ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags censorship , free speech

Reply
Old 29th March 2019, 07:21 AM   #201
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,391
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
that I give a **** about FacePalm or any other private businesses nannying their content? These "social media" enterprises mushroom up all the time, and like mushrooms liquefy, stink briefly, and vanish. Who cares?



But there are always more dangerous fools and rogues who try to raise laws against speech. When their wretched statutes are enacted, they set out to enforce them. There is nothing they will not do to silence any voice they object to. Remember that.



Here's the essential point: It doesn't matter what you may want to say if a government claims to have power greater than your right to say it. You can agitate for more fresh flowers in Sunday School, and there will emerge men who will silence you, perhaps permanently, if you allow yourself to be tamed.



Am I appealing to emotion? Yes I am -- if self-respect is an emotion.



I feel weary, fighting this battle yet again.
You seem to have forgotten that you've already lost the war, regardless of what battle you engaged in the past. All the countries in the "developed world" at least have decided that some speech is prohibited. All we can discuss is exactly what speech can be prohibited.

For myself I am happy with speech that attempts to have me killed I.e.Nazism being prohibited. We know what happens when Nazism is allowed to flourish , literally people like me are among the millions of people that are killed.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 07:22 AM   #202
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
that I give a **** about FacePalm or any other private businesses nannying their content? These "social media" enterprises mushroom up all the time, and like mushrooms liquefy, stink briefly, and vanish. Who cares?

But there are always more dangerous fools and rogues who try to raise laws against speech. When their wretched statutes are enacted, they set out to enforce them. There is nothing they will not do to silence any voice they object to. Remember that.

Here's the essential point: It doesn't matter what you may want to say if a government claims to have power greater than your right to say it. You can agitate for more fresh flowers in Sunday School, and there will emerge men who will silence you, perhaps permanently, if you allow yourself to be tamed.

Am I appealing to emotion? Yes I am -- if self-respect is an emotion.

I feel weary, fighting this battle yet again.
Then you'll be happy to know that Facebook isn't a government agency and nobody's freedom of speech is being threatened. What's happening is that a private company is making a business decision. Most of Facebook's customers - I dare say - would prefer white nationalist propaganda not to appear on Facebook.

Deplatforming isn't about freedom of speech. It's about not lending a platform for the odious speakers to stand on while they are speaking.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 07:28 AM   #203
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
You are so backwards about these facts that it's actually impressive in a way.

Richard Spencer was already at the height of his public notoriety when he was face-punched at Trump's inauguration...
Maybe he was popular with you and your circles. Wasn't with me or mine. I only vaguely recalled him as that smacked ass alt right guy. I suppose we could do one of those google word search thingys, where you see how often a term is hit on search engines. I'd guess that his name went from way down low to spiking at the punch, staying high through Charlottesville, and dropping sharply into obscurity after the college heckling. Speaking of which...

Quote:
And the reason you don't hear about him anymore is because of student groups' successful attempts to deplatform his planned college speaking tour, leading many institutions to withdraw his booking or refuse to book him, thus depriving him of access to public forums, and eventually resulting in him having to cancel his public speaking tour - which is why you haven't heard from him lately. Score one for deplatforming.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Spencer was given his platform. Got to stand on his rented stage and preach his garbage...that, uh, you claim to have found very popular. But he was, as I said, ridiculed off of it. And he largely faded out of the public eye.

Because he was given his platform. And ridiculed into crawling away.

eta: forgot: the cancellations had nothing to do with deplatforming based on his content, and everything to do with bringing violent elements in tow. He fought, and won, the right to his platform.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 29th March 2019 at 07:32 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 07:31 AM   #204
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Maybe he was popular with you and your circles. Wasn't with me or mine. I only vaguely recalled him as that smacked ass alt right guy. I suppose we could do one of those google word search thingys, where you see how often a term is hit on search engines. I'd guess that his name went from way down low to spiking at the punch, staying high through Charlottesville, and dropping sharply into obscurity after the college heckling. Speaking of which...



