piece to run alongside, or framing it with some form of editorial comment" is implicitly agreeing with the author's premise; and does, in fact, have real consequences by implicitly supporting the narrative that MeToo movement has gone too far.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/05/18 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
To put this another way, I think most people would agree that the essay itself is self-serving and intellectually vacant noise that would fit best on Ghomeshi's livejournal.


You are capable of criticizing speech with more speech, why does it have to go any further? Why do you and your fellow regressives feel the need to destroy the person to prevent any further speech? What do you find so threatening in bad ideas, unless your ultimate goal is to prevent your own bad ideas from being questioned?

Originally Posted by rhaikh

I think it's a completely valid opinion that the act of publishing something so inherently worthless in a widely circulated format without "editing the article more thoroughly, commissioning another piece to run alongside, or framing it with some form of editorial comment" is implicitly agreeing with the author's premise; and does, in fact, have real consequences by implicitly supporting the narrative that MeToo movement has gone too far.


First, "publishing is agreeing" is utter nonsense that doesn't survive even superficial examination. However, it is a convenient censorship argument/tool.

Second, how can you be sure that MeToo didn't go too far if questioning it verboten? Oh wait, I forgot, you can't discuss it.

Third, what are the real consequences you dog-whistling about? Are you trying to sneak in speech is violence trope?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/08/18 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
The predictable monotony of the construction of a strawman to waste everybody’s time, in this instance moving the goalpost from platform to speech, territory already visited.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/08/18 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I will keep making unsubstantiated assertions and get upset when my dogma is not blindly accepted. Every time someone points out flaws in my assertions, my reaction would be to assume sinister motives and knee-jerk into attempted character assassinations. When faced with glaring flaws in my position, I will simply refuse to internalize inconvenient truth and instead make bad-faith responses and/or change the subject.

Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/08/18 08:41 PM

Your replies are always giant shit sandwiches, which you can pick through and eat yourself. Your post had some issues worth addressing, but put simply I refuse to wade through your attempts to misrepresent what I'm saying in order to argue a debate I'm not having. If someone else wants to raise those issues which are relevant I'm happy to reply.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/09/18 02:10 AM

Sorry, this isn't your Facebook echo chamber, you don't get to post what is Left's equivalent to racist uncle conspiracy theories and not get called on it.

Again:

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I think it's a completely valid opinion that the act of publishing something ... is implicitly agreeing with the author's premise...


No, this is not a coherent opinion.


Originally Posted by rhaikh
... and does, in fact, have real consequences ...


No, there is no "real consequences", as in nobody got raped as a consequence of Ghomeshi's essay.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
... implicitly supporting the narrative that MeToo movement has gone too far.


I understood your position as "MeToo movement has gone too far" opinions should not be voiced or discussed. Did you intend for this to come across in this way?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/10/18 02:24 AM

Hey thanks for attempting to cut through your bullshit. I'll reward you with a reply.

Originally Posted by Sini
I understood your position as "MeToo movement has gone too far" opinions should not be voiced or discussed. Did you intend for this to come across in this way?


So first of all, no, this is not my opinion. I believe everyone has a right to hold and voice their own opinions, and be accountable for them, and that should have been obvious in what I stated about Ghomeshi which you quoted.

In this case, though, it actually isn't relevant what either of us thinks about MeToo. What's relevant is the original position you held which implied that Buruma was fired due to simply publishing Ghomeshi, which you used to back up your main thesis that some on the left would rather have censorship than free speech. The implication of connecting these two things is that Buruma was being censored for publishing an opinion that is unpopular with the left.

However, for Buruma to be fired for only publishing an unpopular opinion, you are assuming that whomever had the power to fire Buruma believed that promoting an opinion is something that can be done via publishing, and they disagreed with the opinion Buruma promoted, and therefore he was fired. If I'm being charitable, I could also say that you were instead implying that they didn't care what Buruma did, but they were kowtowing to outside pressure - I've heard from either their advertisers and/or from twitter.

From the NYRB editorial staff's statement regarding this issue, it's clear that they deny some assumptions of both of these cases. They deny that Twitter had anything to do with it, and they deny that this marks a new policy of avoiding publishing controversial opinions.

More importantly, what that statement does instead is to confirm that they believe that as a result of their ability to promote an opinion through their platform, they intend to be careful about not doing so. They therefore believe that their publication has an editorial responsibility in providing a balanced package of opinion, rather than to promote only one side of a specific agenda; and on this criteria they feel they have failed in this instance. After having lived through decades of Fox News, it's clear to me that platform is promotion (subtle but important difference from "publishing is agreement"), and that a responsible editor trying to present a balanced viewpoint should have only published Ghomeshi's rant alongside something to temper it - like editorial fact checking or alternative viewpoints. Which is what they explicitly stated they would rather have seen from their editorial effort in this case.

Now, I am assuming that their adherence to balance is a result of their agreement with my position that unbalanced promotion also has real consequences, but I grant that is not something they have stated. However if that is truly something you wanted to debate, as a preview of my evidence I again refer you to the fallout of decades of Fox News which we are currently suffering.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/10/18 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
What's relevant is the original position you held which implied that Buruma was fired due to simply publishing Ghomeshi, which you used to back up your main thesis that some on the left would rather have censorship than free speech. The implication of connecting these two things is that Buruma was being censored for publishing an opinion that is unpopular with the left.

However, for Buruma to be fired for only publishing an unpopular opinion, you are assuming that whomever had the power to fire Buruma believed that promoting an opinion is something that can be done via publishing, and they disagreed with the opinion Buruma promoted, and therefore he was fired. If I'm being charitable, I could also say that you were instead implying that they didn't care what Buruma did, but they were kowtowing to outside pressure - I've heard from either their advertisers and/or from twitter.


I am pleasantly surprised that you accurately represented my position. Thank you.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
From the NYRB editorial staff's statement regarding this issue, it's clear that they deny some assumptions of both of these cases. They deny that Twitter had anything to do with it, and they deny that this marks a new policy of avoiding publishing controversial opinions.


I don't find their denial to be credible, especially because alternative explanation for their actions doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
More importantly, what that statement does instead is to confirm that they believe that as a result of their ability to promote an opinion through their platform, they intend to be careful about not doing so.


Could you explain to me what is practical difference between "careful not to promote" and outright censorship?

Originally Posted by rhaikh
They therefore believe that their publication has an editorial responsibility in providing a balanced package of opinion, rather than to promote only one side of a specific agenda; and on this criteria they feel they have failed in this instance.


Perhaps by virtue of being familiar with this story I assumed that acknowledging opposing opinion, that got more than plenty of coverage already, is stating the obvious. After all, when speaking about OJ Simpson, it safe to assume that majority of listeners would be familiar with the background.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
After having lived through decades of Fox News, it's clear to me that platform is promotion (subtle but important difference from "publishing is agreement"), and that a responsible editor trying to present a balanced viewpoint should have only published Ghomeshi's rant alongside something to temper it - like editorial fact checking or alternative viewpoints.


I think Fox News is a special case that you cannot generalize from. Fox News is awful because they intentionally mislead and withhold information. Ghomeshi's essay does not have these characteristics. If you disagree, please point to specifics with explanation.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Now, I am assuming that their adherence to balance is a result of their agreement with my position that unbalanced promotion also has real consequences, but I grant that is not something they have stated.


I don't subscribe to this explanation. While it is plausible, it requires further proof to be credible.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
However if that is truly something you wanted to debate, as a preview of my evidence I again refer you to the fallout of decades of Fox News which we are currently suffering.


I agree with this point.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/11/18 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
More importantly, what that statement does instead is to confirm that they believe that as a result of their ability to promote an opinion through their platform, they intend to be careful about not doing so.


Could you explain to me what is practical difference between "careful not to promote" and outright censorship?


Well, I am of the opinion that censorship is an action only the government, not private citizens or organizations, can take, because my definition of censorship is the inability to exercise speech. Unlike the government, private organizations don't have total control over all of an individual's ability to exercise speech. So doing anything as a private organization is by definition not censorship.

