De-platforming fascists works

xckjoo

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is currently stopping them?? I've never heard of anyone convicted of gossipping :rolleyes:

Not talking about gossiping though. We've plenty of laws that restrict "freedom of speech" as some people seem to be defining it. There's laws for libel, purgery, advertising, medicinal, even professional bodies. If I think I know enough to be a doctor, why can't I go around telling people I am one and open a practise? Is that not a restriction of the absolute freedom of speech people seem to think we should have?

Anyway my original point wasn't so much a legal one. It was a question on how strong the posters personal feelings on "freedom of speech" are. Are they happy enough with people exercising this total freedom and spreading whatever lies they want about them? Maybe not even lies, but half-truths or misunderstandings. Surely that's just them expressing their freedom of speech and putting all "information" in the public domain?

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Not talking about gossiping though. We've plenty of laws that restrict "freedom of speech" as some people seem to be defining it. There's laws for libel, purgery, advertising, medicinal, even professional bodies. If I think I know enough to be a doctor, why can't I go around telling people I am one and open a practise? Is that not a restriction of the absolute freedom of speech people seem to think we should have?

Anyway my original point wasn't so much a legal one. It was a question on how strong the posters personal feelings on "freedom of speech" are. Are they happy enough with people exercising this total freedom and spreading whatever lies they want about them? Maybe not even lies, but half-truths or misunderstandings. Surely that's just them expressing their freedom of speech and putting all "information" in the public domain?

That is somewhat of a false equivalence though.

You can call yourself a doctor if you want, but you must provide a license when asked or if you perform procedures/examinations that require a licence when you aren't in possession of one, you will be prosecuted. That's not a restriction of free speech, that is a restriction on fraud.

You should be allowed say what you like as long as you are not breaking any laws by doing so. Stating opinions that people do not like is not and should not be illegal.

xckjoo

Deleted User wrote: »

That is somewhat of a false equivalence though.

You can call yourself a doctor if you want, but you must provide a license when asked or if you perform procedures/examinations that require a licence when you aren't in possession of one, you will be prosecuted. That's not a restriction of free speech, that is a restriction on fraud.

You should be allowed say what you like as long as you are not breaking any laws by doing so. Stating opinions that people do not like is not and should not be illegal.

It's only a false equivalence because society has progressed to the stage whereby we require doctors to be licensed because of exactly the issue of people declaring themselves doctors and treating people. I agree with the restriction you're highlighting of being "allowed say what you like as long as you are not breaking any laws by doing so" but it is directly contravening the poster I was responding to that stated "Free speech covers everything, otherwise it isn't free speech. There should be no compromise on that. None.". It's impossible to have such a system in a functioning society and for some very good reasons.

The other factor that people seem to have forgotten (or never grasped) is that not all opinions are equal. My opinion on what might be wrong with you is not equal to the opinion of your doctor, no matter how many articles I read or videos I watch online.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I read that article before but happy enough to go through all the allegations of racism again and why I don't think they hold any water:...:

Trump jumped on the Obama birther band wagon which started, IMO, because Obama was black.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

It's only a false equivalence because society has progressed to the stage whereby we require doctors to be licensed because of exactly the issue of people declaring themselves doctors and treating people. I agree with the restriction you're highlighting of being "allowed say what you like as long as you are not breaking any laws by doing so" but it is directly contravening the poster I was responding to that stated "Free speech covers everything, otherwise it isn't free speech. There should be no compromise on that. None.". It's impossible to have such a system in a functioning society and for some very good reasons.

The other factor that people seem to have forgotten (or never grasped) is that not all opinions are equal. My opinion on what might be wrong with you is not equal to the opinion of your doctor, no matter how many articles I read or videos I watch online.

I agree to an extent.

But while all opinions might not be equal, I think that they are still worth protecting.

xckjoo

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree to an extent.

But while all opinions might not be equal, I think that they are still worth protecting.

That's fair. The difficulty lies in them being portrayed as truth. We're at a point where all opinions are being portrayed as equally true and that's harmful. Unfortunately the internet has exposed to people that absolute truths are a rarity so now they think that all information is equally as true. So we get situations such as (for example) one drug company is caught hiding potential side-effects for one product which causes people to jump to the conclusion that all drug companies and governments are covering up that vaccines cause autism. We like binary thinking (good/bad, true/false) and unfortunately the world just doesn't work that way. But we currently aren't good at living in the shades of grey. And then we have the fact that people don't like to admit they're wrong or that they don't know something so they steam roll ahead with half notions and gravitate towards things that justify these opinions.

James Brown

IMO, the only speech that should be censored is that which is deemed to be knowingly false and sold as fact and speech that incites hatred. Who judges? Society/laws.