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Spencer was given his platform. Got to stand on his rented stage and preach his garbage...that, uh, you claim to have found very popular. But he was, as I said, ridiculed off of it. And he largely faded out of the public eye.

Because he was given his platform. And ridiculed into crawling away.
You are wrong. Spencer was efficiently deplatformed during his college tour. Venues canceled, protests drowned out his voice, etc.

He was ridiculed alright, but he was ridiculed as a method of deplatforming him.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 07:43 AM   #205
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
You are wrong. Spencer was efficiently deplatformed during his college tour. Venues canceled, protests drowned out his voice, etc.

He was ridiculed alright, but he was ridiculed as a method of deplatforming him.
Protests drowning him out are not deplatforming. Deplatforming is denying him a soapbox. He was not denied due to his content, but was denied due to bringing in violent followers in some instances.

The point is, he was given his soapbox and laughed off of it.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 07:43 AM   #206
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Then you'll be happy to know that Facebook isn't a government agency and nobody's freedom of speech is being threatened. What's happening is that a private company is making a business decision. Most of Facebook's customers - I dare say - would prefer white nationalist propaganda not to appear on Facebook.

Deplatforming isn't about freedom of speech. It's about not lending a platform for the odious speakers to stand on while they are speaking.
I have found that places online that allow mostly unmoderated content quickly become hangouts for the least desirable, unpleasant folks. Sure, 4chan might have multiple boards on topics that could easily be respectable and interesting to a general population, but 4chan is best known for it's free-wheeling, toxic boards like /b or /pol. Realistically, it's not really possible to compartmentalize one part of a platform from another, so the /pol racism and /b nihilism infect all the others. Respectable people realize this and head for more pleasant waters elsewhere. I don't care if 4chan has a automobile section, you're still getting some taint of the /b or /pol experience if you are there.

The funny thing is that platforms that are big about allowing no-moderation content quickly become home to a very narrow range of content. Basically, all the vile crap that isn't allowed elsewhere. Places like Voat only exist to host content that isn't allowed on their more respectable peers, and people only go to those places for those niche, vile content. Voat might as well call themselves BannedFromReddit.com, because that's really all that people go there for.

I don't see this as a problem. Facebook isn't the public forum. if a private business decides to cultivate a culture I find hostile and unpleasant, I am unlikely to return. One that is too restrictive is also one destined for failure. Facebook's business model is to find the sweet spot that works best for them.

It's the difference between a public park and a coffee shop. In a public park, i accept that all sorts of weirdos may be meeting and discussing all sorts of crap I don't like. But if my favorite coffee shop becomes a hangout for weirdo alt-right neo-nazis, no matter how well behaved, it will quickly become the de-facto nazi shop and I won't return. The shop then has to make a decision about what sorts they want to attract and act accordingly.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 29th March 2019 at 07:55 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 07:55 AM   #207
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Protests drowning him out are not deplatforming. Deplatforming is denying him a soapbox. He was not denied due to his content, but was denied due to bringing in violent followers in some instances.

The point is, he was given his soapbox and laughed off of it.
No, in many cases he was denied his soapbox. And he was never laughed off of it. The people who attended to listen to him sure didn't laugh him off of it. Instead, he was drowned out, his followers deciding not to attend because of the huge counter protests etc. He said as much himself, but you probably didn't hear him because he's got no platform anymore.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 07:55 AM   #208
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,104
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Am I appealing to emotion? Yes I am -- if self-respect is an emotion.
No that's fear you are appealing to alright.

Every single state on earth has something that you can't say or publish without facing criminal sanctions. You can argue about where the limits should be, but by acting all hysterical and stating that any restrictions on peoples free speech is tantamount to slavery just goes to show utterly how extreme and unrealistic your views are.

Quote:
I feel weary, fighting this battle yet again.
Just don't cut yourself on all that edginess.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 08:01 AM   #209
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Protests drowning him out are not deplatforming. Deplatforming is denying him a soapbox. He was not denied due to his content, but was denied due to bringing in violent followers in some instances.

