A Letter on Justice and Open Debate VS Immunity from Criticism

[NED funded]

We were talking about how TERF groups like WoLF allied with the religious right before, weren't we?

Yeah but I don't want to talk about a forbidden topic on this forum. Those limitations are bs if you ask me but whatever their site their rules so....

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Yeah but I don't want to talk about a forbidden topic on this forum. Those limitations are bs if you ask me but whatever their site their rules so....

TERFs are a forbidden topic? Or their religious right associations? Or you proudly proclaiming yourself one of them while posting a bunch of bullshit?

You literally had this term in your signature. How can it be forbidden? Were you just being edgy?

[NED funded]

TERFs are a forbidden topic? Or their religious right associations? or you proudly proclaiming yourself one of them while posting a bunch of bullshit?

You literally had this term in your signature. How can it be forbidden? Were you just being edgy?

You don't see me with that signature anymore now do you?? Anyways I'm stopping here talking about THAT issue. Have a nice day

[Thee ANCOM]

I don't get this post are we not supposed to talk about anything else but how bad Trump is?? That seems quite cult-ish if you ask me

what my post was saying is these neo-lib centrists who are not only hypocrites (Wiess), but seem to not understand what free speech actually is, need to get the fuck over themselves.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

You don't see me with that signature anymore now do you?? Anyways I'm stopping here talking about THAT issue. Have a nice day

Convenient your new concern for the rules when you you got called out for putting "Proud trans exclusionary radical feminist" in your sig right up until I called you out for it. Now, suddenly, it's gone and you abide by the rules! Why the change of heart? Don't agree with political lesbianism?

I'm going to like reminding you of this, TERF.

[Endus]

And yet you find them too dangerous when they have a voice.

See, here's the thing.

They are not being silenced. That's the claim, and it is a deliberate lie, that mischaracterizes what freedom of speech is and what it means.

They are being removed from someone else's private services, like Twitter or Facebook or whatever. They never had a "right" to those services, and removing them from those single venues is not, in any functional respect, "silencing" anyone. They're free to go spew their content anywhere that will have them, still. That has not changed, and largely is not being suggested as even an option by all but the very most extreme, and those extremists don't have any influence anywhere.

This is just private establishments saying "take it outside". That's it. It's no different than going to a sports bar frequented by Team A, and cheering for Team B, and being told to get the fuck out. Literally the same thing. You're still free to cheer on Team B literally anywhere else.

And then, they turn on those who kicked them out, and suggest they're the ones being unfair. It's like being kicked out of a sports bar, and claiming that you're being starved to death because no one will sell you food or drink. It's that level of "are you fucking kidding me" persecution complex bullshit.

Nobody is being "silenced". They're being told they're assholes and some companies don't want to continue a business relationship with their kind of asshole. Both of those things are fine, and the first is exactly what freedom of speech is about. If you've got an issue with posting some TERF talking points, and having all of Twitter responding to you calling you a "transphobic TERF piece of shit", then you've got a problem with people have the right to free speech.

You do get some "cancel culture" events occurring in the cracks, but pretty much exclusively with Youtubers who rely on that specific venue for their primary revenue stream. Natalie Wynn did a vlog about being cancelled a few months back; it was less about some massive volume of haters, but just that a few complaints can get Youtube to kneejerk and defund things. If you don't rely on Youtube as your primary revenue stream? Can't happen to you. And that excludes everyone who signed this letter. If you want to exclusively talk about Youtube's monetization model and standards, we can have that discussion, but if you want to talk about social media or journalism or any other venues, you won't have a point at all and you're attacking people's rights and freedoms, not defending them, because people acting freely as they choose is a threat to you.

[Muzjhath]

Thats quite the way to frame a letter that basically just says we shouldn't harass people for having somewhat controversial opinions online. And aside from like two or three signatories there I don't think they are arguing against like normal criticism.

Like for example JK Rowling's Harry Potter is still among the top books getting removed bc of bs religious conservatives

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/f...gedbooks/top10

The reason lots of OPed writers are pissed at them being "cancelled" is that they are used to being the ones with that power. So they are throwing a hissyfit because they lost a privilege.

[Dezerte]

People shouldn't be harassed on social media is now a fascist sentiment lol

Harassment, or criticism?

Harassment is generally punishable by law already. Which begs the question as to why or what they are bemoaning.

[downnola]

Harassment, or criticism?

