NYT Editorial Board Redefines Free Speech for Itself

[NED funded]

of all the people, and instances you could have picked, you picked Milo Yinaplous. a white nationalist provocateur, whose greatest contribution to literally anything besides pushing white nationalism, was that statutory rape is sometimes okay. like, if it's not acceptable to protest him who can we protest? no one? is that the brilliant point you're trying to make here?

You are free to protest him just not violently

I will emphasize on that cuz you keep missing it

[tehdang]

It also wasn't, "Please write a piece advocating for the use of the US military to 'put down' public protests."

Important that the NYT requested that Tom Cotton write something different than what he wanted to. They pitched him on what actually was written.

If that US Senator is advocating for the deployment of the military: No. He can do that on his own platforms, and the NYT rightfully realize how deeply they'd fucked up.

That's still a huge sidestep. The question of platforming is asking whether engaging in important dialogue is worthwhile. I did link Bret Stephens for this reason. It's a measure of intellectual cowardice. You think you know the world as it actually is, but you're unwilling to hear others tell it. I agree that it's intellectual cowardice. I think it's hiding behind a parallel argument about platforming. You're in good company with people dedicated to remaining ignorant.

There's a difference between "disagreement" and "extremism", this being a clear example of the latter. This is in incredibly bad faith on your part.

It's a clear element of your disregard. Democracy requires talking about the differences, for fear it might develop into worse things when people have given up talking about it. Extremism, in your use, is an excuse to stop thinking about disagreements. Polls showed it in no extremely minor position among the country. So, I present to you, you are ignoring a view with popular support at your peril, and refusing to address it is reason to believe you're unserious in opinions on the country.

This extremism can be covered critically without platforming it. It doesn't even require much of an imagination.

It's still intellectual cowardice. You don't want to hear the best case for opinion you disagree with. You just want to hear the critique of that opinion. This is the root of our philosophical disagreement.

Again, there's a difference between platforming differences of opinion that allow for healthy debate and extremism. This is an example of the latter.

This part is devolving into repetition. If you persist in calling opinions shared by a large cohort of Americans, as they were at the time this was written, then I'm happy to form conclusions about you in terms of debates you want to avoid in the public sphere and hope to marginalize in others ways.

"Deploy the US military to put down largely peaceful public protests, even if there has been property damage." is an extremist position. It also ignores the role of local police in escalating many of these confrontations and being party to the damage themselves with their behavior. But that would require an actual critical look with context, which is not what Hawley did nor what you want, apparently.

[/quote]This whole argument is your propensity to label and dismiss. You can't really act like it ignores certain parts of an argument, when you persist in believing the argument is too extreme to publish in a major national newspaper. I don't truly expect you to reconcile your mind internally to these contradictions. But if you did, consider that anyone thinking there was an argument against it must fully read and understand the first argument to actually say there's a compelling counterargument. The strategy of calling it extremist and not worthy of main publication argues against your point.

[Elegiac]

You are free to protest him just not violently

Wow, maybe right wing agitators shouldn't have whipped up violence then.

[uuuhname]

You are free to protest him just not violently

I will emphasize on that cuz you keep missing it

so we have one riot and we are to believe cancel culture is in fact this dire threat to our abilities to express free speech, because yadda yadda the left blah blah blah. going by that metric then the January 6th riots are proof positive that the right are the ones really pushing cancel culture.

[Elegiac]

-snip-

That's nice. Bigoted views being popular still does not mean there is any valid reason to platform them, nor is refusal to treat those opinions as legitimate "intellectual cowardice" anymore than refusing to entertain any other form of sealioning "intellectual cowardice."

[Endus]

Wow, maybe right wing agitators shouldn't have whipped up violence then.

This is the intentional process.

Right-wing agitators drum up or initiate violence at progressive protests.
Right-wingers denounce said protest "because violence bad", so they can pretend it's about the violence and not their utterly indefensible opposition to the protest itself.

It's a cover story. It's not presented in good faith.