The point is, he was given his soapbox and laughed off of it.
I think you are grossly underselling the amount of heckler's veto that is occurring on college campuses. Pulling fire alarms and having events cancelled because of mass disturbance or threats of disturbance is not counter-speech or peaceful protest.

Saddling controversial speakers with security fees because the student body will engage in mass violence is an embarrassing response to this problem.

Universities are special places where people ought to be allowed to engage in free thinking of any sort, so long as it is peaceful. Those that presume to silence others through violence or criminal disruption should not be tolerated.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 29th March 2019 at 08:03 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 08:08 AM   #210
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think you are grossly underselling the amount of heckler's veto that is occurring on college campuses. Pulling fire alarms and having events cancelled because of mass disturbance or threats of disturbance is not counter-speech or peaceful protest.

Saddling controversial speakers with security fees because the student body will engage in mass violence is an embarrassing response to this problem.

Universities are special places where people ought to be allowed to engage in free thinking of any sort, so long as it is peaceful. Those that presume to silence others through violence or criminal disruption should not be tolerated.
It worked.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 08:09 AM   #211
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Protests drowning him out are not deplatforming. Deplatforming is denying him a soapbox. He was not denied due to his content, but was denied due to bringing in violent followers in some instances.

The point is, he was given his soapbox and laughed off of it.
I'm not sure how defeated he is. He's still head of his think tank, he's still head of his publisher.

We don't hear much about him in the mainstream press, but honestly we didn't hear much about him UNTIL he got hit in the face. National press attention was the anomaly so seeing him less doesn't necessarily mean too much. He headlined the Charlottesville thing after he had been more in the general public eye being mocked for getting punched than anything else, so that clearly didn't dissuade his supporters.

And if you look at his wiki page, you'll see he's banned from almost all European countries. To the extent that he's been unsuccessful spreading his message, the highest level of deplatforming is a part of it.

But above all even to the extent that mockery might disempower an individual, I don't feel convinced that it disempowers closely held ideas very effectively. Antivaxxers are being mocked incessantly, but a town near me just had a major measles outbreak. Their movement is spreading in the face of mockery. That's not to say that censorship is the right tool in that case, just to show the limits of ridicule.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 08:10 AM   #212
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
It worked.
In the short term. The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move.

The heckler's veto on campus is settled law. These universities are in for a hard check if they keep this up.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 08:25 AM   #213
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
In the short term. The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move.

The heckler's veto on campus is settled law. These universities are in for a hard check if they keep this up.
That's fine. Slap them with fines. Point is, Spencer couldn't speak. Good show.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 08:33 AM   #214
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think you are grossly underselling the amount of heckler's veto that is occurring on college campuses. Pulling fire alarms and having events cancelled because of mass disturbance or threats of disturbance is not counter-speech or peaceful protest.

Saddling controversial speakers with security fees because the student body will engage in mass violence is an embarrassing response to this problem.

Universities are special places where people ought to be allowed to engage in free thinking of any sort, so long as it is peaceful. Those that presume to silence others through violence or criminal disruption should not be tolerated.
Agreed. But I am not talking about...whatever you are talking about.

I am referring to the non-violent heckling at the Southern college/university that I am too lazy to google the name of, where the non-violent protesters non-violently scooped up all the tickets and non-violently lambasted Spencer's punk ass on his duly fought-for public platform. Captain Punchable's violent followers shooting at people at bus stops changed the game for him, not the content of his speech being summarily deplatformed. I'm calling that a resounding win for the hecklers. What's with this discussion of violent protest?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 08:46 AM   #215
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I'm not sure how defeated he is. He's still head of his think tank, he's still head of his publisher.

We don't hear much about him in the mainstream press, but honestly we didn't hear much about him UNTIL he got hit in the face. National press attention was the anomaly so seeing him less doesn't necessarily mean too much. He headlined the Charlottesville thing after he had been more in the general public eye being mocked for getting punched than anything else, so that clearly didn't dissuade his supporters.
You may find that some posters upthread found him quite the bee's knees in their social circles before the punching. But agreed, he was a bit player before the punching, and only rose to national attention in the context of the limits of free speech, and whether it was okay to pop a nazi in the chops. IMHO, that's all he is good for.

