De-platforming fascists works

Pa ElGrande

batgoat wrote: »

Eh hate speech legislation has a pretty well defined list of what falls under its remit.

Which underlines my point, that is todays list. Tomorrows list and definitions will be different.

Pa ElGrande

RandomName2 wrote: »

Note that fascist and communist movements have been known to engage in violence as part of their modus operandi, and that is something which can and should be opposed, and it should be opposed with recourse to the law. No political movement, for no reason, should have the freedom to act outside the confines of the law.

Also note that when fascists and communists have historically 'won' politically, it has usually involved these groups using violence to achieve their ends (often with large armed groups that were answerable to nobody but themselves).

The problem was the evil people all acted within the law at the time.

The death squads and concentration camps of history were never staffed by rebels and dissidents. They were were run by those who followed the rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcLNoxiPBk

The Late Late Show

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, you're absolutely right, it starts with one set of people (usually in a more powerful position) preventing another set of people from expressing their views and also justifying violence being used against them.

Now who is doing that I wonder.

At the moment, there are people who claim to be rightwing and leftwing at this. They are deliberately set upon each other aren't they? It is like those 3 fish in one of the Bond films: Blofeld says 2 fish slug it out and one kills the other but is weakened. The third fish just waits and does in the weakened fish leaving fish # 3 the only one.

Sure, Pompeo and his ilk are a group of rightwingers in positions of more power ramming their sick agenda which kills people down others' throats. The media then take a stance against these but tend to turn a blind eye to Clinton, now seen as a 'leftwinger'.

This whole use of rightwing or leftwing seem to be traded as insults. Pol Pot v Hitler, Stalin v Pinochet, Milosevic v Pompeo, Netanyahu v Mugabe, etc. PLENTY VILE rulers unfit for high office who ALL tend to share the same sociopath, liar, warmonger, racist, sectarian traits. As all left and right seems to imply is they were different to their enemies supposedly. Hitler v Stalin for example? What's the real difference? Both were imperialist empire builders who had desires to expand their countries beyond their borders and both were mass murders who resorted to that to attain their sick dreams.

That third fish is probably in the real world the stock market, the arms industry, the oil industry, etc., ALL of who benefit from this left/right split, or East/West, or any other variant.

Veritas Libertas

batgoat wrote: »

Haha all you want but it's defined and rarely enforced in Ireland unfortunately.

This act refers to incitement to violence. Are you saying this is all that hate speech is????

Apparently that guy who was saying he would punch fascists would be liable for prosecution under this act.

RandomName2

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The problem was the evil people all acted within the law at the time.

Right, but that doesn't matter. The law was changed to give a veneer of respectability in general, though for death camps there were no official laws as the Nazis couldn't find a way to publicly legitimize them (so there was a pretense that it wasn't happening instead). Same result.

Anyway the laws didn't materialize out of thin air. The laws were passed because the fascists had the power, and they had the power because the independence of the courts had been undermined, because the fascists had a very large and powerful private army (the SA and SS), and because the country had only one legal party (the fascist party). So the laws were just rubber stamping at that stage, it was the other aspects there that were the deciding factor.

James Brown

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The problem was the evil people all acted within the law at the time.

....and that's why we should use the democratic process and root out fascists and the like. Lest they gain power and create laws to suit themselves. Maybe de-platform them?

yoke

The concept of “free speech” was created to try and ensure that dissenting voices could not easily be silenced by “authority” figures.
The problem is that it is (and always was) an illusion - true free speech would be nonsensical as it would mean that the law could do nothing if someone targeted another person and spread lies about them, for example.
Who would decide what is a lie and what isn’t?

Pa ElGrande

Matt Barrett wrote: »

....and that's why we should use the democratic process and root out fascists and the like. Lest they gain power and create laws to suit themselves. Maybe de-platform them?

The term “Fascist” is thrown around by politicians and the media, but rarely used in its proper context or correct description; For its true meaning we should refer to Mussolini who expressed "the definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state," and "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

The post world war 2 United States of America is by strict political definition, a fascist oligarchy. Sure, there are some aspects of democracy and socialism, but fascism is the dominant political ideology of today’s USA, the marriage of state and corporatism.

What happens when the corporate is the platform and closely aligned ideologically with a powerful left of centre political party? What do you do when the fascists are already de-platforming people and you support them?

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

....and that's why we should use the democratic process and root out fascists and the like. Lest they gain power and create laws to suit themselves.

The more you speak the more you sound like you're talking about the fascist left.

With their gender quota laws, and incorrect pronoun legislation, and lord knows what's next in terms of qualifying as hate speech.