For example, I don't believe an "NC-17 rating" by the MPAA is tantamount to censorship, even though it functionally suppresses distribution, because that is an internal decision by a private organization about whether the content is appropriate for them. As the creator is still free to pursue other outlets, they are able to exercise speech and therefore they are not censored. The market ultimately does not have an obligation to provide the exercise of speech. I think there are probably edge cases here worth thinking about, like having your only available broadband provider decide to not serve certain websites, but I don't think these specific cases are applicable in a general sense.

Censorship, by contrast, is what happened to the film Birth of a Nation in the early 20th century when state governments prevented it from being shown after being petitioned to do so.

Originally Posted by Sini
I think Fox News is a special case that you cannot generalize from. Fox News is awful because they intentionally mislead and withhold information. Ghomeshi's essay does not have these characteristics. If you disagree, please point to specifics with explanation.


I do think his essay had falsehoods and lies of omission, but honestly I don't think it's important here. I don't even think the degree of impartiality of the editorial staff at NYRB is important, except that it shows their awareness of their ability to promote through publishing and how that relates to my argument and informs their action of the removal of their editor. Even if they were lying and were in fact just reacting to market pressure, their stated reason is insightful to this debate.

As a for profit organization, it's within their right (and arguably their obligation in case of regulated public companies) to fire someone because of sufficient market pressure, just as it would be within their right to begin promoting some opposing ideology or to demand increased impartiality.

Fox is a special case in the sense that they were initially impervious to market pressure due to massive initial capital, and through that have managed to cultivate their own self sustaining audience. I think there's a lot to be learned from this formula, and how it's being used by other organizations.


Edit:
Originally Posted by rhaikh
The market ultimately does not have an obligation to provide the exercise of speech.


I actually wish this were not strictly true. For example, I would support measures that would require the media to allocate a limited portion of their airtime to partisan political content, so long as it was distributed among eligible candidates fairly... somehow. But I think this is another edge case since I don't think it should be applied to every idea that could possibly be political in nature.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/11/18 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
More importantly, what that statement does instead is to confirm that they believe that as a result of their ability to promote an opinion through their platform, they intend to be careful about not doing so.


Could you explain to me what is practical difference between "careful not to promote" and outright censorship?


Well, I am of the opinion that censorship is an action only the government, not private citizens or organizations, can take, because my definition of censorship is the inability to exercise speech. Unlike the government, private organizations don't have total control over all of an individual's ability to exercise speech. So doing anything as a private organization is by definition not censorship.


I fundamentally disagree with your application of definitions. You are technically correct in context of First Amendment, but protection from the government censorship is only one aspect of overall freedom of speech. Inability to exercise speech can come from other areas, like getting deplatformed or threat of losing ability to make living. More so, with most of the speech moving to digital format you have an issue with corporations like Google, Twitter, and Facebook having the power to effectively silence you. In turn, these corporations can be pressured into censorship.

What is the point of having theoretical free speech rights if it can't be exercised unless you are independently wealthy and powerful? We are few short years away from technology ensuring the end of anonymity where anyone could be potentially discovered and made an example of by a digital mob. The same technology also ensures that nothing that was ever said will be forgotten. We already have numerous cases (e.g. Damore) of innocent people getting dragged by an online mob with the explicit intent to silence them. Getting someone fired over speech is not any less damaging than assaulting them with a bike lock at a political rally. Both are done with explicit intent to chill speech.

Do you think the path we take to arrive to illiberal society devoid of free speech somehow going to matter? Do you expect it to be less oppressive if it is multinational corporations or social justice groups and not the government censorship that gets us there? Tyranny of government is only one type of tyranny.

In case of Ghomeshi the desirable outcome is to dismiss or mock him, not to attempt to take his voice away. Whatever benefits of deplatforming Ghomeshi are, the can't possibly outweigh grievous harm of enabling and propagating censorship.


Originally Posted by rhaikh
As a for profit organization, it's within their right (and arguably their obligation in case of regulated public companies) to fire someone because of sufficient market pressure, just as it would be within their right to begin promoting some opposing ideology or to demand increased impartiality.


Just to clarify, I did not say it was illegal to fire the editor, simply that it was objectionable action. As in, such firing goes against my core values. More so, publications and journalists should be held to a higher standard than 'whatever makes profit' in regards to speech.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/11/18 04:29 AM

https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/

Quote
We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research. Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot these conversations. We hope this will give people—especially those who believe in liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social justice—a clear reason to look at the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left and say, “No, I will not go along with that. You do not speak for me.”


Link is to the essay by the people themselves, as opposed to one of the many other periodicals that have covered this lately. I consider it important reading, partially because it illuminates a serious problem in certain segments of academia - but also because the findings will undoubtedly have political reverberations down the road. In truth, I first noticed this issue in my own university days well over a decade ago, though it had yet to metastasize into what is has become today. But also because I think that both poor arguments and poor scholarship create weakness in even the best intentioned initiatives. Something not supported by rigor and reason is just a fad of public opinion, and can often cause reasonable positions and scholarship that appear superficially close in some manner to take a big hit as well.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/11/18 04:33 AM

General shoutout to the thread:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." ~ Thomas Paine

"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." ~ Thomas Paine
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/11/18 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
In case of Ghomeshi the desirable outcome is to dismiss or mock him, not to attempt to take his voice away. Whatever benefits of deplatforming Ghomeshi are, the can't possibly outweigh grievous harm of enabling and propagating censorship.


So what is your proposed legislative remedy to mandate the exercise of speech in the free market? I would describe this as limiting the speech of the publication. This is what you're asking for, ultimately, which I find far more Orwellian than allowing the market to decide what speech is profitable to promote. For example, why is Ghomeshi's speech entitled to appear in NYRB or any other publication? If his essay was pure dogshit (I know, it's a stretch of imagination), a fantasy of melancholy devoid of any factual statements, why should anyone be mandated to publish it? What's the market circulation requirement, how many publications does it have to appear in to satisfy?

Perhaps you think this goes too far - then is the remedy to limit the speech of his private citizen dissenters? Rate limit their tweets?

I honestly can't think of any solution that would satisfy your objections here, unless objection itself is the end goal, in which case why should your objection mandate any action at all? In the example of reinstatement of the editor, even this tramples on the rights of the publisher to exercise their own speech. I'm not trying to be glib here but I'm left with the conclusion that you're objecting to freedom.


Originally Posted by Sini
More so, with most of the speech moving to digital format you have an issue with corporations like Google, Twitter, and Facebook having the power to effectively silence you. In turn, these corporations can be pressured into censorship.

What is the point of having theoretical free speech rights if it can't be exercised unless you are independently wealthy and powerful?


In a sense, I agree with you here. The danger with those platforms is proportional to their approach to monopoly, and the intersection of the first amendment is along that approach. I think monopoly is the true evil in this case, though, and fortunately (as you demonstrate) they are not quite there yet. I also agree that inequality of wealth is a significant evil behind asymmetric exercise of speech, but especially in regards to political speech.


Originally Posted by Derid
Thomas Paine


Common Sense is an excellent and relevant study of the forces of the market as it applies to speech. At first he had trouble finding any outlet for his views, but eventually he found a publisher willing to take the risk (I assume politically as well as monetarily). Once published though, it found so much political (and market) traction he ended up having to battle the initial publisher over attempting to publish a second edition against his wishes. Thanks to the technology we are currently using, if this were to happen today, his barrier to initial distribution would have been far lower.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/12/18 12:04 AM

So what is my proposed remedy? In case of social media giants it is to regulate them as public spaces. You don't get to pretend it is your living room when you invited entire country in and getting filthy rich charging admission.

In case of Ghomeshi's essay it is along "don't be an idiot" (not directed at anyone here) lines. Criticism of bad ideas. Criticism of people that endorse these bad ideas. Deplatofrming is massively, fundamentally bad idea. Doubly so for anyone involved in journalism. To me the issue is not about actual essay or content, the issue that some people decided that this specific individual has no rights to speak and they are using their power to enforce it. I honestly don't care what Ghomeshi has to say, however I do deeply care that there are some people who are hell-bent of preventing him from saying anything.

Quote
The danger with those platforms is proportional to their approach to monopoly, and the intersection of the first amendment is along that approach. I think monopoly is the true evil in this case, though, and fortunately (as you demonstrate) they are not quite there yet. I also agree that inequality of wealth is a significant evil behind asymmetric exercise of speech, but especially in regards to political speech.