Quote:
And if you look at his wiki page, you'll see he's banned from almost all European countries. To the extent that he's been unsuccessful spreading his message, the highest level of deplatforming is a part of it.
I'm seeing this differently. Deplatforming based on content is worlds away from denying a venue to do the speaker bringing along violent elements. One is ideological censorship, the other a demonstrable public safety concern.

Quote:
But above all even to the extent that mockery might disempower an individual, I don't feel convinced that it disempowers closely held ideas very effectively. Antivaxxers are being mocked incessantly, but a town near me just had a major measles outbreak. Their movement is spreading in the face of mockery. That's not to say that censorship is the right tool in that case, just to show the limits of ridicule.
True, but I think that goes back to the True Believers versus the fence sitters. Hard core faithful will rarely be dissuaded. The uncommitted masses may be, and they are more my concern.

I don't think we will ever convince Spencer that black people are pretty cool, and can be a lot of fun to hang out with and be neighbors with and stuff. He's entrenched. But we can reach out to the thousands who cock their ears and listen to him, and wonder if he has a point. The more publicly this is done, the better. Air it all out: flat earthers, aura readers, white supremacists, the whole lot.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:02 AM   #216
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You may find that some posters upthread found him quite the bee's knees in their social circles before the punching. But agreed, he was a bit player before the punching, and only rose to national attention in the context of the limits of free speech, and whether it was okay to pop a nazi in the chops. IMHO, that's all he is good for.



I'm seeing this differently. Deplatforming based on content is worlds away from denying a venue to do the speaker bringing along violent elements. One is ideological censorship, the other a demonstrable public safety concern.



True, but I think that goes back to the True Believers versus the fence sitters. Hard core faithful will rarely be dissuaded. The uncommitted masses may be, and they are more my concern.

I don't think we will ever convince Spencer that black people are pretty cool, and can be a lot of fun to hang out with and be neighbors with and stuff. He's entrenched. But we can reach out to the thousands who cock their ears and listen to him, and wonder if he has a point. The more publicly this is done, the better. Air it all out: flat earthers, aura readers, white supremacists, the whole lot.
This is all well and good if you are able to control the discussion. You won't, however. Because of the internet, everyone is constantly shouting into the ether, and every viewpoint is treated as equal. You can post "Nazis are bad, m'kay" but you'll immediately be bombed by people posting anime-Hitler memes and shouts of "cuck".

It's not possible to have a rational discussion of the scale that's necessary to convince a body of people of anything that they aren't already leaning towards. Extreme opinions will continue to be amplified and the public polarized. Social media is creating an environment where each person is locked into a view-point, shielded in her echo-chamber from differing opinions, and tutored on how to dismiss people who would tell her differently.

Regulating social media, banning the utterings of extremism, is a way to take back control.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 29th March 2019 at 09:03 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:14 AM   #217
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Deputy Admin
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka Southern Tier)
Posts: 30,577
Mod InfoI moved these posts from another thread to make them no longer off-topic.
Posted By:kmortis
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:15 AM   #218
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Agreed. But I am not talking about...whatever you are talking about.

I am referring to the non-violent heckling at the Southern college/university that I am too lazy to google the name of, where the non-violent protesters non-violently scooped up all the tickets and non-violently lambasted Spencer's punk ass on his duly fought-for public platform. Captain Punchable's violent followers shooting at people at bus stops changed the game for him, not the content of his speech being summarily deplatformed. I'm calling that a resounding win for the hecklers. What's with this discussion of violent protest?
I think it's a bit of cherry picking to discuss deplatforming without mentioning the many other cases in which violence, the threat of violence, or other criminal and disruptive behavior is occurring. Deplatforming as a goal is ideologically different than protest. The goal that invited speakers will be unable to speak because of organized action of students is not something I can support and is inconsistent with 1A law concerning college campuses. Simply put, right wing trolls should be able to speak at universities if invited and students should be able to hear them, if they so choose. It is the universities role to facilitate such speakers as they would other speakers, no matter how objectionable they find the material.