Time and again lefties have been shown that when put in positions in power they will do their level best to pass laws which are insane.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/38293/Now-Labour-plans-law-to-bar-white-men-from-jobs

James Brown

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The term “Fascist” is thrown around by politicians and the media, but rarely used in its proper context or correct description; For its true meaning we should refer to Mussolini who expressed "the definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state," and "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

The post world war 2 United States of America is by strict political definition, a fascist oligarchy. Sure, there are some aspects of democracy and socialism, but fascism is the dominant political ideology of today’s USA, the marriage of state and corporatism.

What happens when the corporate is the platform and closely aligned ideologically with a powerful left of centre political party? What do you do when the fascists are already de-platforming people and you support them?

One major problem for society is the relationship of the corporate and the state.
When the U.S. President tells you not to trust the media, when it's common place to call it the 'liberal media', when words like 'socialism' and 'social justice' are used in a disparaging way, as almost an insult by the government and it's followers, when the supreme court is stacked, when the President openly admires and jokes with dictators and drops jokes about staying passed two terms, I think we're on the way.
Anyone denigrating minorities, stirring hate or trolling using hate should be de-platformed IMO. I'd have Trump off Twitter only it's a good insight into him. No point in doing same for lower level hacks like Milo.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The more you speak the more you sound like you're talking about the fascist left.

With their gender quota laws, and incorrect pronoun legislation, and lord knows what's next in terms of qualifying as hate speech.

Time and again lefties have been shown that when put in positions in power they will do their level best to pass laws which are insane.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/38293/Now-Labour-plans-law-to-bar-white-men-from-jobs

You would think that. Suits your agenda.
Even the old 'right wingers accuse the left of trying to do what they are already doing' has been appropriated.

In psychology terms:

Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending oneself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others.

Or

'I know you are but what am I?'

nkl12xtw5goz70

super_furry wrote: »

Far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos is broke

I'm pretty sure that in Milo-speak "broke" means "no longer able to afford an extravagant lifestyle."

He was recently complaining that he had to return his $20,000 wedding ring to Cartier because they were pursuing him for the debt.

Most people never have a $20,000 ring to begin with -- and yet they aren't "broke."

ohnonotgmail

Danielle Old-fashioned Neuron wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that in Milo-speak "broke" means "no longer able to afford an extravagant lifestyle."

He was recently complaining that he had to return his $20,000 wedding ring to Cartier because they were pursuing him for the debt.

Most people never have a $20,000 ring to begin with -- and yet they aren't "broke."

he was living well beyond his means.

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

The concept of “free speech” was created to try and ensure that dissenting voices could not easily be silenced by “authority” figures.
The problem is that it is (and always was) an illusion - true free speech would be nonsensical as it would mean that the law could do nothing if someone targeted another person and spread lies about them, for example.
Who would decide what is a lie and what isn’t?

Even the most ardent defenders of freedom of speech believe the principle is rooted first and foremost in not harming others.

This includes defamation as you allude to, as well as incitement to violence, sedition, fighting words, trade secrets, etc...

Free speech has never been absolute. Defenders of it always are quick to point this out. It's only the ones that are attacking free speech that constantly call it absolutist as an easier way to attack it.

Nobody is arguing that incitement to violence should be included under free-speech.

This is a massive misconception.

Its much easier to think of free speech as the 'freedom to offend'

I didn't say 'freedom to insult' there is a difference.

By thinking and speaking you risk offending people all the time. We cannot allow thinking to become a crime.

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You would think that. Suits your agenda.
Even the old 'right wingers accuse the left of trying to do what they are already doing' has been appropriated.
In psychology terms:
Or
'I know you are but what am I?'

So you've got no rebuttal then....

I cite some examples of what I am referring to and all you can respond with is this babble.

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Even the most ardent defenders of freedom of speech believe the principle is rooted first and foremost in not harming others.

This includes defamation as you allude to, as well as incitement to violence, sedition, fighting words, trade secrets, etc...

Free speech has never been absolute. Defenders of it always are quick to point this out. It's only the ones that are attacking free speech that constantly call it absolutist as an easier way to attack it.

Nobody is arguing that incitement to violence should be included under free-speech.

This is a massive misconception.

Its much easier to think of free speech as the 'freedom to offend'

I didn't say 'freedom to insult' there is a difference.

By thinking and speaking you risk offending people all the time. We cannot allow thinking to become a crime.

I agree with nearly all of what you’ve said above.

The problem is (and always has been) regarding where the line is (ie. the details of exactly what is acceptable under free speech and what isn’t), and who draws the line?

