is No Platform an inherently paternalistic tactic?
No platforming suggests that certain ideas should not be allowed in public debate, as they can lead to a growth in abhorrent ideologies.
But the people who want to no platform certain ideas have presumably heard those arguments (how else would they know they were abhorrent?) and they weren't affected. So does this imply that the people who advocate no platform are saying that the masses aren't as clever as them in being able to resist ideology and need protecting by their "betters"?
After all their ideology is just as cloth-eared and flippant to the suffering it causes.
Jaxson Torres
I just want to point out there's a difference between what I'll call "no platforming" and "deplatforming."
"No platforming" is where you have a platform with scarcity, like a college campus where there's only so much equipment, space, and staff to handle speeches, and you discriminate who gets to use this platform.
"Deplatforming" is where you have an automated platform without scarcity like facebook, twitter, youtube, etc and you discriminate against people who would normally be able to use it.
"No platforming" is pretty much unavoidable, and there is vastly more incentive to do it targeting certain viewpoints just out of practicality. It's still shitty and speaks to liberalism's intellectual bankruptcy that they can't answer far-right speech with better ideas. "De platforming" is different in that it's censorship on what is effectively a communications utility (which happens to be privatized). "No platforming" has wiggle room for justification since there is genuine scarcity and there's no implied guarantee for the use of the platform. "Deplatforming" is hardly justifiable in any practical terms and on top of this amounts to general social ostracization because these platforms are usually a means of social interaction. As such, the consequences of "deplatforming" go beyond merely denying someone a platform. If someone is using facebook to keep in contact with their friends and family and gets banned for, say, supporting sex workers, they are facing consequences that impact their personal lives. Contrast with some pundit no longer having college talks as a revenue stream.
Jordan Cox
Well, I never said anything about everyone else, though I do have the lowest possible opinion of humanity. I was talking about dumb people. When you talk to a legitimately stupid person, it feels like you're talking to a wall, like they are barely hearing what you say. People that you can talk to about almost anything and they will never know what you're talking about. Basically talking about the stupidest people I have ever seen in my life. People in my family, and a couple of teachers (not even most teachers are on that level), most of them women. My grandmother asked before about what the hell the sky is, and what is behind it, why it's blue and what is up with that black thing when it's night time, in her fucking 60s, and she's not uneducated. I had a massive amount of issues with her because she always believed in insane superstitious bullshit (she even called everything that I drew demonic when I was a kid and made me destroy a few things) that I didn't understand at all as a kid, and would attack me for it, and everything was an excuse to say that I was a piece of shit like my dad and threaten to kick me out. Her sister, until her 20s, thought that we live on the inside of a hollow planet (I would like to hear her younger self explain how exactly the sun works, that would be fun). My grandfather used computers since the mid 90s and to this day he doesn't know how to minimize, maximize and resize windows, and other basic window manager shit. My mother has used computers since before she was 20 and only learned how to use a search engine when I explained to her, when she was already in her 40s, and her browser was always 50% toolbars. She also basically believes she's a witch (I don't know much about that, and don't want to know), is a compulsive liar, and everything bad that happens is a curse. She lost her keys once and ended up screaming that the keys disappeared because her ex cursed her. All of these people are emotionally out of control as well. Because of this shit, I became incredibly paranoid and didn't let them see anything that I did. When I was watching TV and showed up, I would change channels. When I was using the computer and they showed up, I would close everything no matter what it was. I still have issues with this sort of thing to this day. My door has to always be locked. When I wasn't allowed to lock it, I would look behind me so much that I hurt my neck and it become a recurring issue for many years. I feel very uncomfortable doing anything around anyone else to this day. And these are educated people that went to college and made and shitload of money (and wasted all of it, naturally), but their brains are rotten from lack of use, and they have no real curiosity about anything. Still, they think they know about everything and will argue with people that have dedicated their entire lives to learn about what they are talking about while they haven't even read about the subject once. Maybe they have heard some dumb shit on TV or "seen X in a movie once", but that's the extent of their knowledge if you can call it that. Also, all of them use cellphones now, and it's absolutely intolerable. And they think it's too hard as well. Struggle a lot to use technology specifically made for retards. Do you need more examples? Should I mention their morality as well? Or maybe this is all defensible? It's certainly off-topic, and I should definitely sleep because I have been an insomniac mess lately. Regardless, if I'm the monster here, I can only assume that being one can't be too bad considering that I have never done anything even remotely as bad as what people do on a daily basis without even thinking about it.