Disorderly conduct intended to prevent students from hearing speakers they want to hear is not laudable, whether that be violent disorderly conduct, or just being a nuisance like pulling a fire alarm, screaming and shouting, rushing the stage, or other such conduct. The "hands off" approach that administrators take to such activity is embarrassing.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:23 AM   #219
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think it's a bit of cherry picking to discuss deplatforming without mentioning the many other cases in which violence, the threat of violence, or other criminal and disruptive behavior is occurring. Deplatforming as a goal is ideologically different than protest. The goal that invited speakers will be unable to speak because of organized action of students is not something I can support and is inconsistent with 1A law concerning college campuses. Simply put, right wing trolls should be able to speak at universities if invited and students should be able to hear them, if they so choose. It is the universities role to facilitate such speakers as they would other speakers, no matter how objectionable they find the material.

Disorderly conduct intended to prevent students from hearing speakers they want to hear is not laudable, whether that be violent disorderly conduct, or just being a nuisance like pulling a fire alarm, screaming and shouting, rushing the stage, or other such conduct. The "hands off" approach that administrators take to such activity is embarrassing.
Spencer had set up a scam to be able to be "invited" to speak. He applied to speak and when turned down, his lawyer friend sued. Several colleges thought it was too much hassle to fight the suit so they made arrangements for him to speak. That's when the protests started.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:25 AM   #220
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,659
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Lets just start with the white nationalists. Not many people have been murdered in the name of Bigfoot.
In that case you should ban religion immediately.

ETA: Woah! Thought this was a new thread rather than a split.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 29th March 2019 at 09:26 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:26 AM   #221
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
There is a certain philosophy on the marketplace of ideas that's popular in a lot of places and in fact is part of the underlying idea behind the rules of this very forum.

The main gist of it is that no idea or viewpoint is so ugly or dangerous that it ought to be prohibited, even in privately owned discussion spaces.

This viewpoint goes on to argue that its more than slavish devotion to the idea of free speech or fear of a slippery slope but is in fact a positive good to air these ideas in public spaces. Supposedly this allows terrible ideas to be debated publicly where truth and logic will of course win the day! There is often an accompanying claim that absent this public airing these ideas will somehow fester underground and their believers will become worse.

I disagree with all of that. I think that the "marketplace of ideas" just gives more exposure and recruitment to bad ideas and allows people tentatively embracing them to find compatriots and strengthen their grasp on these ugly beliefs. It isn't logic or truth that wins the day, but rhetoric and emotion. The same ideas that fueled the Nazis, slavery and a good chunk of the most horrific things in human history really do not need to be debated over and over again. That merely gives the impression that they're up for debate.

It seems a very mild expectation of civil human society to say we've settled some very basic things.
This discussion, while exacerbated beyond all measures by the advent of social media, isn't new, as evidenced by my sig.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:30 AM   #222
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
This is all well and good if you are able to control the discussion. You won't, however. Because of the internet, everyone is constantly shouting into the ether, and every viewpoint is treated as equal. You can post "Nazis are bad, m'kay" but you'll immediately be bombed by people posting anime-Hitler memes and shouts of "cuck".

It's not possible to have a rational discussion of the scale that's necessary to convince a body of people of anything that they aren't already leaning towards. Extreme opinions will continue to be amplified and the public polarized. Social media is creating an environment where each person is locked into a view-point, shielded in her echo-chamber from differing opinions, and tutored on how to dismiss people who would tell her differently.

Regulating social media, banning the utterings of extremism, is a way to take back control.
Look, I would very much like that too. Nothing would make yours truly happier than regulating away hateful thinking, and being allowed to publicly bitch slap the proponents of such thinking.