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

The problem is (and always has been) regarding where the line is (ie. the details of exactly what is acceptable under free speech and what isn’t), and who draws the line?

I think it boils down to whether you believe speech can harm others, which an increasing community of people are advocating for.

I and other free speech proponents believe speech in itself can not harm others. In fact it mostly makes people stronger.

I'm struggling to think of a borderline example, could you?

There is no line to draw with freedom of speech if it is allowed. E.g. the first amendment(US) prohibits laws to be created that restrict your freedom of speech, so there's no need for anyone to adjudicate on where the line is. Everything is fair game that doesn't explicitly harm others.

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

By thinking and speaking you risk offending people all the time. We cannot allow thinking to become a crime.

Try not to conflate speaking with thinking, thinking is private and isn't behaviour so cannot be policed.

Outlaw Pete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS54CyMLXmI

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Try not to conflate speaking with thinking, thinking is private and isn't behaviour so cannot be policed.

Would you prefer if thinking could be policed?

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Would you prefer if thinking could be policed?

No.

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No.

So do you agree people should be free to say what they think?(as long as it doesn't harm others)

Because in regards freedom of speech, I think speaking and thinking are quite linked.

noel1980

The next generation of social media technology will not have de-platforming. People will be able to say whatever they want on them.

Things happen slowly. Currently we have a lot more free speech than we had back in the 90's, even though the internet was hardly "policed" back then... because nobody was on it only computer geeks and pornography enthusiasts. But if you wanted to say something controversial the most effective way to do it would be to get a spot on RTE TV or radio, or get an article published in a magazine, but back then (as now) if the publisher didn't like you or agree with your opinion, you didn't get published.

Now that everybody is online 24/7, it's a lot easier to get heard and to build up an audience, but as it was then, the publishers, who these days are FB, YT, Twitter, etc. and they ARE publishers. Make no mistake. The buck stops with the publishers.

Things go in cycles. Technology will find a way, and something will be developed soon that's easy to use like FB, but cannot be controlled.

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

So do you agree people should be free to say what they think?(as long as it doesn't harm others)

Yes. There was a woman who encouraged her troubled boyfriend to kill himself which the poor guy did - she ended up in jail and good enough for her - words have consequences.

If some idiot on Twitter says 'I hope you get raped/killed/whatever' and their employer decides to fire them then tough shit, own your words.

Because in regards freedom of speech, I think speaking and thinking are quite linked.

Thinking is private -- words are not unless you're talking to yourself.

rocksolidfat

noel1980 wrote: »

The next generation of social media technology will not have de-platforming. People will be able to say whatever they want on them.

Things happen slowly. Currently we have a lot more free speech than we had back in the 90's, even though the internet was hardly "policed" back then... because nobody was on it only computer geeks and pornography enthusiasts. But if you wanted to say something controversial the most effective way to do it would be to get a spot on RTE TV or radio, or get an article published in a magazine, but back then (as now) if the publisher didn't like you or agree with your opinion, you didn't get published.

Now that everybody is online 24/7, it's a lot easier to get heard and to build up an audience, but as it was then, the publishers, who these days are FB, YT, Twitter, etc. and they ARE publishers. Make no mistake. The buck stops with the publishers.

Things go in cycles. Technology will find a way, and something will be developed soon that's easy to use like FB, but cannot be controlled.

I actually think the opposite is far, far more likely to happen. Twenty years from now I would not be surprised if they have it locked down so that every conceivable way you can access the internet involves an ID scan before being able to even open anything.

The sad thing is, some of the nonsense we are seeing online in recent years from politically motivated troll farms and the likes means the likes of politicians will have very little problem justifying it to the courts and such. Not only that, but the same people involved in, and even supportive of these trolls, fake news outlets, online promotion of extremism behind a mask of anonymity and so on will have played the most crucial role in these restrictions coming in, and will inevitably be the ones to cry the loudest about it.

It's not a rosy outlook, quite the opposite and not something I would be supportive of, but unfortunately I don't see how the current path leads anywhere but there. This is why we can't have nice things, basically.

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Thinking is private -- words are not unless you're talking to yourself.

Seems we're in agreement other than this part.

You're also thinking while you speak/type.

noel1980

rocksolidfat wrote: »

I actually think the opposite is far, far more likely to happen. Twenty years from now I would not be surprised if they have it locked down so that every conceivable way you can access the internet involves an ID scan before being able to even open anything.