I largely agree with you. However, these social platforms might be a natural monopoly. Like there isn't 'other' Internet, it just does not make sense to have two.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/13/18 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Criticism of bad ideas. Criticism of people that endorse these bad ideas. Deplatofrming is massively, fundamentally bad idea. Doubly so for anyone involved in journalism.


This is what actually happened. His essay was shit, the editor did a bad job, people complained about both, and the publisher either took that to heart and/or did some envelope calculations and made their decision. Either way the publisher exercised their free speech, and there remains an infinite array of alternatives available to Ghomeshi to continue to spread his shit around.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/17/18 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
Criticism of bad ideas. Criticism of people that endorse these bad ideas. Deplatofrming is massively, fundamentally bad idea. Doubly so for anyone involved in journalism.


This is what actually happened. His essay was shit, the editor did a bad job, people complained about both, and the publisher either took that to heart and/or did some envelope calculations and made their decision. Either way the publisher exercised their free speech, and there remains an infinite array of alternatives available to Ghomeshi to continue to spread his shit around.


This is not what actually happened. The editor was made example of, with a clear intent to discourage others from ever giving platform to people like Ghomeshi.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/21/18 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
This is not what actually happened. The editor was made example of, with a clear intent to discourage others from ever giving platform to people like Ghomeshi.


It's funny because I thought we had finally come to mutual acceptance of the available facts of the situation, but to make such a statement you must be hiding some facts not in evidence.

Who is demonstrating this intent, exactly? Who is "making an example"? People complaining on twitter or someone else?

Are we back to you suggesting that the public has no right to disagree?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 10/22/18 11:46 PM

There are couple possible explanations for the firing. For example, they fired the wrong guy. Or the firing was an accident, someone pushed wrong button. They are all implausible, because they are out of ordinary. That is, it is not entirely impossible, just highly improbable.

I count "failing to adhere to editorial quality standards" along these lines. While it is plausible, it is not likely explanation. There is no historical precedent for such stringent enforcement. This specific offense, outside of being politically charged topic, is not notable enough. Reprimand? Sure, I could see that.

So when you eliminate all the improbable causes, what remains is that editor was intentionally and disproportionately was made an example of. If you accept that this is the case, what do you think is motivation for doing so if not to silence and chill speech in the future?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 12/31/18 02:14 PM

I would like to return to this topic with this excellent essay:

I Was the Mob Until the Mob Came for Me

Quote
Every time I would call someone racist or sexist, I would get a rush. That rush would then be reaffirmed and sustained by the stars, hearts, and thumbs-up that constitute the nickels and dimes of social media validation. The people giving me these stars, hearts, and thumbs-up were engaging in their own cynical game: A fear of being targeted by the mob induces us to signal publicly that we are part of it.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 12/31/18 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
I would like to return to this topic


Has it really been sufficiently long enough for everyone here to ignore the incredible logical inconsistencies on display above?

Originally Posted by Sini
with this excellent essay:


I don't understand your need for constant virtue signaling by way of sharing anecdotes from your group-think bubble.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/01/19 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
logical inconsistencies


Start naming these logical inconsistencies.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I don't understand your need for constant virtue signaling by way of sharing anecdotes from your group-think bubble.


This is rich, coming from our resident woke-again privilege-remorseful ally of oppressed ethnically diverse proletariat.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/01/19 11:33 PM

You start off with an assumed stance that free speech is under attack and should be universal. Then, you want people with right-wing hot takes to be somehow immune from the resulting left-wing social consequences, but you want companies with left-wing hot takes to be forced to buckle to right-wing social consequences. I really did my best to try to pin you down on how that force might be realized, in a way which satisfies this inconsistency. Instead, you just fall back to complaining about some ridiculous argument about how NY Books or Facebook or whoever is somehow mind controlling the body politic to a degree where their overreach extinguishes the constitution. So I stopped replying - I've already agreed that monopoly is bad, but I disagree that NY Books is a monopoly or is capable of chilling speech universally.

I guess maybe the Patreon debate has widened your visions on this given your praise for their self-exile, but let's have you spell it out here before moving on to your whiney Quillette drivel.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/02/19 03:17 AM

Important correction, it is incorrect to call a value an assumptions (or premise). The difference is that in logic declaring something a premise implies it is universally true, while value means that it is true to me. In formal logic you can demonstrate that argument is fallacious by demonstrating that a premise is not true. Values work differently. I am not trying to sneak in moral relativism into this discussion, I am just making a point that I view free speech as a core value, but there might exist other people that do not share my values. This doesn't invalidate my values or make my arguments based on values wrong. You are correct in pointing out that I believe that free speech should be a universal value, but it is pointless to try to pin me down by examples of others not sharing my values.

With this in mind, prior to responding I will restate your argument for clarity:

"You start off with a premise that free speech is under attack. Then, you want people to be somehow immune from the resulting social consequences."

Yes, free speech is under attack. No, I do not want people to be immune from criticism.

The flaw in your argument is that you are intentionally conflating social consequences and censorship attempts. That is, you are proposing that since censorship is a type of consequence, I am opposed to all consequences.

I do not want people to be immune from all consequences. For example criticism is a valid consequence. However, I do want people to be immune from actions intentionally designed to chill or prevent speech.

A hypothetical example to illustrate this point, if I state an idea that you find offensive, loudly criticizing me in response is fine. Trying to get me banned from the forum is not fine. The key difference is that criticism allows me to continue participating in the future discourse, and perhaps gives me opportunity to change my mind. Getting me banned simply silences my view without rebuking it.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/03/19 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
However, I do want people to be immune from actions intentionally designed to chill or prevent speech.


How do you intend to compel private entities (such as this forum) to act in a manner which guarantees this immunity, yet does not curb their own freedom of expression (manifested in their desire to portray whatever expression they find appealing, such as banning you arbitrarily or pulling a Thanos or something).

What law would you enact to guarantee that I could violate KGB General Order 1 right here, and yet be immune from being censored on this exact forum?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/04/19 01:10 AM

You are fixating on "private entities". This is completely wrong way to think about it. If I open "private entity" cake shop and then refuse to do business with someone based on protected characteristic, such as race or sexual orientation, I violate the law. Do you find this in any way impossibly controversial? Such law is understood to be necessary, because we as society decided that alternatives are not a good way to run society. Alternatives like jailing heretics or tying up people of certain sexual orientation to chairs and tossing them off tall buildings. Societies that do that are not good places to live even for people in no danger of being tied to a chair or accused of heresy.

It is like that, but with speech.

You balance openness of digital space against motivation for censorship. Such system will never be perfect, but at least it would make censorship based on political, racial, or identity lines harder. Places that anyone can join (e.g. Facebook) should have most stringent protections for speech, because they are digital equivalent to a public square. Small private forums should protect speech the least, because they are digital equivalent of a living room.

Why do you think that just because freedom of speech issue has "on the computer" attached to it, good practices and norms that allowed Western society to prosper can be abandoned?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/04/19 07:33 PM

Ignoring your ceaseless attempts at straw manning away my question, what you're (still) suggesting is not protected by the laws of our country. What is your proposed law to cover the gap? Do you think there should be one, or do you just want people to agree with your values? If the latter, how is "immunity," a word with a real sense of finality, guaranteed in any way?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/05/19 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Ignoring your ceaseless attempts at straw manning away my question... do you just want people to agree with your values?


I admire you dedication to not practicing any kind of self-reflection.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Do you think there should be one, or do you just want people to agree with your values?


I would like more people to agree with me on valuing free speech, but I don't think any value should be accepted unchallenged, or it becomes in danger of being dogmatic. Healthy society practices exchange of ideas, where all values are constantly challenged and evaluated and the best ones carried forward in a robust way. This process of self-correction malfunctions if freedom of speech is suppressed or diminished, but freedom of speech itself should not be exempt from such evaluation. I don't value freedom of speech without reasons, growing up in a Soviet Block I have seen first hand how society that lacks that value operates.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
What is your proposed law to cover the gap?