- - - Updated - - -

This whole argument is your propensity to label and dismiss. You can't really act like it ignores certain parts of an argument, when you persist in believing the argument is too extreme to publish in a major national newspaper. I don't truly expect you to reconcile your mind internally to these contradictions. But if you did, consider that anyone thinking there was an argument against it must fully read and understand the first argument to actually say there's a compelling counterargument. The strategy of calling it extremist and not worthy of main publication argues against your point.

There's nothing to dismiss. You don't have an argument in the first place.

Cancel culture doesn't exist; it's a fiction invented as propaganda by the right-wing.

Bigotry is deserving of criticism, and Tom Cotton's op-ed was very bigoted.

You're just playing defense for bigots, and trying to argue that bigotry should be immune from criticism or denouncement. That's not a defense of free speech, and arguing that it is just means that you're intentionally lying.

[jonnysensible]

You are free to protest him just not violently

I will emphasize on that cuz you keep missing it

cant remember because its so long ago but didnt a right wing guy stab someone?

[Elegiac]

This is the intentional process.

Right-wing agitators drum up or initiate violence at progressive protests.
Right-wingers denounce said protest "because violence bad", so they can pretend it's about the violence and not their utterly indefensible opposition to the protest itself.

It's a cover story. It's not presented in good faith.

The funny thing to me is how it absolutely stinks of privilege and grift. Like, you can very readily tell that people like tehdang, Bret Stephens, or Tom Cotton have never, ever been in a position where their basic humanity is treated as fodder for endless "debate" as if it's just a matter of abstract ideology rather than a political struggle for recognition of said basic humanity.

It plays into the notion that a belief can't be bigoted if it's phrased in a sufficiently civil fashion, when in reality "debate" is one of the chief manifestations of indirect bigotry:

There's really two different styles of bigotry. They express the same prejudice, but they're very different in tone. I'll call the two styles “direct bigotry” and “indirect bigotry.” Direct bigotry is openly contemptuous. It's bigotry manifested in slurs, in outright discrimination, in demonizing the target group, in calls for shunning, subordination, or even violence.

Whereas indirect bigotry manifests as "concern", or "debate" about a host of proxy issues. It's often “defensive” in tone rather than offensive. Frequently the claim is that a once needed liberation movement has now gone too far; that it's now the activists who are the new oppressors, who are disturbing “law and order” with violent and chaotic protests, who are victimizing and silencing innocent people by calling them bigots, who are infiltrating the media and replacing good old-fashioned entertainment with politically correct propaganda. And of course ordinary people are too intimidated to speak out against it because “cancel culture” is out of control and “free speech” is under attack.

The direct bigot is always frothing at the mouth, ranting and raving about predators, perverts, invaders, rapists, brutish animals, vermin, roaches, rats, contagions. Whereas, the indirect bigot is always defending something, always a knight in shining armor. Defending women, defending the children, defending marriage, defending freedom, defending the family, defending our values, defending common sense, defending tradition, defending civilization itself, defending God.

I think a lot of people take a borderline heroic view of themselves, and indirect bigotry flatters that self-image. Indirect bigotry often replaces the actual people it targets with some big abstract concept. Instead of Jewish people, they claim to be against "Zionist Occupied Government". Instead of women, they claim to hate "feminazis" or "the friendzone". Gay people are de-personified as "the gay agenda". Trans people become "transgenderism", "gender ideology", "transactivists".

What they're really against is equality. But they don't say that, in fact they may not even think it. But they tell on themselves, when they react with instinctive hostility to anyone who agitates for change.

[Endus]

The funny thing to me is how it absolutely stinks of privilege and grift. Like, you can very readily tell that people like tehdang, Bret Stephens, or Tom Cotton have never, ever been in a position where their basic humanity is treated as fodder for endless "debate" as if it's just a matter of abstract ideology rather than a political struggle for recognition of said basic humanity.

It plays into the notion that a belief can't be bigoted if it's phrased in a sufficiently civil fashion, when in reality "debate" is one of the chief manifestations of indirect bigotry:

Right.

Consider that anyone suggesting we should "debate" whether a particular person deserves basic human dignity, that anyone is already hostile to their existence, and the "debate" is an attempt to justify genocide. Even asking the question demonstrates a deep-seated evil intent, and deserves to be responded to accordingly.