Social media is instant mob rule. We seem to be caught up in mostly frivolous issues which some think toll the bell of doom for free speech and those who use that to push an agenda. The individual has the freedom to like/dislike something. I don't think with a loaded supreme court and the world leaders we have, right wingers have much to genuinely worry about, other than falsely using peoples dislikes as some kind of red line for how the sky is falling.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

That's fair. The difficulty lies in them being portrayed as truth. We're at a point where all opinions are being portrayed as equally true and that's harmful. Unfortunately the internet has exposed to people that absolute truths are a rarity so now they think that all information is equally as true. So we get situations such as (for example) one drug company is caught hiding potential side-effects for one product which causes people to jump to the conclusion that all drug companies and governments are covering up that vaccines cause autism. We like binary thinking (good/bad, true/false) and unfortunately the world just doesn't work that way. But we currently aren't good at living in the shades of grey. And then we have the fact that people don't like to admit they're wrong or that they don't know something so they steam roll ahead with half notions and gravitate towards things that justify these opinions.

Again, I think we agree more than differ.

The problem is that who should we trust when it comes to our news. The majority of media (mainstream or not) have been shown to lie or to twist stories to suit their agenda. I see lots of stating that "alternative facts" is a misnomer and ridiculous but it is undoubtedly true. You can report a legitimate fact in a different (and even contradictory) ways to suit a given agenda.

Without dissenting or opposing voices, you would be in an echo chamber and unfortunately, that's where most people are happiest. You only have to look at this thread. Nobody is willing to even take on board the fact that everything they believe isn't 100% true and sneer at those who disagree with them.

PostWoke

Matt Barrett wrote: »

IMO, the only speech that should be censored is that which is deemed to be knowingly false and sold as fact and speech that incites hatred. Who judges? Society/laws.

And in particular, hate speech that results in real violence. Which it does. In a number of manifestos people have regurgitated rhetoric from PJW, Shapiro, etc, and in some cases even directly referring to some of these personalities, including the Great Orange Cheeto.

Didn't one even make mention of Pewdiepie? lmfao let me off this train

Ironicname

PostWoke wrote:

Didn't one even make mention of Pewdiepie? lmfao let me off this train

So we should ban PewDiePie?

Haha.

James Brown

Ironicname wrote: »

So we should ban PewDiePie?

Haha.

Up to the individual:

Kjellberg has included anti-Semitic jokes or Nazi imagery in nine separate videos

In September 2017, Kjellberg drew criticism again when he used the racial slur "n****r" during an outburst at another player while live-streaming.

In a video uploaded in early December, Kjellberg gave a shoutout to several small content creators on YouTube, recommending his viewers to subscribe to them. Among those creators was "E;R", who Kjellberg highlighted for a video essay on Netflix's Death Note.[148] Shortly thereafter, The Verge's Julia Alexander noted that the video in question used imagery of the Charlottesville car attack, and that the channel made frequent use of racial and homophobic slurs.

Do you always find yourself defending these folk? I get complaining about too much censorship but do we need this muck? Are Milo and the Proud Boys making the world a better place?

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

Do you always find yourself defending these folk? I get complaining about too much censorship but do we need this muck? Are Milo and the Proud Boys making the world a better place?

I do. I find myself defending non fascists a lot.

James Brown

Ironicname wrote: »

I do. I find myself defending non fascists a lot.

I think it's your version, which is fair enough but dismissing the entire antifa while defending gutter right wing personalities is hypocritical IMO.

Ironicname

Matt Barrett wrote:

I think it's your version, which is fair enough but dismissing the entire antifa while defending gutter right wing personalities is hypocritical IMO.

I'm not defending them. I'm just saying they aren't fascists. Scumbags maybe. Not fascists and not people that "need to be silenced"

PostWoke

Ironicname wrote: »

So we should ban PewDiePie?

Haha.

Is that what anyone here said?

Or was the inference with that particular statement being that these fools are ridiculous?

Certainly throwing out a 'hard r' as a pejorative slur on a stream should probably not be allowed to stream on that platform anymore, but let's not get derailed here. Especially considering he makes streaming services too much to be banned. :pac:

Sonics2k

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Up to the individual:



Do you always find yourself defending these folk? I get complaining about too much censorship but do we need this muck? Are Milo and the Proud Boys making the world a better place?

Meh, Pewdiepie is certainly not anti-semetic. I remember when those articles were doing the rounds, which featured Felix in a Nazi costume and watching Youtube videos, but they had been massively altered and taken out of context and totally ignored the humour in them. Certainly the humour may be tasteless, but not out-right anti-semetism.

He's also very recently donated to the ADL, which have publicly applauded Disney dropping him.

RWCNT

Sonics2k wrote: »

Meh, Pewdiepie is certainly not anti-semetic. I remember when those articles were doing the rounds, which featured Felix in a Nazi costume and watching Youtube videos, but they had been massively altered and taken out of context and totally ignored the humour in them. Certainly the humour may be tasteless, but not out-right anti-semetism.

He's also very recently donated to the ADL, which have publicly applauded Disney dropping him.