I think regulation of social media as a common carrier would be a good start. However, I don't pretend to have a silver bullet for this, and as you correctly pointed out there are nuances and considerations in any attempt. I just know that current situation is quickly deteriorating into illiberality, we already seeing downstream societal effects, and if we do nothing our children will be worse-off than we are.


Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/05/19 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sini

Originally Posted by rhaikh
What is your proposed law to cover the gap?


I think regulation of social media as a common carrier would be a good start. However, I don't pretend to have a silver bullet for this, and as you correctly pointed out there are nuances and considerations in any attempt. I just know that current situation is quickly deteriorating into illiberality, we already seeing downstream societal effects, and if we do nothing our children will be worse-off than we are.


Again, while I agree that social media companies are the closest we have to an emerging monopoly of speech, there is no monopoly yet, nor can I predict a clear pathway in which one will emerge and necessarily all others fall away. The only one really within striking distance of this is Facebook, and there is truly no compelling reason to use Facebook over the alternatives, especially in the context of speech. In my estimation, alternatives will always exist and a monopoly will never emerge. I believe monopoly is a requirement for regulation of speech. I would be happy to support regulation preventing monopoly.

But we're not really talking about a hypothetical social media monstrosity here, or regulating monopoly, that is the nuanced edge case. We're talking about regulating freedom of expression for ALL OTHER PRIVATE ENTITIES. This is the foundation of your complaint, that some of those entities are exercising free expression in a way you disagree with. You've identified what you believe is a problem, but you have no proposed solution, and it doesn't seem like you intend to ever produce a solution.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/05/19 07:15 PM

Here's my proposed solution, which happens to be status quo:

Guarantee freedom from governmental censorship, and let the market decide the value of the expressions of a private entity.

Here's an example of this working in a positive way: https://bcorporation.net/
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/06/19 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Again, while I agree that social media companies are the closest we have to an emerging monopoly of speech, there is no monopoly yet


Must we wait until disaster strikes before we start working on a solution? While there is no financial monopoly, there is an effective ideological conglomerate - Facebook, Google, and Twitter. These companies are very culturally monolithic (Californian Democrats) and happens to belong to a part of society that in recent years initiated slide into illiberality. For example, if most of decisions makers at these companies believe that speech is violence and that certain ideas must not be expressed, how could we hope to maintain freedom of speech for everyone?

Quote
I believe monopoly is a requirement for regulation of speech.


Yes, I agree. However, effective ideological monopoly can be exerted by closely ideologically aligned entities.

Quote
I would be happy to support regulation preventing monopoly.


This isn't a bad solution. Especially if it also touches payment processors. However, what if social media is a natural monopoly? Google+ failure indicates that this might be the case.

Quote
In my estimation, alternatives will always exist and a monopoly will never emerge.


I would normally be in agreement with you except for three recent events:

- A prominent neo-nazi website, Stormfront, had its domain registration yanked. That is, registrars colluded to shut it down over objectionable speech.

- Robert Spencer was banned by Mastercard, making it impossible for him to accept payments. This is likely connected to the southern poverty law center blacklisting him. The same was done to Maaji Nawaz, with SPLC settling for $3+ mil.

- Alex Jones was deplatformed and banned by all tech companies, including Apple.

While all of these banned people/organizations deserve a healthy dose of criticism, their fate demonstrate that there is willingness and ability to effectively censor.

This tells me that there is too much market capture by ideological left in tech... and this is why I think censorship is a serious actual, and not just future potential, problem.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/06/19 09:54 PM

Also are you familiar with Gab.com and how it is under constant siege by payment processors, registrars, hosting providers and so on for refusal to censor? Gab supposed to be free market at work, satisfying demand that other companies, like Twitter, refuse to provide.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/07/19 12:00 AM

I'd already acknowledged your complaint, blowing more wind into it still does not provide solutions. In fact, you are proving my point by continuing to move the goalpost, I say you've moved it enough and for me now it's firmly planted at the uncrushable monopoly of the NY Review of Books

These companies are acting in accordance with the laws and their own interests. Those they have turned away have viable alternatives available to them. Suggesting that they don't is hyperbole.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/07/19 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
These companies are acting in accordance with the laws and their own interests. Those they have turned away have viable alternatives available to them.

Re: Market will provide alternatives argument. And this is exactly why silicon valley trying to kill Gab so hard?
Re: This is not against the law argument. The companies that dumped toxic waste into Cuyahoga river until it caught fire multiple times were also acting in accordance with the laws and their own commercial interests.

--

Have you paused to consider why enough people felt that disruption is warranted and voted for Trump? Whatever you think of Trump, some normal people voted for him, he couldn't have possibly got elected just on crazy vote alone. I propose that these normal people voted for Trump seeking relief from censorship. This often comes up as anti political correctness complaining, but the root of this issue isn't that this or that is deemed offensive, but that some topics are made taboo to discuss, and these topics are exponentially multiplying in number.

I read recently that Twitter banned some radfem for "Women Aren't Men" post. You have to be all kinds of woke to even begin to understand why this ban happened.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/07/19 03:48 PM

Why yes, I have thought a lot about this. My opinion is that propagandists like you and most of the links you've provided here are blowing your wind, not just at me, but at the sails of this fascist movement. And yet, when cornered, you can still provide no concrete solution. Fascists are happy to take up your slack.

Originally Posted by Sini
The companies that dumped toxic waste into Cuyahoga river until it caught fire multiple times were also acting in accordance with the laws and their own commercial interests.


There's a great example of behavior which I can propose concrete legislation to curtail. Your turn.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/07/19 04:11 PM

It's been a while since this happened and the details are fuzzy (and I'm too lazy to go and re-read everything). Can someone refresh me on this detail: This piece that got the guy fired, did it go through an editorial process, or did he just post/publish it on his own? If the former, did the editor that allowed it to be published get similarly sacked and smeared, and if not why? If the latter, I 100% agree with Taco's position that in the workplace, actions that go against the interests of your employer can and should have consequences up to and including termination.

In either case, I would also be inclined to agree with Taco that this doesn't feel like chilling free speech. Instead it was a business responding to its patrons voiced opposition to a particular piece in a way consistent with its best interests. The fact that the only way to satisfy its patrons was to fire the guy is more of an indictment of the "everything offends me" syndrome in society today than anything else, but it does not constitute an attack on free speech in my opinion.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/07/19 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Brutal
It's been a while since this happened and the details are fuzzy


The actual details of the case aren't very important for this argument, because 1) the company's stated reasons for firing their lead editor over this were that he did not use the normal editorial process, and they believe the piece wouldn't have been published if he had, 2) that stated reasoning is not important with respect to the argument that the action had the effect of chilling speech. In this context, I have been essentially arguing the merits of a hypothetical medium-low circulation publisher explicitly banning a political opinion from their circulation.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/07/19 08:08 PM

Ok so the guy that got fired was in fact the editor. Makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with you - this does not chill free speech, only lets the publication's consumers know they will only get their own political views mirrored back at them (the merits of which are debatable and not relevant to this topic).
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/07/19 11:54 PM

Joe Rogan discussing call out culture with Jonathan Haidt , co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/07/19 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
My opinion is that propagandists like you and most of the links you've provided here are blowing your wind, not just at me, but at the sails of this fascist movement. And yet, when cornered, you can still provide no concrete solution. Fascists are happy to take up your slack.


Back to calling me fascist? I am disappointed in you.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
There's a great example of behavior which I can propose concrete legislation to curtail. Your turn.


Virtual meeting space is not any different from physical public space, if you allow everyone in, then you are not allowed to exclude people based on protected characteristics (age, disability, gender, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief (which includes political belief), sex and sexual orientation.

In more accessible terms - if you can't fire someone for being card-carrying MAGA person, then you shouldn't be able to ban them from social media.


Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/08/19 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Back to calling me fascist? I am disappointed in you.


Happy to go back to straight up ignoring you for misrepresenting my carefully chosen words, if you'd prefer.

Originally Posted by Sini
if you allow everyone in, then you are not allowed to exclude people


This definition is self-referential and therefore applies to nobody.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/08/19 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
Back to calling me fascist? I am disappointed in you.


By the way, my intention with voicing this opinion is not to turn you off. It's to set up the conclusion to my argument.