It isn't a debate. Either you accept and agree with their humanity and respect their basic dignity and freedoms, or you're a monster hunting for a population of victims.

It's an absolute. There's no discussion to be had, there. It's like trying to "debate" who you should get to kill and eat, because you enjoy eating human flesh. Fuck that, fuck you for thinking that's up for discussion. It's monstrous, you are monstrous, and raising the question can only be responded to with hostility, because entertaining the discussion inherently allows that your position might be tenable.

And it is not.

It's just evil sadism, and they need to be treated accordingly.

[Xyonai]

And it turns out they were right to get rid of that piece of shit. He turned out to be a fucking Nazi.

And a Pedophile apologist! Can't forget that tidbit.

- - - Updated - - -

The funny thing to me is how it absolutely stinks of privilege and grift. Like, you can very readily tell that people like tehdang, Bret Stephens, or Tom Cotton have never, ever been in a position where their basic humanity is treated as fodder for endless "debate" as if it's just a matter of abstract ideology rather than a political struggle for recognition of said basic humanity.

It plays into the notion that a belief can't be bigoted if it's phrased in a sufficiently civil fashion, when in reality "debate" is one of the chief manifestations of indirect bigotry:

Exactly! To a lesser extent it's also the same mindset that's poisoned Media discourse about shit being 'political' when it involves any sort of minority group in anything that used to be typically dominated by heteronormative white men.

It's the Right's attempt to equate differences in existence (IE: Race, Gender, Sexual Identity) with a political ideology so they can pretend their big push against giving those groups basic human decency is a just-as-valid ideology and not just bigoted garbage. Just asking for debate is seeking to validate their bullshit as something that -can- be debated, rather than scornfully dismissed because the ideology is fundamentally garbage.

Now this does feed into a fun (Read: Not fun) paradox where pushing down too hard on these people just makes them more agitated as their contrarian programming kicks in and forces them to double down on the stupidest hills to die on.

[Dezerte]

It's always worrying when people try to redefine free speech in a way that actually reduces free speech (shunning or shaming people is free speech). And with the way things are going, not just in the US, it makes you question their motives; is it ignorance or malice?

[Edge-]

It's always worrying when people try to redefine free speech in a way that actually reduces free speech (shunning or shaming people is free speech). And with the way things are going, not just in the US, it makes you question their motives; is it ignorance or malice?

Given the book burnings and everything else going on from the same crowd, malice.

[Endus]

Given the book burnings and everything else going on from the same crowd, malice.

Honestly, the confusion over that point bothers me.

"Ignorance" would be a case where they literally were not aware of what they were doing. It can't even really be applied to the banning of certain books, because you need to choose which books, and that obviates "ignorance" as a defense, wholesale. To make up an example, being confused when you see a guy passionately kissing another guy, that's "ignorance"; you legitimately had no idea that gay people existed, and it confused you when you were confronted with it. Getting angry about being exposed to that, that's malice, 100% of the time. Not ignorance. "Ignorance" is used as a defense to avoid having the uncomfortable discussion that some people really are malicious, sadistic, evil assholes. "Oh, they're just ignorant, they don't know any better", the fuck they don't. They choose to be vicious, harmful assholes. It's all malice.

Ignorance is a white aid worker going into an African village where they've never seen a white person before, and the village kids wanting to touch them to see if their skin feels different, because it's a whole new experience for those kids. It isn't systemic racism that subjugates entire minority groups to support the privilege of another. Harmful acts spring from malice, not ignorance.

[Milchshake]

PSA

Blue checks are hyping a brave new magazine of ... the most insufferable of pundits all yelling at you at the same time.



Time for some bad faith arguments in long form. You-Know-Who will copypasta this into some world-salad threads.


Literally right next to “the case against aesthetic castration”.

[Dezerte]

Given the book burnings and everything else going on from the same crowd, malice.

Honestly, the confusion over that point bothers me.

