Deplatform Parler good or bad?

[Endus]

@Endus:
By refusing to discuss with them you give up the chance to change them for the better.

This is a statement that only makes sense if you think that I, exclusively, have the responsibility to change them for the better. Not even that nobody else could do so, but fantastically, that the responsibility does not lie with they themselves.

If they don't want to change, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince them to.

My country has, unlike the US, laws in place that forbid you from even showing up with a swastika flag, doing the Nazi salute is an offense that can get you fined and even jailtime.
And still we have them. Because just forbidding stuff, not talking to them or about them has not the effect that you and so many other wish for: that they cease to exist.
Such ideology has to be dismantled in open discussion and forums, dragged into the light and shown to be the charlatanry it is. Just locking them away and chasing them back into the shadows just gives them time to fester and grow.

The last four years of the American political landscape demonstrate how absolutely thoroughly you are wrong about this.

Trump's election inflamed these bigots, made them feel empowered and able to speak out more openly. It did not result in conversations leading to widespread deradicalization. It led to the most significant attack on the US Capitol since 1814. It led to steadily increasing rates of hate crimes and domestic terrorism. In just four years.

Your argument was seen to hold merit when we did not have a developed nation that actually endorsed it, and thus had no data for comparison, but we do have that data now, and it seriously indicates that you're completely, deeply wrong about this.

If you have a table of 10 Nazis, and you sit down to have a polite discussion with them, you have a table with 11 Nazis.

[Katchii]

It'd get a little confusing (but also very revealing)...considering how many companies "Sponsor" both parties.

Oh, I'm aware. That's why it would be so great. It would provide full transparency to a system that is currently incredibly hush hush. I wouldn't say it's in the dark, because we all know it's true, but it is easily covered up and folks provide lip service to justify and morons eat it up.

- - - Updated - - -

If you have a table of 10 Nazis, and you sit down to have a polite discussion with them, you have a table with 11 Nazis.

I think this is a little unfair.

While I get what you're saying here, that if you aren't immediately denouncing them and their beliefs because of how horrible they are that you're complicit in them...but that's not how business dealings and/ or discussions work. You don't walk into a meeting with someone you NEED to do business with and/or come to an agreement with and start throwing punches before you even start talking and expect to walk out in an amicable deal.

If we want these people to change, which we do, if we don't their mentality will just continue to perpetuate then we need to come to the table and discuss with them. That doesn't mean you agree with them or anything, it just means that you accept that for you to actually discuss ANYTHING with them and try to change their mind you can't immediately go on the attack.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a statement that only makes sense if you think that I, exclusively, have the responsibility to change them for the better. Not even that nobody else could do so, but fantastically, that the responsibility does not lie with they themselves.

If they don't want to change, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince them to.

I don't disagree with this, however, as these people have shown they're either unwilling or unable to change themselves for various reasons. Leaving them to their own devices and just expecting them to magically change and become better people is the same as leaving a festering wound to just sit and fester expecting it to magically fix itself without proper care.

[Endus]

If we want these people to change, which we do, if we don't their mentality will just continue to perpetuate then we need to come to the table and discuss with them. That doesn't mean you agree with them or anything, it just means that you accept that for you to actually discuss ANYTHING with them and try to change their mind you can't immediately go on the attack.

I'm disputing that we want them to change. Not that the outcome is undesirable; that the effort is undesirable. And also, again, not our responsibility.

If they want to break the law, that's what the law's for, we'll prosecute and put them in prison.

If not, I'm satisfied to let them stew in ignominy until they die off. Societal change is already occurring despite them, and they have no real capacity to put a stop to it. So let them get left behind. Their kids will largely abandon them, as we can already demographically see in differentials of support for social justice measures between generations. Not all, of course, but some. Doing nothing means we win the supposed "war" by attrition alone, exerting nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't disagree with this, however, as these people have shown they're either unwilling or unable to change themselves for various reasons. Leaving them to their own devices and just expecting them to magically change and become better people is the same as leaving a festering wound to just sit and fester expecting it to magically fix itself without proper care.

