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.
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.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
"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.
- Christopher HitchensPopulists (and "national socialists") look at the supposedly secret deals that run the world "behind the scenes". Child's play. Except that childishness is sinister in adults.
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."
Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?
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 - - -
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?
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Don't derail discussion about signatures and personal squabbles. Stay on topic.
Moderator of the General Off-Topic, Politics, Lore, and RP Forums
"If you have any concerns, let me know via PM. I'll do my best to assist you."
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
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.
Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?
- Lars
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.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
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.
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 - - -
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.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
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.
Last edited by Endus; 2020-07-17 at 02:19 PM.