"Ignorance" would be a case where they literally were not aware of what they were doing. It can't even really be applied to the banning of certain books, because you need to choose which books, and that obviates "ignorance" as a defense, wholesale. To make up an example, being confused when you see a guy passionately kissing another guy, that's "ignorance"; you legitimately had no idea that gay people existed, and it confused you when you were confronted with it. Getting angry about being exposed to that, that's malice, 100% of the time. Not ignorance. "Ignorance" is used as a defense to avoid having the uncomfortable discussion that some people really are malicious, sadistic, evil assholes. "Oh, they're just ignorant, they don't know any better", the fuck they don't. They choose to be vicious, harmful assholes. It's all malice.

Ignorance is a white aid worker going into an African village where they've never seen a white person before, and the village kids wanting to touch them to see if their skin feels different, because it's a whole new experience for those kids. It isn't systemic racism that subjugates entire minority groups to support the privilege of another. Harmful acts spring from malice, not ignorance.

Wilful ignorance then perhaps? I don't know, I guess some part of me wants to believe that these people are not being outright malicious. But perhaps they are.

[Edge-]

Wilful ignorance then perhaps? I don't know, I guess some part of me wants to believe that these people are not being outright malicious. But perhaps they are.

Willful ignorance can be, and often is, malicious in nature.

The thing is these people don't think they're being malicious because most are engaged in a fairly spectacular example of doublethink.

Remember the, "He's not hurting the right people." lady? Prime example.

[Endus]

Wilful ignorance then perhaps?

Willful ignorance is, itself, malicious intent. It isn't even really an honest descriptor; the "willful" component means the subject knows better, but chooses to pretend otherwise, and it's that choice that demonstrates malice.

I don't know, I guess some part of me wants to believe that these people are not being outright malicious. But perhaps they are.

Hard to think of any reason they'd want to harm and victimize innocent people other than malice. It certainly isn't ignorance. Hatred is taught, not a default state that exists from ignorance. The human default state is empathy, not hatred.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing is these people don't think they're being malicious because most are engaged in a fairly spectacular example of doublethink.

Particularly in a sense of "these people need to be made to suffer, for some higher purpose" kind of sense. Like, a lot of transphobia and homophobia centers around trying to "punish" LGBT people for their "choices". The "goal" is to make them "choose differently", and thus eliminate LGBT people from existence. A form of genocide, when you get down to it.

Obviously, it isn't a "choice", and the bigots know this. If it were a choice, then that suggests everyone holds those feelings, and "good people" just "choose differently"; it implicitly states that the bigots themselves feel homosexual urges or body dysmorphia over their gender or whatnot, and force themselves to suppress it. It's either that, or they know they're lying about it being a "choice", and the difference doesn't really matter to me. It boils down to malice in the expression either way.

But that's how they justify being abusive shits. Because they think their victims need/deserve the abuse. It's the same attitude portrayed by an abusive parent who beats their kid bloody. It's the same attitude portrayed by a rapist who rapes women to "show them who's boss". Both examples cited since, obviously, both are expressions of personal malice, and we'd never accept the arguments the abusers present to defend their choices.

Bigotry's just as malicious, and for pretty comparable reasons.

[Edge-]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidip...h=392a56904f95

Well, conservatives found someone to #CANCEL: Their very own Dave Rubin.

His crime? Being married to another man and having a woman carry their child.

Has cancel culture gone too far?

[PC2]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidip...h=392a56904f95

Well, conservatives found someone to #CANCEL: Their very own Dave Rubin.

His crime? Being married to another man and having a woman carry their child.

Has cancel culture gone too far?

Rubin will be fine but yeah he attracted a lot of conservatives in the last few years who didn't take him seriously regarding him being a gay person who values traditional stuff like the family and pro-natalism. I try to tell right wingers how the world is underpopulated and that LGBT people should have kids, but they see it as unnatural or unholy or something like that.

[NED funded]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidip...h=392a56904f95

Well, conservatives found someone to #CANCEL: Their very own Dave Rubin.

His crime? Being married to another man and having a woman carry their child.

Has cancel culture gone too far?

NGL the concept of surrogacy is v exploitative to me

Like its literally buying the organs of someone else for your own benefit. Whatever your opinion of that maybe

Buttgiege had the right approach of adopting imo