As above, I simply have no interest in changing them. I don't consider them to pose a real threat to the USA as a nation, and their threat of terror attacks is, while tragic, what law enforcement exists to handle.

They're already losing the demographic "war". Time isn't on their side here. That wound is fixing itself, observably, just by the passage of time and the effects of modern communications and technology on how their kids grow up.

[Katchii]

I'm disputing that we want them to change. Not that the outcome is undesirable; that the effort is undesirable. And also, again, not our responsibility.

If they want to break the law, that's what the law's for, we'll prosecute and put them in prison.

If not, I'm satisfied to let them stew in ignominy until they die off. Societal change is already occurring despite them, and they have no real capacity to put a stop to it. So let them get left behind. Their kids will largely abandon them, as we can already demographically see in differentials of support for social justice measures between generations. Not all, of course, but some. Doing nothing means we win the supposed "war" by attrition alone, exerting nothing.

Fair enough.

I can agree with this. I hadn't seen the data supporting that it's fixing itself. If that's the case, I'm all in with letting it just die off on it's own without having to get our hands dirty, so to speak.

[PosPosPos]

it just means that you accept that for you to actually discuss ANYTHING with them and try to change their mind you can't immediately go on the attack.

Except in the reality in which we all live in, Nazism was never triumphed against by your brand of appeasement, and if America was anything to go by, it utterly disproves your narrative.

In fact, in every nation that Nazism was outright banned and made illegal, the number of Nazi members is basically a statistical anomaly.

[wunksta]

Genocide isn't something that needs to be debated.

[Egomaniac]

I think this is a little unfair.

While I get what you're saying here, that if you aren't immediately denouncing them and their beliefs because of how horrible they are that you're complicit in them...but that's not how business dealings and/ or discussions work. You don't walk into a meeting with someone you NEED to do business with and/or come to an agreement with and start throwing punches before you even start talking and expect to walk out in an amicable deal.

While that's true...I'm not sure I want to come to an amicable deal with them. I don't think I could even if I wanted to. The idea of trying to find common ground with people like that makes me feel gross.

[jonnysensible]

wait did i miss shackler doing the no trues scotsman democracy argument.

yea well done doing the Pilger take. americas institutions are clearly defined within a democratic republic, its no surprise a nazbol would not want to defend them from a fascist takeover tho.

[Katchii]

Except in the reality in which we all live in, Nazism was never triumphed against by your brand of appeasement, and if America was anything to go by, it utterly disproves your narrative.

In fact, in every nation that Nazism was outright banned and made illegal, the number of Nazi members is basically a statistical anomaly.

While true, I guess I'm speaking in a more broad term not specifically about Nazi's. If you want to have a discussion with people, those don't happen when you come at them aggressively before the discussion even starts.

- - - Updated - - -

While that's true...I'm not sure I want to come to an amicable deal with them. I don't think I could even if I wanted to. The idea of trying to find common ground with people like that makes me feel gross.

Agreed, just saying no discussion will happen unless you come in with the idea that you discuss something. Coming at it aggressively and pissing off your audience before you even start talking won't get anything done.

That said, it seems no discussion is necessary as this mentality is killing itself off. I hadn't realized that was true when I said what I said before.

[Thrundi]

That's all good and well except the people in question, currently, have repeatedly refused discussion.

Why would anyone still want to make an effort ?

[Shalcker]

wait did i miss shackler doing the no trues scotsman democracy argument.

yea well done doing the Pilger take. americas institutions are clearly defined within a democratic republic, its no surprise a nazbol would not want to defend them from a fascist takeover tho.

What Parler deplatforming has to do with US institutions, and why would they need to be defended in that case?

No, my argument was simply that assuming that you hold First Amendment dear, and acknowledging that America is an oligarchy, it is logically consistent to say that oligarchs should be held to that part of constitution just as much as nominal government.

As far as i understand interpretations given to First Amendment over time it is considered to be about actual governing bodies no matter how they are named.