I don't know anything about the guy, so I have no idea what he is or isn't - but he's not donating to them anymore.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pewdiepie-anti-defamation-league-retracts-donation-backlash-christchurch-2019-9?r=US&IR=T

Chris_Heilong

RWCNT wrote: »

I don't know anything about the guy, so I have no idea what he is or isn't - but he's not donating to them anymore.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pewdiepie-anti-defamation-league-retracts-donation-backlash-christchurch-2019-9?r=US&IR=T

Classic troll move, as long as he actually donates the money to a worthy cause then good for him.

realitykeeper

From the title I thought this thread might be about statues of anti-hero (confederate types), being taken down in the US. It was in the news a lot a couple of years ago. Interestingly, something similar is happening in eastern Europe, I read yesterday that Russia was outraged that a statue of a Russian WWII liberator was to be moved to another location in Prague, and they have voiced objections to similar incidents in the Baltic states. The world is becoming more polarized in many ways.

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Trump jumped on the Obama birther band wagon which started, IMO, because Obama was black.

By that logic he's racist against whites too as he also questioned the eligibility of Ted Cruz with regards to his place of birth:

"If you know and when we all studied our history lessons, you are supposed to be born in this country, so I just don't know how the courts will rule on this."

As of course where CNN in that piece and so I guess they're racists too.

But sure who isn't a wacist these days with liberals. The cry wolf effect has long since kicked in.

sk8erboii

There’s literally nothing wrong with deplatforming/humiliating/beating up anyone who claims to be fascist.

If you disagree, you’re just an edgy contrarian.

Danzy

sk8erboii wrote: »

There’s literally nothing wrong with deplatforming/humiliating/beating up anyone who claims to be fascist.

If you disagree, you’re just an edgy contrarian.

What about their Socialist brothers, fascisms older and more murderous brother.

Shouldn't we be beating up people who proclaim themselves Socialist.

sk8erboii

Danzy wrote: »

What about their Socialist brothers, fascisms older and more murderous brother.

Shouldn't we be beating up people who proclaim themselves Socialist.

Oh lets see mate, do you have any old relatives on pension or subsidized healthcare? Congrats theyre socialists. Do you want them murdered?


But lets break down your argument.
Me: Lets do X to Y
You: But what about (someone never mentioned nor has relevance to the thread)

Dont @ me again with nonsensical arguments. I’ll just ignore you. Now please stay on topic

Danzy

sk8erboii wrote: »

Oh lets see mate, do you have any old relatives on pension or subsidized healthcare? Congrats theyre socialists. Do you want them murdered?


But lets break down your argument.
Me: Lets do X to Y
You: But what about (someone never mentioned nor has relevance to the thread)

Dont @ me again with nonsensical arguments. I’ll just ignore you. Now please stay on topic

That was on topic, your advocating for the most murderous ideology in the last several hundred years.

You sound like one of those Nazis that talk about Hitler and Volkswagen, improved public roads, education and healthcare.

Thin line divides you from them.

sk8erboii

Danzy wrote: »

That was on topic, your advocating for the most murderous ideology in the last several hundred years.

You sound like one of those Nazis that talk about Hitler and Volkswagen, improved public roads, education and healthcare.

Tg

Nah mate stop the mental gymnastics. If someone in real life outright declared themself a fascist in my presence I would verbally/physically attack them. There is no leeway with fascism. If this ideology gets it way it means genocide in all cases, no exceptions.


Paradox of tolerance mate. You cant tolerate intolerance.

Danzy

sk8erboii wrote: »

Nah mate stop the mental gymnastics. If someone in real life outright declared themself a fascist in my presence I would verbally/physically attack them. There is no leeway with fascism. If this ideology gets it way it means genocide in all cases, no exceptions.


Paradox of tolerance mate. You cant tolerate intolerance.

That would just be a family row.

sk8erboii

Danzy wrote: »

That would just be a family row.

I’d punch my dad if he declares himself a fascist, no joke. Even harder because he’s taking advantage of Ireland’s socialist healthcare

Danzy

sk8erboii wrote: »

I’d punch my dad if he declares himself a fascist, no joke. Even harder because he’s taking advantage of Ireland’s socialist healthcare

He could do with it alright.

Does he have much far right leanings?

sk8erboii

Danzy wrote: »

He could do with it alright.

Does he have much far right leanings?

Nah, he’s apolitical. But i’d punch anyone who does declare themselves

MadYaker

We have an emerging problem with social media and how it influences politics. Elections can be won and lost on social media now and these outlets are privately owned companies with no public liability who have waaaay too much power in terms of controlling what people are reading and thinking. That should worry everyone right and left.

Morons like Milo are attention seeking losers who love to play the victim and unfortunately it seems there are a lot of other people who admire that sort of thing for some unknown reason. It all comes across as incredibly juvenile. He was banned from Twitter for good reason but when you look at others who weren’t banned for similar behavior it’s hard to avoid the fact that Twitter have an agenda although they don’t seem to be pursuing it as vigorously as they could.