Harassment is generally punishable by law already. Which begs the question as to why or what they are bemoaning.

"kill yourself" and "i hope you die" isn't criticism. That behavior might get you kicked off a platform (good luck when it takes minutes to create a Twitter account) but it's not easily rectified in a court of law. There are cases when people clutch their pearls at genuine criticism but anonymity on internet can be quite toxic. Anyone conveniently ignoring that fact and pretending the people that signed that letter are just worried about counter free speech are being disingenuous, intentional or not.

[Saltysquidoon]

"kill yourself" and "i hope you die" isn't criticism. That behavior might get you kicked off a platform (good luck when it takes minutes to create a Twitter account) but it's not easily rectified in a court of law. There are cases when people clutch their pearls at genuine criticism but anonymity on internet can be quite toxic. Anyone conveniently ignoring that fact and pretending the people that signed that letter are just worried about counter free speech are being disingenuous, intentional or not.

The problem with the letter (in my view) is not the content of the letter but who is signing and why they're signing it.

It reeks of "DAHNALD and the police are the problem (which they are) and if we solve that we'll have solved racism forever. Please don't look into any systemic issues we might have caused or taken advantage of, we're the good members of the oligarch class, don't question anything about us."

[Felya]

Silencing people only creates a silent majority.
...surprising everyone when it comes time to vote.

The Internet is already anonymous and the act of silencing by public reaction, actually draws attention to them. You are conflating government censorship and anonymous people being so mean, that they silence in effect. Also, consider the idea of being silenced, in context of discussing a letter. We are at a point where people seem to equate censorship resulting from public reaction and one as a government decree. They have less credence to claim being silenced, than the cops do... while playing a similar victim game...

What does this mean to the ol’ “there is no such thing as bad publicity”? Does that no longer exist, did people forget, what’s up?

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with the letter (in my view) is not the content of the letter but who is signing and why they're signing it.

It reeks of "DAHNALD and the police are the problem (which they are) and if we solve that we'll have solved racism forever. Please don't look into any systemic issues we might have caused or taken advantage of, we're the good members of the oligarch class, don't question anything about us."

None of the names that I saw sign the letter, fit the definition of oligarch. I’m not even hitting this on the Russian part of the definition. The words you want to use is establishment elites... and I think I know why oligarch was chosen instead. To be fair, some of them might be... but, this letter is the first time I am being introduced to a lot of these people being silenced...

This feels a lot like what that fake Florida man was pushing. Where we are pitting levels of middle class against each other, when the problem is... as you said... systematic. The battle lines are not on Twitter, yet that’s where majority of the casualties are?

[Rozz]

Don't derail discussion about signatures and personal squabbles. Stay on topic.

[Muzjhath]

None of the names that I saw sign the letter, fit the definition of oligarch. I’m not even hitting this on the Russian part of the definition. The words you want to use is establishment elites... and I think I know why oligarch was chosen instead. To be fair, some of them might be... but, this letter is the first time I am being introduced to a lot of these people being silenced...

This feels a lot like what that fake Florida man was pushing. Where we are pitting levels of middle class against each other, when the problem is... as you said... systematic. The battle lines are not on Twitter, yet that’s where majority of the casualties are?

I think you're right with establishment elites. And Media Elites.
And what they are scared about is that they've lost what they had. The power to choose whom they silenced. Now it's in the hands of everyone, not them.

Which makes them whine.

[Felya]

I think you're right with establishment elites. And Media Elites.
And what they are scared about is that they've lost what they had. The power to choose whom they silenced. Now it's in the hands of everyone, not them.

Which makes them whine.

It makes them the very populist that they abhor in Trump...

Edit: Not a fan of populism... from right or left...

[Saltysquidoon]

None of the names that I saw sign the letter, fit the definition of oligarch. I’m not even hitting this on the Russian part of the definition. The words you want to use is establishment elites... and I think I know why oligarch was chosen instead. To be fair, some of them might be... but, this letter is the first time I am being introduced to a lot of these people being silenced...

Eh, establishment elite might fit better it this particular circumstance. I was just pointing out the ultimate problem is people who consolidate power (money, politics, culture, science, tech, etc) to exert control. Given they generally implement systems and policies to retain that power and prevent access to others as a means to maintain control.

[Muzjhath]

It makes them the very populist that they abhor in Trump...

Edit: Not a fan of populism... from right or left...