The sad thing is, some of the nonsense we are seeing online in recent years from politically motivated troll farms and the likes means the likes of politicians will have very little problem justifying it to the courts and such. Not only that, but the same people involved in, and even supportive of these trolls, fake news outlets, online promotion of extremism behind a mask of anonymity and so on will have played the most crucial role in these restrictions coming in, and will inevitably be the ones to cry the loudest about it.

It's not a rosy outlook, quite the opposite and not something I would be supportive of, but unfortunately I don't see how the current path leads anywhere but there. This is why we can't have nice things, basically.

Governments don't like big tech, and they don't like them because they (big tech) basically have more power than them (governments) nowadays.


Governments HATE the fact that companies like Google and FB have all this information about all their citizens at their fingertips... In reality I'm sure it's not like this, I'm sure MZ doesn't have a facebook "God mode" where he can see everything and everybody at once. Or maybe he does, who knows?


Either way, governments don't like this arrangement, and they'd rather take away the rights of tech companies little by little regulation, and a multi-billion dollar fine here and there, then just let them get on with their mission of "changing the world and making it more connected".


The governments are basically standing behind big tech looking on jealously, saying "I want to play with your toy, otherwise I'm gonna break your toy".


Problem is, tech companies know that if the government infiltrate their products they'll probably end up killing their products.


As for the whole "ID scan" thing you mentioned, I sincerely hope it doesn't go that way. If it does go like that, it will suck the fun out of it. It also doesn't make much sense from a government surveillance point of view. Criminals aren't going to use the internet if they know for sure they're being tracked. But they might use it if they think they're anonymous.

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I think it boils down to whether you believe speech can harm others, which an increasing community of people are advocating for.

I and other free speech proponents believe speech in itself can not harm others. In fact it mostly makes people stronger.

I'm struggling to think of a borderline example, could you?

There is no line to draw with freedom of speech if it is allowed. E.g. the first amendment(US) prohibits laws to be created that restrict your freedom of speech, so there's no need for anyone to adjudicate on where the line is. Everything is fair game that doesn't explicitly harm others.

This is pretty much the core of where we differ - I do believe that speech can harm others, whereas you believe it will only make them stronger.

A borderline example - imagine you send a 7 year old kid into an ultra-religious school. The majority of kids will become copycat religious people until they are removed from that environment. They were never hit by the teachers, it was all speech.

Adults are pretty similar, except they can sometimes choose to remove themselves from these environments (sometimes not)

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

This is pretty much the core of where we differ - I do believe that speech can harm others, whereas you believe it will only make them stronger.

Would you send a kid into a fundamentalist religious school, and expect no damage to be done?

People learn by example, and if everyone is talking/behaving a certain way, they tend to do it themselves - this goes for adults as well as kids

Bringing the example of kids is kind of going for low hanging fruit. They're brains are developing and I believe in shielding them from the dangers that you mention.

Adults however completely different story. They should be exposed to as much information as possible, and taught as kids how to properly differentiate information.

We should teach kids how to judge information, how to fact-check. Instead we're teaching them to ingest and regurgitate without thinking.

If you're told you can't do something, like in Germany now it's illegal to form a Nazi party, illegal to have Nazi paraphernalia etc.. It makes it cool, it stigmatizes it. Nazism is on the rise in Germany.

German authorities have registered 8,605 right-wing extremist offenses in the first half of 2019

https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271

No where else where Nazism is not illegal has a Nazi party formed! It is the information of what happened that keeps us from repeating the mistakes of history. Allow people to wear their nazi uniforms if they want, and let's all mock them!

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Bringing the example of kids is kind of going for low hanging fruit. They're brains are developing and I believe in shielding them from the dangers that you mention.

Adults however completely different story. They should be exposed to as much information as possible, and taught as kids how to properly differentiate information.

We should teach kids how to judge information, how to fact-check. Instead we're teaching them to ingest and regurgitate without thinking.

If you're told you can't do something, like in Germany now it's illegal to form a Nazi party, illegal to have Nazi paraphernalia etc.. It makes it cool, it stigmatizes it. Nazism is on the rise in Germany.

https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271

No where else where Nazism is not illegal has a Nazi party formed! It is the information of what happened that keeps us from repeating the mistakes of history. Allow people to wear their nazi uniforms if they want, and let's all mock them!

Once again, I find myself agreeing with most of what you are saying, but the one big point that I differ on, is that in my opinion adults are just like kids - especially young adults.
It’s not like they turn 18 and suddenly they change from a kids mind into an adults mind.
Older adults often have more experienced minds which are more difficult to influence due to their own experiences, but young adults often don’t have this experience yet.

People mature at different rates, and some don’t mature at all 🙂