Once you come to an agreement that, except in essentially hypothetical future scenarios, there is no tangible law that can be applied which will increase overall freedom of expression; the next step is to question who benefits from the incredible amount of money spent to keep these vapid arguments in the zeitgeist. It is exactly those people who wish to limit freedom of expression when it's opposed to their interests.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/09/19 12:26 AM

I fundamentally disagree with you that censorship is hypothetical. Sure, right now it is mostly targeted at racists+, but it doesn't matter that targets are ultimately deserving, if these people don't have freedom of speech then nobody does. Do you at least agree with me on this proposition? That is, do you believe that there could exist society where racists and only racists are censored?

I also disagree with you that we can't do anything about it legislatively. We absolutely can and should. If machinery of censorship allowed to stand it is only matter of short time until it is turned into a weapon that even you would recognize as too damaging.

Your "the next step" and "the sails of this fascist movement" is a cliche and absurd knee jerk into guilt by association. Considering that you have done this multiple times now, I am not willing to chalk it to misunderstanding or poor choice of words. I don't expect much out of Internet, but willful, borderline malicious smearing is essentially at the core of malaise that have taken over the left. What do you hope to gain by attempting these character assassinations? There isn't anyone here to give you likes or retweets. Do you think I might be persuaded or desist by you insinuating I might be a Nazi-sympathizer? Can you at least try to behave as a civilized and thoughtful person instead of a deranged teenager high on a wave of social media attention? That is, have you considered that I might be genuinely concerned about freedom of speech without ulterior motives?

I hope you watched the linked video on call-out culture. When I watched it I thought of you and motivations for your behavior.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/09/19 12:33 AM

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.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/09/19 05:19 AM

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.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/09/19 11:59 PM

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.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/15/19 04:59 AM

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.
Posted By: Brutal

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/15/19 04:52 PM

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.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/15/19 06:20 PM

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
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/17/19 12:26 AM

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.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/18/19 06:02 PM

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.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/19/19 01:05 PM

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.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/19/19 04:59 PM

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.

Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/20/19 07:46 AM

Okay, I'll start by saying that my patience for righting your meandering barge of an argument is running exceptionally low, so this conversation may end soon if you don't pick up your slack.

First:
Originally Posted by Sini
However, the whole point is that you don't want to be reasonable, you want to censor Nazis without owning up to your actions.


Yeah, I actually do think every private organization has the right to not be compelled to platform Nazi speech, and I think every organization we've talked about is currently and should continue to be in this category. I think bad actors who overstep are subject to proportionate market forces. However, you're arguing for the opposite, so I'm trying to get you to explain how that would work. What you're arguing is that these companies 1) should be public accommodations, and that 2) political ideology should be a protected class, and that 3) they additionally don't have a right to refuse service for legitimate business reasons. So let's focus on these points, please, and let's continue with our start on #3.

Originally Posted by Sini
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.


Yes, I absolutely agree. They should all have the right to prevent disruption of their legitimate business interests. The cake shop should not be forced to allow a group of LGBT protesters to sit in the lobby of their store. That is the fundamental comparison. I'd argue that, by nature of the internet, the equivalent of the "lobby" of an online platform company extends to encompass all of their customers. Their customers act and are served in a space immediately adjacent to all of their other business interests.

Originally Posted by Sini
Nobody reasonable would confuse DNS registration with endorsing hate speech


Nobody is arguing that. I said I think social media is compelled to promote speech on their platform, not other companies.

Here's what these companies are saying:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

Quote
The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.


I think that's a pretty clear action which disrupts their business interests, and they should maintain the right to refuse service to a customer who does this. Why shouldn't they?


BTW:

Originally Posted by Sini
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


I stopped reading at "opinion by Bari Weiss" because that is, in fact, exactly what I was talking about.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/20/19 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh

Originally Posted by Sini
However, the whole point is that you don't want to be reasonable, you want to censor Nazis without owning up to your actions.

I think every organization we've talked about is currently and should continue to be in this category. I think bad actors who overstep...


Good. You are finally being honest. Now lets go down the list of people "who overstep" you want to actively censor. Nazis, racists, southern pride types, MAGA types, pro-Life types, conservative radio talk and Youtube commentators, NYT columnists that refuse to tow the party line... am I forgetting anyone?

Originally Posted by rhaikh

Originally Posted by Sini
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.

Yes, I absolutely agree. They should all have the right to prevent disruption of their legitimate business interests.


At least you recognized that your previous position on this was inconsistent and now trying to coax it in irrelevant disruption of business concept. Disruption of business is a red herring. The key point is that you are now siding with Masterpiece Cakeshop, however for much broader set of reasons than the US supreme court. You are saying that business should be able to discriminate for any reason whatsoever, because somehow imaginary entities should have more rights than actual humans. What you fail to realize is that you are unwittingly parroting arguments that were used to justify Crow laws.

Obviously, I disagree with you on all points.

Originally Posted by rhaikh

However, you're arguing for the opposite, so I'm trying to get you to explain how that would work. What you're arguing is that these companies 1) should be public accommodations, and that 2) political ideology should be a protected class, and that 3) they additionally don't have a right to refuse service for legitimate business reasons. So let's focus on these points, please, and let's continue with our start on #3.


" they additionally don't have a right to refuse service for legitimate business reasons. " - you are just trying to pile up bullshit to mask deficiencies of your ideas. This is not what I am saying. I am saying that organizations should not have the right to refuse service to protected classes, there is no difference between McCarthyism and hunting for communist sympathizers and modern Regressive Left deplatforming MAGA types. It is exactly the same phenomenon and it is highly detrimental to liberty.

I stated multiple times how I think this should work. 1) Social Media companies are "common carriers" for speech. ISPs and registrars are subject to Net Neutrality. They are not responsible for content and can't censor based on content. 2) yes, in many countries it is explicit and not just case law.


Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/20/19 05:35 PM

You haven’t addressed my direct question. I’ll address the rest of your noise afterwards. How is Cloudflare’s action discrimination and not protection of their interests through refusal of service?

If you disagree with that, then you have to describe why these services are held to a higher standard than a regular business who can 86 disruptive customers despite their protected classes. If sued, the courts make this judgement call to decide if the business acted responsibly or with discrimination. To disagree, you’re saying these companies should not have this right and should never be allowed to do this, so you should provide a basis for what a company can do to lose this right.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/20/19 05:53 PM

Again, your "disruptive customers" is a load of hooey. Advocating white supremacy does not interfere in any way with DNS registration. If you run a cake shop and refuse to talk and eject people based on sexual orientation you will be in the exact same boat as Masterpiece Cakeshop, because it doesn't matter if you are refusing to make cake, or putting up targeted ToS, or simply put "Whites Only" sign on the door - you are still discriminating based on protected characteristic.

For your argument to be valid you need to demonstrate that refusing to register DNS for supremacists is substantially different from refusing to bake a cake for homosexual wedding. Let me suggest possible approach - you could argue that homosexual couples have no control over their sexuality, while supremacists could choose to abandon their ideas. Such argument would be a lot more coherent than what you are trying to do.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/21/19 11:41 PM

With utmost respect, it seems like you don't understand how the current law works. You are simultaneously arguing two points, #2 and #3 I listed above. Please, one at a time, happy to debate #2 next. Please do your own research until you agree that the following statement is factual: Businesses may refuse service to customers, unless doing so can be considered an act of discrimination. There are lots of edge cases embedded in this topic, but without you having a clear understanding of how this line gets drawn, it doesn't seem like we can continue this conversation. The cake shop was found to be on the wrong side of that "unless."

The only other explanation I can imagine for your rhetoric is that you believe NO businesses should have ANY right to refuse service, but formally make that case if that's your intention.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/22/19 11:09 PM

I didn't intend to be cryptic, and what I wrote is clear to me... so lets try to clear up possible confusion.

As a business owner, can I refuse service to any customers. Unless I am public utility and have "duty to serve". Unless I refuse service for discriminatory reasons.

For example, a cake shop can refuse to bake cake for Bob. A cake shop cannot refuse to bake cake for Bob because Bob is gay. Or because Bob is too old, or because Bob is pregnant, or because Bob is from a shithole state. Federally, refusing to bake cake for Bob because he is Democrat is permissible. Some states have specific laws that may say otherwise. More states have laws that make it illegal to fire Bob from cake shop for being Democrat than refuse to bake cake for being Democrat.