Not my point.
My point is that the journalists and OPed writers who moan about this, who sign letters about this. And some other public figures who do. They moan about it since 20 years ago the only people who could silence a message were them. And they want it back.

[Felya]

Eh, establishment elite might fit better it this particular circumstance. I was just pointing out the ultimate problem is people who consolidate power (money, politics, culture, science, tech, etc) to exert control. Given they generally implement systems and policies to retain that power and prevent access to others as a means to maintain control.

I understand, but that’s populism. Populism can be left, such as in this case. It can also be from the right, like Trump’s attacks on “money, politics, culture, science, tech, etc”. What if the issue isn’t censorship, which this simply isn’t... and the real name for the public bitching about the elites... populism.

Edit: I’m not saying that populism is inherently wrong... I just don’t like it. I also think people getting silenced due to public outcry, isn’t censorship... it’s populism in action.

[Shadowferal]

What does this mean to the ol’ “there is no such thing as bad publicity”? Does that no longer exist, did people forget, what’s up?

Look at the coronavirus thread. There were plenty of people posting opinions, but those that "don't care" or post "indifference" are responded to with such vitriol and venom that you have only a handful of people crying now in that thread. But don't imagine for a moment it is representive of a majority. "You" can't convince anyone by spitting in their faces. Nor can you convince that majority when "you" have shown "you're" not worth the time to listen to at all.

[Felya]

Not my point.
My point is that the journalists and OPed writers who moan about this, who sign letters about this. And some other public figures who do. They moan about it since 20 years ago the only people who could silence a message were them. And they want it back.

Sure, my point being, is this is the result of populism. I’m trying to distinguish the difference between censorship by the government, which would be fascist. With silencing by the public, due to perception of elites, is populism. Just trying to clarify the difference, because people feel like it’s the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at the coronavirus thread. There were plenty of people posting opinions, but those that "don't care" or post "indifference" are responded to with such vitriol and venom that you have only a handful of people crying now in that thread. But don't imagine for a moment it is representive of a majority. "You" can't convince anyone by spitting in their faces. Nor can you convince that majority when "you" have shown "you're" not worth the time to listen to at all.

Regardless that this doesn’t have anything to do with what I said... you can’t post with indifference. Not possible... People who post shit while acting like they don’t care, are simply cowards that don’t understand stating an opinion of indifference, is stating an opinion... is taking a side... they are just cowards.

[Endus]

"kill yourself" and "i hope you die" isn't criticism. That behavior might get you kicked off a platform (good luck when it takes minutes to create a Twitter account) but it's not easily rectified in a court of law. There are cases when people clutch their pearls at genuine criticism but anonymity on internet can be quite toxic. Anyone conveniently ignoring that fact and pretending the people that signed that letter are just worried about counter free speech are being disingenuous, intentional or not.

If it isn't unlawful speech, like an actual threat or libel/slander or the like, then the reason it's "not easily rectified in a court of law" is because it's lawful, protected conduct. It might be rude and mean-spirited. It might be targeted at the individual rather than their work. Doesn't matter. Still free speech.

If it is unlawful, I've been pretty clear in other threads that I have no patience for threats of violence over the Internet and don't think anonymity should be a protection; all such threats under a cloud of anonymity should be treated as potentially real, and that means they should be legally actionable. Charge the users doing this. I'm totally fine with that.

But if it's not a legal issue? Then it's free speech. They're just being mean to you on the Internet. Does that suck? Sure. Could they get banned from that social media for acting that way? Probably. Is it "silencing" you, or in any way an attack on your own freedom of speech? No. Categorically not.

You know when they say "counter speech with speech"? This is what that looks like. Freedom of speech isn't about restricting speech to polite discussion on topics all involved have agreed to. It's messy and dirty and . . . free.

Hell, if that kind of shit could "silence" people, I wouldn't have 63,000 posts here.

Edit: Because I can see a counter-argument coming, let me proactively state that I am not taking a stance of "it's technically legal now so should always be legal", where the current legality of a thing is circularly used to defend its legality. If you want to try and make a case that being mean on the Internet should literally be illegal, with legal penalties, whether civil or criminal, go nuts. I don't think you'll get far with that particular case, but unless you can make an argument that mean-spirited speech should be unlawful, I don't see how the letter writers have any kind of valid position; they're arguing to restrict free speech to protect their own speech, it's an argument to secure their own power and influence at the expense of their detractors.