And not doing so would actually allow them to do your fascist takeover once you give them power to decide which speech is allowed with no recourse and power over your finances and personal information.

[Endus]

What Parler deplatforming has to do with US institutions, and why would they need to be defended in that case?

No, my argument was simply that assuming that you hold First Amendment dear, and acknowledging that America is an oligarchy, it is logically consistent to say that oligarchs should be held to that part of constitution just as much as nominal government.

The problems here are, of course;

1> the USA isn't really an oligarchy, in terms of systemics.
2> Even if it were, in a comparison to the hypothetical system of representative democracy it should be, those oligarchs would not be "the government", they would be the voters.
3> And voters aren't held to abide by the First Amendment, because that's not how anything works.

As far as i understand interpretations given to First Amendment over time it is considered to be about actual governing bodies no matter how they are named.

This is false.

The board of directors of a privately-owned company is a "governing body", but in no way does the First Amendment control their decision-making.

[DarkTZeratul]

This is false.

The board of directors of a privately-owned company is a "governing body", but in no way does the First Amendment control their decision-making.

Not to mention that the First Amendment explicitly refers to "Congress," rather than a general "governing bodies."

[Kathranis]

The lesson I learned from 1984: "Boy, state surveillance, propaganda, and the war economy are really dangerous."

The lesson Trump supporters learned from 1984: "I forgot to do my book report... Uh, something about censorship, I think?"

The lesson pundits and politicians learned from 1984: "If I say nineteen-eighty-four, people get scared."


Seriously, when did people switch from evoking 1984 in reference to the fear of a surveillance state to complaining about censorship on social media, and why did seemingly nobody bat an eye?

Imagine if 1984 was about Big Brother getting kicked off the telescreen and his propagandists resigning. This shit is so backwards.

[DarkTZeratul]

The lesson I learned from 1984: "Boy, state surveillance, propaganda, and the war economy are really dangerous."

The lesson Trump supporters learned from 1984: "I forgot to do my book report... Uh, something about censorship, I think?"

The lesson pundits and politicians learned from 1984: "If I say nineteen-eighty-four, people get scared."


Seriously, when did people switch from evoking 1984 in reference to the fear of a surveillance state to complaining about censorship on social media, and why did seemingly nobody bat an eye?

Imagine if 1984 was about Big Brother getting kicked off the telescreen and his propagandists resigning. This shit is so backwards.

Seriously. Fahrenheit 451 would be a much better dystopia to reference. Of course, like with 1984, knowing that would require them to have read it in the first place...

[zealo]

Seriously. Fahrenheit 451 would be a much better dystopia to reference. Of course, like with 1984, knowing that would require them to have read it in the first place...

Not to mention knowing much of anything about the guy who wrote it. George Orwell was a socialist that spent time fighting against the fascists in the Spanish civil war in the 1930s.

[Egomaniac]

The lesson I learned from 1984: "Boy, state surveillance, propaganda, and the war economy are really dangerous."

The lesson Trump supporters learned from 1984: "I forgot to do my book report... Uh, something about censorship, I think?"

The lesson pundits and politicians learned from 1984: "If I say nineteen-eighty-four, people get scared."


Seriously, when did people switch from evoking 1984 in reference to the fear of a surveillance state to complaining about censorship on social media, and why did seemingly nobody bat an eye?

Imagine if 1984 was about Big Brother getting kicked off the telescreen and his propagandists resigning. This shit is so backwards.

I think it's funny they warn of "1984" and "Orwellian nightmares" at the same time they do things like this:

[Shalcker]

Not to mention that the First Amendment explicitly refers to "Congress," rather than a general "governing bodies."

It was expanded by SCOTUS later, i'm just extending it further.

[Edge-]

It was expanded by SCOTUS later, i'm just extending it further.

Which case(s)?

[Endus]

Seriously. Fahrenheit 451 would be a much better dystopia to reference. Of course, like with 1984, knowing that would require them to have read it in the first place...

I'd argue Brave New World is even closer, FWIW. But basically nobody's read it.