Does this help clarify this?
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/23/19 01:46 AM

Clear. Now, how does that relate to the Cloudflare example? They claim they did not terminate service due to holding an ideology, which you argue should be a protected class, they terminated based on disruptive action. It could be argued that this particular termination (or really, any termination) was a pretense for discrimination (but I doubt any judge would agree, and that's why these companies don't face endless litigation already). It's the right of the business to terminate when they feel it's in their best interests and argue for it if challenged on grounds of discrimination. Why don't they deserve this right?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/23/19 11:04 PM

Do you think that Cloudflare's claim of being disrupted is credible? I don't because I can't think of any way how existence of any website could disrupt their business. However, it is fair to say that such determination ought to be made in courts. The issue is that Cloudflare behavior, even if proven to be politically motivated, isn't illegal. It ought to be.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/24/19 03:34 PM

As I said before, I think if any company was shown to openly embrace the ideology of white supremacy, they would be subjected to significant market pressure (B2B and B2C) - I'm certain Cloudflare would have lost significant customer base if they continued a business relationship while Stormfront was promoting the idea that Cloudflare was ideologically aligned. They said as much. Some more info on this if you want to read it. https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-cloudflare/

I think a very similar calculus was performed at the rest of the companies you accuse of engaging in "censorship." They decided to make terminations based on disruptive behavior, instead of allowing the market to act on a perceived warmth towards an unpalatable ideology through their inaction.

So now we have a (second) clear framework and remedy for your objections. The companies are free to take action to protect their business, and those "censored" should sue to prove discrimination. (The first remedy being to simply work with companies who are favorable to the ideology). This is an entirely separate concept from a "duty to serve," so I'm glad we've made progress on that also. Unfortunately, this still requires that holding an ideology itself is a protected class.

---

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure if it should be a protected class or not. I understand the fear of oppression driving your argument, and I recognize that oppression is typically the reason we adopt anti-discrimination classes. However it's important to note that this is mainly a fear and not a widespread reality, like it was for the rest of the protected classes. These laws are an absolute necessity (at the moment) for them. (Just as an aside, I really did not appreciate your rhetoric that conflated my trepidation here with uncertainty around existing anti-discrimination laws. I mean I think you've made some effort here to silence whatever gerbil is running through your head trying to turn everything I say into the most extreme strawman argument, but some progress remains to be gained apparently.)

Having said that, I can clearly see the harm in allowing it to be a protected class. First is that it is obviously a demonstration of the content of your character, which I believe is reasonable grounds for judgement. On top of this, there is a legitimate slippery slope argument to be made. For example, holding Nazi ideology clearly conflicts with the anti-discrimination rights of others. So you fire a Nazi, and a court decides that was the right move because the others in the room would face greater harm through his presence. What if he said, actually, I'm a rainbow Nazi and I think white men are superior, but everyone else is welcome in my tent as a 2nd class citizen and would otherwise be guaranteed freedom from discrimination. After all, there doesn't seem to be much of a standard of proof that your stated ideology is equivalent to your actual beliefs, or even real.

Changing that to "affiliation" instead of "ideology" would do some work to prevent this. Adding a caveat that your protected affiliation can't be fundamentally based on discrimination against other classes would also do some work. (It would also invalidate your examples further, because they wouldn't meet these qualifications.)

If I were making the rules today, I'd probably throw it out, along with religious protection. I think the necessity for anti-discrimination based on religion, in this century, is mostly covered under race/ethnicity. I think, some century in the future, the notion that racial discrimination laws are necessary might also become debatable. As an aside, I think that there's an argument to be made in favor of religious protection, in that it's possible for it to NOT require advocacy for systemic change / be entirely personal. I think that distinction should be considered along with applying this protection.

I think in DC (where they use the term affiliation), it makes some sense for local reasons.

I think in Seattle (where they use the term ideology), it's ridiculous and largely solves a problem they didn't have, and creates new ones in the process. There's talk of repealing it.

What I'm sure of is that for this to be adopted, it would require pretty wide support across the spectrum. A constitutional amendment, supermajority realm of support. Given my arguments above, I just don't see us there yet. I can't find any evidence of existing broad support.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/24/19 06:01 PM

Related news - Bloomberg: Google is asking for permission to ban organizing of their employees

This is rather insidious, as Google will be able to censor its own employees on anything run by Google.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/24/19 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
As I said before, I think ...


Surprisingly, I can agree with most of what you say as a possible workable solution. Protected class for political views and then establish case law that hopefully make it less ambiguous. However, some of reasoning in your argument doesn't sit well with me.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
For example, holding Nazi ideology clearly conflicts with the anti-discrimination rights of others.


You are trying to sneak-in "speech is violence" trope. Holding any ideology doesn't conflict with anything. Acting on some ideologies may conflict with rights of others.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
If I were making the rules today, I'd probably throw it out, along with religious protection. I think the necessity for anti-discrimination based on religion, in this century, is mostly covered under race/ethnicity.


This made me cringe, because I think you are trying to sneak in "Islam is a race" argument in here. Can you clarify why you think religion "is mostly covered under race/ethnicity"? Personally, I don't like religion as a protected class, but I absolutely understand why this is necessary evil. It is needed to stop people from trying to shit on each other's heads over who has authoritative version of bearded man in the sky.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/24/19 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
You are trying to sneak-in "speech is violence" trope. Holding any ideology doesn't conflict with anything. Acting on some ideologies may conflict with rights of others.


I fundamentally disagree. Holding political ideology can't be separated from action : advocacy. It is the nature of political ideology, you believe the system should change (or stay the same) to reflect your beliefs. To invoke protection under holding an ideology, I believe you are also invoking advocacy for that ideology. This is why I made a point to put a notch in favor of religious protection, because it doesn't require advocacy. None of the other protected classes require advocacy.

I feel the need to restate my conclusion, because you didn't seem to address it, unless you just agree with it.

1) Political ideology won't become a protected class because it requires broad support and I have no evidence that broad support exists or will exist
2) If it did, I think it would be reasonable across that spectrum to come with the caveat that it should instead be political affiliation, and as a requirement to maintain protection, that affiliation can't be interpreted as advocacy for discrimination against another protected class
3) In either case, the validity of your examples as demonstration of a type of censorship which could be remedied by your proposals is in question

Since I'm not convinced your stance here is totally wrong, I'm prepared to move on and debate your last contingency, but you need to at least attempt to counter these arguments first.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/26/19 09:41 PM

1. You are trying to reframe the argument to be more favorable for your position. "How to do X" is related but different question from "Should X be done".
2. I think political affiliation as a protected status would be sufficient. If Nazi want such protection they could form a party and all register as card-carrying members. I disagree with your "requirement to maintain protection", as it can be easily abused to negate such protection. Let me demonstrate: democrats advocate for reproductive rights, this discriminates against religions that believe it is forbidden.
3. It isn't. Since you assert so, it is up to you to prove your point.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/26/19 10:17 PM

I have some nitpicks:

Originally Posted by Sini
1. You are trying to reframe the argument to be more favorable for your position. "How to do X" is related but different question from "Should X be done".


Well, take the larger picture here. You're arguing that your examples shouldn't be "censored" and providing this as a necessary step towards your remedy. If this step can't happen, then you're not really offering a remedy, just an unrealistic complaint.

Originally Posted by Sini
2. I think political affiliation as a protected status would be sufficient. If Nazi want such protection they could form a party and all register as card-carrying members. I disagree with your "requirement to maintain protection", as it can be easily abused to negate such protection. Let me demonstrate: democrats advocate for reproductive rights, this discriminates against religions that believe it is forbidden.


Your example is flawed, democrats advocate for individual reproductive rights, which isn't equivalent to advocating for abolition of restrictions voluntarily adopted by religious individuals.

---

Should social media be regulated as public accommodation?

First, clear up this hypocrisy for me:

Originally Posted by You
Participating in social media is toxic, rots your brain, nothing on there means anything; therefore rational people like me should avoid it at all costs

Originally Posted by Also you
Participation in social media is a requirement for the exercise of free speech in modern society, to such an extent that guarantees for participation should be written as law

Quote
Sweating guy trying to decide which button to press
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/27/19 02:00 AM

If you want me to expand on what I said, then quote it exactly and in context.

