So someone got convicted for holocaust denial because they denied the existence of the holocaust? The system works!
Not being facetious, this is not a problem.
> If you ban people like Alex Jones, you also ban people who are activists for causes that society will adopt in the future. And we all end up worse off." I don't know how you can interpret that to mean that I am somehow in favor of Jones.
Easily because that's the implication of your statement. That there is no way to differentiate between Alex Jones's ideology and the ideology of human rights activists.
> Are you saying that Alex Jones's views are just ahead of their time and the culture is not ready for it?
No. In fact I thought I explained that pretty clearly. I said, "So far, we haven't figured out a way to separate good ideas from bad ones besides exposing people to them and seeing which memes reproduce in the population. In other words: If you ban people like Alex Jones, you also ban people who are activists for causes that society will adopt in the future. And we all end up worse off." I don't know how you can interpret that to mean that I am somehow in favor of Jones.
> The entire western world bans holocaust denial, and it hasn't led to a chilling effect on other expressions.
That's not true. For example: David Irving's version of the Goebbels diaries is considered by many (including the late Christopher Hitchens) to be an important work. Irving was imprisoned in Austria for holocaust denial because of something he said 17 years earlier.[1] Apparently the statue of limitations is a long time when it comes to words. There are quite a few other examples, not to mention the chilling effect such laws have. There are also tiny annoyances such as Germany banning the swastika in Wolfenstein games and on models of Zeppelins. Is Germany's society so fragile that a symbol can topple it? They seem to think so.
These laws have a cost. Maybe they're worth it. Maybe they're not. But don't pretend they're pure upside. Many countries have no laws about holocaust denial and get along just fine. Personally, I prefer places and platforms where I can decide for myself what I'm allowed to read and hear.
> Alex Jones calling a specific person a rat without any generalization when that person has been targeting him for harassment and deplatforming is anti-Semitic?
Please don’t waste time assuming you’re talking to people who are completely unaware of his history and unable to check Wikipedia. If you want to defend Alex Jones, justify pizzagate, harassing the parents of massacre victims, or calling for armed uprising — i.e. the things which actually got him banned.
I know why you aren’t, of course, because it would make the false equivalence of trying to compare him to Jeong a complete farce, not to mention raising some uncomfortable questions about your shared values. You clearly like to present yourself as speaking for some relatively mainstream group but that’s incompatible with defending extremists like Jones.
> Except right wing people don’t talk like that.
You seriously expect everyone to have forgotten the blood and soil guys? The birthers and other racists — like the figurehead of your party?
An insane slippery slope, from "Non-inclusive Language" straight to genocide! This is laughable...
> they're comfortable white men
What a weird thing to say. You're not like the other comfortable white men, that's what you mean right?
> Typically, this is the adolescent (or frozen adolescent) view, where they don't have a theory of rights much beyond "YOU'RE NOT MY DAD YOU CAN'T MAKE ME".
Belittling people does not make you superior. It makes you sound full of fear and resentment, which by the way is still not justification for pro-censorship positions.
> Regardless, anybody who takes a maximalist position on free speech, by which I mean an expressed or implied view that it trumps all other rights, is in effect pro harassment.
Yes, and anyone who is pro-cars, is in effect pro-car accidents!
> I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name.
> Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions.
Of course they wouldn't, but I don't see why this is a point you would like to make. They would face the potential for real-life backlash if any of many mobs prowling the internet noticed their comment. You can post safely because you're voicing a majority-held opinion.
I'm not seeing the link between "there are people actively seeking to ruin the lives of those holding thoughts like yours" and "what you're saying is incorrect". The mob is always right?
> A deliberately fabricated hate crime to advance what agenda?
See, the difference is in one case a person was beat-up, and there's evidence, their life was possibly in danger, and in what you presented you have a hear-say. A false report. The difference is that one has the potential to cause harm, and the other is actual harm caused.
> From your perspective you support one thing through censorship but want to deny what consensus tells you in other aspects of reality.
From my perspective I fear for my life. This is what is on the line here. Not my ability to commit hate-crimes, not my ability to spew bigotry. Consensus - actual people - on average are understanding. On the other hand, there's a trigger-happy, outrage-addicted, gun-owning, self-proclaimed-terrorist and outright blood-thirsty minority who is angry because the broader society doesn't accept their bigotry.
I will repeat, to you, it's some imaginary threat that has the potential to happen 60 steps down the road if you concede that hate-speech is bad for everyone and pushes people to commit atrocities, and to me, it's my life.
I dont think adding this "woke" word helps making your point. Or, could you please define what you mean by it?
I'm intolerant of hate speech myself. I think organizations that represent people may hold even stricter "codes of conduct" in order to ensure a maximum of people feels represented/welcomed by the organization.
> this is another serious accusation.