But I would also not be wild about those powers reaching to accusing me of thoughtcrime. Should we also ban me from opining that the Spencers of the world are asking for a fight with their advocation of violence? Perhaps your endorsement of censorship should also be criminalized? Who is going to make the Big Brother calls on what we will tolerate as speech?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:31 AM   #223
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,484
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Look, I would very much like that too. Nothing would make yours truly happier than regulating away hateful thinking, and being allowed to publicly bitch slap the proponents of such thinking.

But I would also not be wild about those powers reaching to accusing me of thoughtcrime. Should we also ban me from opining that the Spencers of the world are asking for a fight with their advocation of violence? Perhaps your endorsement of censorship should also be criminalized? Who is going to make the Big Brother calls on what we will tolerate as speech?
When people advocating for censorship start killing people, we can have that discussion. Until then, there's no slippery slope.

I am not pointing fingers here, but isn't it interesting that we're only always having this discussion when Nazis and their ilk are deprived their platforms and never when we jail people for child porn or supporting terrorists?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 29th March 2019 at 09:33 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:38 AM   #224
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think it's a bit of cherry picking to discuss deplatforming without mentioning the many other cases in which violence, the threat of violence, or other criminal and disruptive behavior is occurring. Deplatforming as a goal is ideologically different than protest. The goal that invited speakers will be unable to speak because of organized action of students is not something I can support and is inconsistent with 1A law concerning college campuses. Simply put, right wing trolls should be able to speak at universities if invited and students should be able to hear them, if they so choose. It is the universities role to facilitate such speakers as they would other speakers, no matter how objectionable they find the material.

Disorderly conduct intended to prevent students from hearing speakers they want to hear is not laudable, whether that be violent disorderly conduct, or just being a nuisance like pulling a fire alarm, screaming and shouting, rushing the stage, or other such conduct. The "hands off" approach that administrators take to such activity is embarrassing.
Agreed, but you are conflating ideological deplatforming/censorship with legitimate public safety concerns. Two different games.

Protests can be disorderly to varying degrees, based on how much the protesters oppose the content. But I would still disagree that the host's job is to provide security up the wazoo to protect against the violence that the speaker attracts (yes, I am aware of the relevant court rulings. I just disagree that the potential for abuse necessarily outweighs a demonstrable problem).
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:41 AM   #225
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
The "Marketplace of Ideas" is dependent on the idea that putting ideas out there to be debated makes is more likely for the "good" ideas to raise to the top.

To what degree that is true is debatable (personally I think it's more over simplified then wrong but that's me) but if we assume the idea has merit we have to accept within that process that discussions come to an end.

We can't have "the cream rises to the top" and "But one stubborn dickcheese can keep the 'debate' going forever by just being thick and impossible to reason with."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:43 AM   #226
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
When people advocating for censorship start killing people, we can have that discussion. Until then, there's no slippery slope.

I am not pointing fingers here, but isn't it interesting that we're only always having this discussion when Nazis and their ilk are deprived their platforms and never when we jail people for child porn or supporting terrorists?
Because they have nothing to do with each other.

Kiddie porn is a crime, in every way shape and form. Terrorism, too.

White supremacists, not so much. They certainly are at the extremes, but the rank and file racists are not lynching on their lunch hour. Their thinking is sniveling, and cowardly, and hateful...but not criminal among the masses.

So let them talk. I want to know who they are. I want them seen. No more invisible empires. Stay. Right. Where. I. Can. See. You.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:53 AM   #227
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
I believe mods split this thread at my request. I got a bit impatient and started the new thread in the meantime.

I would request that the two threads be merged.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 09:56 AM   #228
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Because they have nothing to do with each other.

Kiddie porn is a crime, in every way shape and form. Terrorism, too.

White supremacists, not so much. They certainly are at the extremes, but the rank and file racists are not lynching on their lunch hour. Their thinking is sniveling, and cowardly, and hateful...but not criminal among the masses.

So let them talk. I want to know who they are. I want them seen. No more invisible empires. Stay. Right. Where. I. Can. See. You.