Otherwise we are going to discuss your words in a similar manner:

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I

Originally Posted by rhaikh
am

Originally Posted by rhaikh
a

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Nazi
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/27/19 03:08 AM

I can’t be arsed. Do you disagree with the first statement?
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/27/19 12:58 PM

Details and context matter, in a way you worded it - no I don't agree with it.

In context of our debate of some random person that you brought up trying to construct false narrative that libertarians are supremacists, both Derid and I pointed out to you that person you picked is a nobody, but social media allows anyone to cherry-pick and manufacture outrage.

I went through this thread, here is relevant quote which you both misattributing and mischaracterizing:

Originally Posted by Derid

I think the overarching point here, is were it not for twitter giving a platform, no one would even know about the guy. His rantings, as ... and many other crowds would have an audience the size of their sleepy neighborhood tavern. Incidentally, twitters purpose in these cases seems to be helping a couple people who agree connect and giving a few thousand random people someone to yell at.

Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/29/19 04:31 PM

Websites are not currently considered public accommodation, but exceptions to this exist. Case law suggests that operating a website in conjunction with a physical location (Five Guys, Blick) exposes you to public accommodations requirements for ADA compliance on the website. One could argue that the contingency for physical location negates this argument for something like Facebook, but actually I'm not going to argue that point, because I think it's pretty obvious that ADA should change to cover it.

However, we're not talking about a burger shack and the online equivalent of a ramp. We're talking about an organization whose primary function is to engage in expressive activities through its members. This happens to be the first part of the test for the guarantee of first amendment associational rights. The second is that forcing unwanted association must not significantly affect the organization's ability to advocate for their views.

Originally Posted by NAACP v Patterson (1958)
It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.


My argument is that social media websites should be regarded as public accommodation, but because their primary activity is dissemination of speech, they are within their First Amendement right of freedom to associate when they uniformly apply their own guidelines for speech on their platform when terminating service. In any case arguing for exception to their guidelines, it must be demonstrated that the association does not significantly affect the organization's ability to advocate for the conduct they require, and that the state needs to have a compelling interest to allow the exception. The relevant case law is Hurley v Irish-American Gay Group and Boy Scouts v Dale, in both cases, anti-discrimination public accommodation law was superseded by the private organization's right to (not) associate.

Social Media websites not only have very explicit guidelines for conduct, but they regularly enforce them to maintain their ability to express those views. Allowing someone on their platform like Alex Jones, who they've identified as "engaging in or inciting targeted harassment," significantly detracts from their advocacy against that behavior. Additionally I think there is no compelling state interest to grant Alex Jones an exception from Twitter's policy on harassment.

---


So there we have it, a full pathway to remedy your censorship. All you have to do is successfully argue:

- 1. Social Media companies don't have first amendment freedom of association protection

or

- 2a. Those censored were terminated in a way that doesn't impair Social Media's right to express their preference for conduct (outside of class protection) under their first amendment freedom of association protection if reversed
- 2b. There's a compelling state interest in reversing termination (i.e. 2d)
- 2c. Political ideology should be a protected class
- 2d. Social Media's application of their abusive behavior policies is not uniform and therefore tantamount to discrimination on grounds of political ideology

All in the context of a lawsuit, because in any scenario, Social Media has the right to terminate at their discretion and the legality of that termination should be decided in court. As compelling evidence that those you suggest are "censored" are not, in fact, due remedy: Pathway 1 already exists, yet there is no legal challenge underway on behalf of your examples.

Pathway 2 is both wholly contingent on 2c and is also required to demonstrate what I've been saying all along, which is that they need to demonstrate that they've terminated these people based on discrimination against political ideology, not on abusive behavior. In court.

In absence of 2c, it's within their right under their freedom to associate to explicitly discriminate against political ideology. Even in presence of 2c, I'd say it's arguable that it's within their right to terminate associations which advocate for an ideology which is equivalent to advocating for discrimination, because that grants clear exception from the compelling state interest in 2b - The state would be deciding discrimination of one protected class over another.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/30/19 02:40 AM

Thank you for taking time to formulate a thoughtful response.

Originally Posted by rhaikh

- 1. Social Media companies don't have first amendment freedom of association protection


Personally, I don't think corporations should have these kinds of protections. Otherwise we will find ourselves arguing meaning of "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness" in context of AGI (artificial general intelligence). That is, does IBM Watson has a right to not be shut off?

However, US case law, as I understand it, states that Twitter does have freedom of association. Hence abominations like Citizens United.

Originally Posted by rhaikh

- 2c. Political ideology should be a protected class


I think this approach is most promising, however it does require new laws. This is not something that currently protected, hence Twitter can continue arbitrary enforcement of ToS against conservatives and it is not illegal to do so.

Quote
My argument is that social media websites should be regarded as public accommodation


There are other workable approaches. Regulating social media as a common carrier. Defining public spaces in digital realm.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/30/19 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Holding political ideology can't be separated from action : advocacy. It is the nature of political ideology, you believe the system should change (or stay the same) to reflect your beliefs. To invoke protection under holding an ideology, I believe you are also invoking advocacy for that ideology.


I want to come back to this, because I can hope to change your mind. For example, if I were to believe that Earth would be better off without humans, could this belief be separated from action of committing indiscriminate genocide? Before you object that this is fictitious, I have actually met people that hold such beliefs. They tend to be eco-types and pacifists. They are extremely unlikely to carry any kind of violence, less mass genocide. As their action, they tend to not have children.

So we have belief, and we have action and they don't line up. You are asserting that we should treat political ideology (a type of belief) as it were realized action. To me this is not a coherent position due to following: belief and action often diverge - say one thing and do another, one can act on belief to a vastly different degree - there is difference between true believer and hanger-on, the same ideology can translate to different values - conservatism is fiscal for one group of people and social for another.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/30/19 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Sini
However, US case law, as I understand it, states that Twitter does have freedom of association. Hence abominations like Citizens United.


The abomination here is the comparison. Organizations surely must be able to express speech on behalf of the interests of their members. Yeah, there should be limits, but this implication goes way too far. We need organizations, advocacy groups and yes, even for-profit corporations, as leverage for speech; to efficiently participate in democracy. What we don't need is a limitless dollar amount of campaign finance funneled through a shell.

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Holding political ideology can't be separated from action : advocacy. It is the nature of political ideology, you believe the system should change (or stay the same) to reflect your beliefs. To invoke protection under holding an ideology, I believe you are also invoking advocacy for that ideology.


I want to come back to this, because I can hope to change your mind. For example, if I were to believe that Earth would be better off without humans, could this belief be separated from action of committing indiscriminate genocide? Before you object that this is fictitious, I have actually met people that hold such beliefs. They tend to be eco-types and pacifists. They are extremely unlikely to carry any kind of violence, less mass genocide. As their action, they tend to not have children.

So we have belief, and we have action and they don't line up. You are asserting that we should treat political ideology (a type of belief) as it were realized action. To me this is not a coherent position due to following: belief and action often diverge - say one thing and do another, one can act on belief to a vastly different degree - there is difference between true believer and hanger-on, the same ideology can translate to different values - conservatism is fiscal for one group of people and social for another.


I agree that you can argue for something and not actually believe it, demonstration of this litters the forum. The difference in my quoted opinion here is twofold: when you then use that ideology as a shield under an antidiscrimination law, and when that ideology's purpose is to effect systemic change.

In your genocidal example, even you begin to admit that genocide is not the actual policy they are advocating for, just some hypothetical ideal. Even the way you phrased it suggests this: "Earth would be better off without humans" not "Humans must be annihilated for the benefit of Earth." Not even murder is actually on their agenda. "Fewer children per family" might be a more realistic policy they would advocate for. That is the difference between effecting systemic change as a political ideology, and fantasy. We seemed to already agree that affiliation was an appropriate compromise to help resolve this. A written party platform doesn't leave much ambiguity between policy advocacy and fantasy.

Originally Posted by Sini
There are other workable approaches. Regulating social media as a common carrier. Defining public spaces in digital realm.