I did not accuse him, I said I valued him coming around on this topic. It seems you want to paint me in a color no matter what I say. An why did I say this about the age of consent? Because here I actually did go and look for the evidence, and here he did come around. Good stuff, not bad stuff. I hope he can come around IFF he really hold the beliefs people signing the petition find intolerable. I hope for a defense, or a statement of coming around.
> Anti-racist and anti-fascist organizing happens under the mantle of a thousand different groups all over the world.
And yet we are asked to believe that an obscure blogger flirting with monarchist political thought would introduce a dangerous authoritarian element if allowed to present on a technical topic. Thanks for putting this into context.
> How naïve to imagine that, because someone isn't allowed to do something, that it doesn't happen.
I never said it doesn't happen, I said doing such things makes ones subject to reprimand by law. People are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, not do to others whatever they want to. How long are you going to ignore my repetition of that point? You might as well accuse me of saying that murder is OK simply because some people get away with it. Laughable.
> you have no idea who I am, and likely your own biases have kicked in.
How can I be biased against you if I don't know who you are?
Either way, there is a difference between avoiding a person because of bias and avoiding a person because the conversation bores you[1]. I've read the same arguments regurgitated without pause for thought 1000 times - the hallmark of which is the "old white man" meme. I'm tired of seeing that same old shit that has very little argumentative value to it.
> fly Nazi flags at their rallies? Or those who call for Jewish people to be exterminated
Yes. I would support this ban for same reason I support Kanye being banned.
> associate with Nazis
I don’t support guilt by association. Punish people that do bad things not people that talk to people that do bad things.
> Except no, everyone was up in arms about Twitter and liberals doing just that pre-Musk
No they weren’t. They were pissed off about political bans not bans on racial violence. I mentioned an example earlier in this thread.
I don’t think you listen to people that you perceive to be your opponents.
Edit (can’t reply due to rate limit):
I don’t think Kanye should have been reinstated after “death con 3” - please, if you want to know my opinion on something, just ask rather than assuming.
> because I spend a great deal of time studying neo-nazi conspiracy theorists and similar people
Really sorry to hear that. I hope it is a hobby and not your job.
I remember when Nazis where a joke on the internet. That they are not quite that anymore is not completely their own making as there are some people obsessed with them and even start to mirror them. Or others that want to build a profile about standing against the obvious.
Suddenly there is a significant group that denies civil liberties like free speech or freedom of association. Free speech in interesting here, because it seem to trigger those that fear that Nazis are overtaking the internet. To me this is very indicative of reactionary behavior towards a vastly overestimated threat.
> This is a person that is typically against the idea of free speech and for censorship/deplatforming/cancel culture as a progressive activist, so there’s a bit of irony/hypocrisy here.
It is only ironic if what you say here is actually true about this particular person. There is no need to stereotype.
> As far as I can tell, none of the ape comments were made by Milo? Which specific comment of his did he do so, or incite harassment?
Milo wasn't doing the racist jabs, no. shitgoose said that Leslie Jones was just as bad as Milo because she also tried to sic her fanbase on someone (Whitebecky1776). I was pointing out that Whitebecky1776 provoked Jones with repeated racial slurs, whereas Jones provoked Milo by being in a movie he didn't like; perhaps Jones should have received some sort of disciplinary action, but the situations aren't really equivalent.
> So, in your opinion, if Neo-Nazis try to impose a speech code among those
Yea, I’m supportive of the first amendment rights afforded to all Americans, including neo-Nazis, with whom I disagree. Crucially, they already do this. Use too many words that neo-Nazis don’t like to hear and they’re likely to reject you from their group, which is also their right.
> Yes.
Great, thank you for admitting you are in fact an authoritarian in this context. It clarifies the rest of your comment.
>We do not work with transphobes/fascists/racists. If you open an issue or PR on our git repo and we see you are one of those things, or hang out with people like that
So I can't really be part of the team if a person whom I follow on github or somewhere else is somehow "correct worldview". I may even not be aware of this.
Not to mention that many people actually have no idea what they are talking about and use words like "nazis" only to describe abstract "bad people" as opposed to their image of "good people"
Example from the same link:
>we are a strictly antifascist organization. we have zero tolerance for fascism or anything that enables or allows it. (yes that includes capitalism)
Apparently I won't be able to participate if I follow Bill Gates blog.
So someone got convicted for holocaust denial because they denied the existence of the holocaust? The system works!
Not being facetious, this is not a problem.
> If you ban people like Alex Jones, you also ban people who are activists for causes that society will adopt in the future. And we all end up worse off." I don't know how you can interpret that to mean that I am somehow in favor of Jones.
Easily because that's the implication of your statement. That there is no way to differentiate between Alex Jones's ideology and the ideology of human rights activists.
Which is a ridiculous premise.
reply