No, they aren't lynching on their lunch hour, but when they take power, they are lynching full time on the job. You seem to forget that they don't really reward you for protecting their freedom of (hate) speech once they're in command. You're either with them or they're knocking on your door to arrest you. Not to ask you to write and publish an opinion piece ...
(Of course, you won't have any problem seeing them, but you may wish that you wouldn't have to - All. The. Time.)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:04 AM   #229
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 80,659
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I believe mods split this thread at my request. I got a bit impatient and started the new thread in the meantime.

I would request that the two threads be merged.
STOP PLAYING GOD WITH US!!!!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:08 AM   #230
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Agreed, but you are conflating ideological deplatforming/censorship with legitimate public safety concerns. Two different games.

Protests can be disorderly to varying degrees, based on how much the protesters oppose the content. But I would still disagree that the host's job is to provide security up the wazoo to protect against the violence that the speaker attracts (yes, I am aware of the relevant court rulings. I just disagree that the potential for abuse necessarily outweighs a demonstrable problem).
Depends on the source of the violence. Cancelling an event because a speaker attracts counter protester violence is the very definition of the heckler's veto.

Universities have a long reputation of being raucous places, and a bit of disorder is perhaps unavoidable and desirable. Ideas are important and people care about them, after all. I can certainly see the argument for administration being cautious and having a light touch.

Preemptively banning a speaker because you know your own students will violently riot is cowardly and encourages such tactics.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:33 AM   #231
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,391
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I have to agree with this. There are certainly any number of examples where a certain ideas, by virtue of being allowed to proliferate unchecked in the "free marketplace of ideas", has contributed nothing but misery to the human condition, even directly costing lives. Anti-vaxxers' "right to be heard" has predictably resulted and continues to result in dead and hospitalized children and its thought leaders pointedly are okay with that. White supremacy and the "great replacement" delusion have cultivated a growing and increasingly deadly terrorism threat with worldwide reach.



The fact that people are able to, and do, freely argue with and rebut these malignant viewpoints has not stopped them from proliferating, or killing. The notion that good people with "better" arguments is all that's need to defeat bad people with toxic ideas, is a failure.
I said in another thread that I'm quite happy to see Nazism prohibited, because we know very well what happens when it is allowed to flourish. Why anyone thinks that keeping it out in the open serves any other purpose than recruiting more people to its siren call is beyond me.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:45 AM   #232
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,656
How about all that MRA stuff, or is this thread still supposed to be about nazis ?

Look what happened with Elliot Rodger
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:51 AM   #233
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,666
A bit of a tangent, but since Cavemonster has said several times he is most concerned about white supremacy and white nationalism, I'd like to ask him to define those terms. One can go to wikipedia, but things quickly get pretty tricky especially since we are speaking about disallowing certain types of speech.

Many on this very forum call all sorts of things white supremacist. So which speech is exactly white supremacist?

- Saying that most countries in Africa are ****hole countries?
- Saying that you think the US or Europe needs immigration reform?
- Saying you hope Trump gets re-elected in 2020?
- Saying that you believe whites are more intelligent than blacks on average?
- Saying that you think Jussie Smollett is guilty?
- Saying you don't believe Richard Spencer should have been punched by that guy?

How does one tell what speech acts are or are not white supremacist?

I think this is one slippery slope that is actually pretty slippery.
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:52 AM   #234
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I said in another thread that I'm quite happy to see Nazism prohibited, because we know very well what happens when it is allowed to flourish. Why anyone thinks that keeping it out in the open serves any other purpose than recruiting more people to its siren call is beyond me.
Because nazism for all intents and purposes hasn't existed for over half a century, and never existed in the States. People are conflating white supremacy and alt-right with actual nazis. They are nowhere near comparable.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:52 AM   #235
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
In that case you should ban religion immediately.

ETA: Woah! Thought this was a new thread rather than a split.
I think we might say death is a necessary but not sufficient condition.