I was glad to debate these approaches but I let you choose the one you found most favorable to your argument first. These essentially are an extended debate of #1 as I identified it. My interest in maintaining this conversation is to demonstrate the reasonable extent of your complaints about "censorship," and hopefully to not have to engage any further outside of this realm. The short preview of my argument against these approaches as a "solution for censorship" is that they require even higher standards of proof and governmental suppression of speech just to maintain your examples.

So long as we're revisiting generic positions, I hope you now have a new appreciation for the word "censorship." It seems to me that the government / judiciary generally advocates on behalf of the freedom of expression of citizens as a default and with the intention of maintaining speech to the greatest extent possible. I simply don't see any arguments for #1 that follow this precedent. That is the real road to censorship and governmental overreach.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/30/19 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
However, US case law, as I understand it, states that Twitter does have freedom of association. Hence abominations like Citizens United.


The abomination here is the comparison. Organizations surely must be able to express speech on behalf of the interests of their members.


Can you enumerate other fictitious and imaginary entities that you believe should have right of speech? What about auto-dialers? What about bots? What about voices schizophrenic people hear?

You are very far from having me convinced that corporations should have freedom of speech. You can't hand-wave away Citizens United, it happened as a direct result of such views that you are also advocating. You need to address this before we can move forward.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/30/19 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Originally Posted by Sini
However, US case law, as I understand it, states that Twitter does have freedom of association. Hence abominations like Citizens United.


The abomination here is the comparison. Organizations surely must be able to express speech on behalf of the interests of their members.


Can you enumerate other fictitious and imaginary entities that you believe should have right of speech? What about auto-dialers? What about bots? What about voices schizophrenic people hear?

You are very far from having me convinced that corporations should have freedom of speech. You can't hand-wave away Citizens United, it happened as a direct result of such views that you are also advocating. You need to address this before we can move forward.



Do I?

I told you I'm against Citizens United because essentially I disagree that unlimited money should be spent on political campaigns.

Maybe you can start us off here and explain why we shouldn't have worker's unions.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/31/19 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Do I?


Afraid so. You have to reconcile that your arguments for why Twitter should be able to censor anyone they please are essentially the same arguments that were used in Citizens United.

The problem with assigning corporations with these kind of rights is that freedom of speech also means freedom of political donations.

When I say "corporations should not have freedom of speech" this does not mean that they should be prevented from any kind of speech. This simply means that corporate speech shouldn't be treated as a right, as such it can't be used to justify impeding rights of actual humans. This way when there is a human vs. corporation (or union), humans would automatically win.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 01/31/19 02:55 PM

I don't see an inherent conflict in limiting financial campaign contributions (by individuals or corporations or whatever) and freedom of speech.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 02/02/19 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I don't see an inherent conflict in limiting financial campaign contributions (by individuals or corporations or whatever) and freedom of speech.


I recommend you look into arguments in Citizens United case - they successfully used argument that political donations is type of expression, limiting these would limit freedom of speech.

That goes back to definition of freedom of speech. Wouldn't you agree that freedom of speech is not possible unless it also includes expression of political opinions? Also wouldn't you agree that freedom of speech isn't limited to act of speaking, but rather to all types of transactional communications. That is, it isn't only act of speaking (after all we hardly said a word in this entire debate, we typed it). You could artificially exclude money, but then it still leaves offering services, press coverage, advertising, advocacy...

To definitively kill that argument you need to categorically dismiss the notion that freedom of speech applies to non-human entities. Dismiss doesn't mean forbid, it only means that it isn't protected in any way. Corporations are just proxies for collective action of group of people. In case of speech, each corporate stakeholder has his or her own ability to speak. The same goes for unions. Ideas don't require collective bargaining or pooling of resources to realize it, so there is no need to give imaginary entities actual rights like that.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 02/02/19 02:13 PM

@rhaikh



Please watch first 20 minutes of this video.
Posted By: rhaikh

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 02/02/19 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by Sini

I recommend you look into arguments in Citizens United case - they successfully used argument that political donations is type of expression, limiting these would limit freedom of speech.

That goes back to definition of freedom of speech.


It goes back to Buckley v Valeo, which I also disagree with. Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect speech. For example if you go to your city council to provide testimony on an issue, your time will be limited - this is because the time of the council is also limited, and reasonable time needs to be provided to all comers. This limitation is a protection of your right to speak. If another system applied, such as if the time were instead auctioned off, your speech would even more limited based on your access to wealth. This is the situation we now face ourselves in because of the decisions in Buckley and Citizens. In the interest of protecting campaigns from being corrupted by the influence of money, I believe expenditures on behalf of a campaign should be extremely limited, regardless of source, and perhaps fully and equally funded by a general pool from tax revenue.

My argument is at best tangential to corporate personhood and demonstrates the overreach of Citizens. I would be ecstatic "artificially" exclude money and work from there.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 02/03/19 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by rhaikh
Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect speech.

If you have limits on speech, then you no longer have free speech, so "to protect speech" is not a valid justification for such action. Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect other rights.

To steelman your argument:

Limits on contributions in context of politics are necessary, because protection of democratic principles in a society is more important that any one's individual freedom of speech. That is, if you are using your immense wealth to corrupt "one person one vote" principle, then it is a question of rights of many individuals vs. rights of one individual. This doesn't change the fact that it is still censorship.

---

Still, I would like you to address how your arguments for social media corporations' right to censor political views on their platform is categorically different from logic used to pass Citizens united.

Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 02/04/19 01:30 PM

More publishing world self-eating spotted - young adult fiction publishing goes full SJW on its own over including non-black slaves in the fictional world.

Quote
Is online bullying of writers who transgress against “social justice” norms a form of censorship? Some scoff at the notion, arguing that “anti-SJW” commentators are actually the ones attacking a basic form of free speech: criticism of a book. But there is a massive difference between criticism and public shaming. A collective attack that includes such declarations as, “[R]acist ass writers, like Amélie Wen Zhao … you’re going to be held accountable” is less criticism than a show trial.

The notion that books can cause “harm” if they don’t handle identity issues in accordance with ideological diktat is a prescription for censorship no matter how that censorship is carried out.

On the bright side, this ugly episode may serve as a wake-up call for a number of liberals who think “social justice” culture is fundamentally benign despite a few excesses. Between the censorship-by-pressure and the public vilification of young female minority immigrant, this scandal is not a good look for the identitarian Left.
Posted By: Derid

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 02/05/19 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
More publishing world self-eating spotted - young adult fiction publishing goes full SJW on its own over including non-black slaves in the fictional world.


I read a take on that very issue over at Vulture, and just shook my head.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 02/12/19 10:51 PM

Someone compiled data on Twitter bans. Banned people overwhelmingly conservatives.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 02/18/19 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by rhaikh
Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect speech.

If you have limits on speech, then you no longer have free speech, so "to protect speech" is not a valid justification for such action. Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect other rights.

To steelman your argument:

Limits on contributions in context of politics are necessary, because protection of democratic principles in a society is more important that any one's individual freedom of speech. That is, if you are using your immense wealth to corrupt "one person one vote" principle, then it is a question of rights of many individuals vs. rights of one individual. This doesn't change the fact that it is still censorship.

---

Still, I would like you to address how your arguments for social media corporations' right to censor political views on their platform is categorically different from logic used to pass Citizens united.



I am disappointed that Rhaikh refused to attempt defend his position of: "Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect speech." However, I am not surprised, as rationally defending such obviously flawed (in very Orwellian way) position is all but impossible. Even my best attempts to steelman that argument had to substantially limit it in scope.

To put it bluntly, if you subscribe to general principle "Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect speech." you are categorically opposed to free speech.


Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 03/13/19 02:56 AM

Hopefully by now everyone seen, at least partially, Joe Rogan interview of Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde of Twitter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ

In my mind this left exactly zero doubt about censorship of conservative views on Twitter. It is intentional and for all Dorsey's talk about promoting free speech, it isn't practiced. I hope Dorsey realizes that his company was hijacked by activists and cleans the house. Especially telling how Covington scandal got a nod a wink.
Posted By: Sini

Re: Is the left eating itself? - 04/06/19 03:45 AM

SPLC eating itself
© 2019 The KGB Oracle