And while we're at it, too many people jump right to taking a side on "banning" ideas completely. But even if we're talking about the government as opposed to private platforms, we have a lot of room to walk away from the marketplace of ideas without outright banning anything. We in fact have a ways to travel before we'd be on the same field as countries with hate speech laws. There is a lot of room for smaller intervention.

Way below outright banning an idea might be eliminating certain restrictions on venues. Maybe a publicly funded college can curate the content of speakers who use their space and their audience. Maybe even a town can limit what rallies happen in their square. These sorts of interventions are far short of silencing or criminalizing ideas unless you're feeling particularly hyperbolic. And from a legal practical perspective I'm not sure how we'd change the law to get there. But it seems like we could be less accommodating to their recruitment efforts in many ways.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:57 AM   #236
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,472
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Because nazism for all intents and purposes hasn't existed for over half a century, and never existed in the States. People are conflating white supremacy and alt-right with actual nazis. They are nowhere near comparable.
you haven't heard of George Lincoln Rockwell, have you?
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 10:59 AM   #237
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Depends on the source of the violence. Cancelling an event because a speaker attracts counter protester violence is the very definition of the heckler's veto.
Not the problem with herr Spencer. His own supporters brought the violence.

Quote:
Universities have a long reputation of being raucous places, and a bit of disorder is perhaps unavoidable and desirable. Ideas are important and people care about them, after all. I can certainly see the argument for administration being cautious and having a light touch.

Preemptively banning a speaker because you know your own students will violently riot is cowardly and encourages such tactics.
Again, not the problem. The problem is the neo-nazi speakers bringing their own violent followers to the audience. Who, you know, shoot at the others and kill them with cars and stuff. This is worlds away from thoughtcrime. They bring conventional violent crime.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 11:03 AM   #238
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
you haven't heard of George Lincoln Rockwell, have you?
Excuse me: never existed in any meaningful numbers or position of power
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 11:11 AM   #239
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
A bit of a tangent, but since Cavemonster has said several times he is most concerned about white supremacy and white nationalism, I'd like to ask him to define those terms. One can go to wikipedia, but things quickly get pretty tricky especially since we are speaking about disallowing certain types of speech.

Many on this very forum call all sorts of things white supremacist. So which speech is exactly white supremacist?

- Saying that most countries in Africa are ****hole countries?
- Saying that you think the US or Europe needs immigration reform?
- Saying you hope Trump gets re-elected in 2020?
- Saying that you believe whites are more intelligent than blacks on average?
- Saying that you think Jussie Smollett is guilty?
- Saying you don't believe Richard Spencer should have been punched by that guy?

How does one tell what speech acts are or are not white supremacist?

I think this is one slippery slope that is actually pretty slippery.
A fair question.

I think the important distinction is between literal advocacy of white nationalism/supremacy and ideas and statements that one might have varying levels of justification for identifying as influenced by white nationalism/supremacy.

And I actually agree with you that this question is at least potentially a slippery slope or at least a Loki's wager.

Of the statements you listed, I think none are actually in that first category although all might be influenced by white supremacy ideals to some degree. The one about intelligence comes closest and we could go far into the weeds with the whole idea of what they call "scientific race realism" but we don't need to go anywhere near that. I don't think that's the sort of thing that would be productive to target on a corporate or governmental level.

And again I haven't talked about anything so sweeping as judging individual statements for acceptability.

I think its fine for facebook to take down a page that describes itself as something like "Dedicated to making the USA a pure, all white nation by deporting mongrel races".

I think it should be fine for a town square to refuse a permit for a speaker on that topic.

That's about as far as I'm advocating. Much of the developed world is already there.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2019, 11:29 AM   #240
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,207
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
A fair question.

I think the important distinction is between literal advocacy of white nationalism/supremacy and ideas and statements that one might have varying levels of justification for identifying as influenced by white nationalism/supremacy.

And I actually agree with you that this question is at least potentially a slippery slope or at least a Loki's wager.
Really wish I'd known that phrase when the relgion v cult thread was active.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.