Xavier Miller
Ephebo-kun here. I guarantee you that 99% of the people who support deplatforming us have never listened to one single thing we have to say. When the US Congress voted to censure the Rind study, how fucking many of them do you think actually bothered to read it?
Leo Russell
In the case of fascism, there is historical precedent demonstrating its abhorrence. To me, evidence seems like a valid basis for deplatforming. One can support it on that basis and still disagree with preemptively deplatforming actually new ideas which have yet to demonstrate their consequences.
Caleb Martinez
And capitalists would never arbitrarily call their opponents fascists to censor them. After all, Hitler was a nat.ional socialist :^)
Kayden Jackson
Popper was a massive hypocrite when it came to Marxism and the anti-capitalist Left.
Oliver Collins
Meanwhile, America went through approximately a century of censoring, blacklisting, and deplatforming anti-capitalist thought. Was that OK too?
Connor Young
No, because there wasn't historical precedent demonstrating the virulence of communism. It was propaganda to protect capitalism.
Carter Clark
There's plenty of precedent for violent street fighting, terrorism, assassinations, revolutionary violence, etc. perpetrated by the radical left for the past hundred years. Therefore, the capitalist state is entirely justified in censoring leftist speech to protect human life and property.
Oliver Gutierrez
Only the weakest of bitch ass centrist goes halfway with the de-platforming fascist position.
I'm going to ask again. There was another version of this image/a similar art style justifying pedophilia somewhere and I need it. I swear to God it existed and wasn't a false flag by right wingers or a parody, I just want it already. Can someone find it for me?
Bentley Mitchell
The difference is that one led to genocide and the other led to improved conditions and rights for workers.
Camden Morris
And ~1 million executions, millions of famine deaths, labor camps, police terror, etc… If you're going to use such shitty arguments to defend censoring free speech be prepared for liberals to throw the crimes and failures of every socialist state right back at you.
Jacob Richardson
The purpose of deplatforming is to slow down or shut down organizing, the events being shut down are not debates or exposing people to new ideas but rallies for already converted reactionaries to link up and organize on a bigger level.
Wyatt Howard
That comic is fucking retarded, the Nazis rose to power primarily through the use of their freikorps by the state to suppress leftist freikorps (spartacists, communists, anarchists, etc.).
"Oh noes, too much open debate!!!1!11" has never been the source of authoritarianism. Authoritarian policy itself, such as CENSORSHIP, has.
Censorship AT BEST doesn't work and at worst, backfires.
Ryder Howard
They claim they're tolerant, but their record speaks for itself. I wish for a time where we said enough and "deplatformed" them. I'm sick and tired of hearing their side, living in their machine and observing the carnage it brings.
Some hypocrites have their remains preserved and enshrined in mausoleums. I don't care who presents this paradox.
So you support absolute freedom of speech even for those intolerant of free speech and others "rights". I'm not sure why you have an ancom flag on, fren.
Censoring the socialist movement… Has backfired. Since the species is going to die out soon. I guess you're right.
Camden Price
Speech can be countered only by more speech, action by more action, the two are wholly distinct.
Every mechanism of authoritarianism we submit to is another weapon readied for our enemies to use against us, every freedom we protect is another impediment to them.
Mothers will be allowed to set bedtime after the revolution.
Easton Rivera
Tell me how you imagine le ebil nazi meme frogs would've arisen if SJWs hadn't been screeching at innocent normalfags for years while wearing hipster Che shirts
David Scott
Do you really think fascism is getting popular because of American SJWs? How does that explain the rise in popularity of Europe's right wing parties?
Luke Taylor
I was mostly referring to online, especially Zig Forums and their ilk. Europe is something of a different kettle of fish, mostly stemming from an unwillingness by libs to back down from immigration, and a tendency to (correctly or incorrectly) label anyone opposed to immigration as fascists.
Thomas Young
Well then, you can just shut the fuck up, because I was talking about fascism. It's not really all that different. The rich are pitting the splintered left and their attack dog nationalist at each other. 1. so no one opposes their rule, 2. to kill off some of the rabble/plebs/surplus labor. All while making a few bucks off of their competitors.
Oliver Adams
Ah, Zig Forums's street LARP. You know burger AntiFa is shit-tier because burger fash is a meme, right? The nascent yuropoor far right would've deflated like a balloon if the "left" had welcomed sincere internal debate on immigration back in the 2000s, let alone if they had largely dropped the issue for the blatant neolib project it is.
Andrew Richardson
Yeah, hundreds of years of human slavery, imperialism, extrajudicial domestic racial terror, martial culture, xenophobia, american exceptionalist nationalism, explicitly white supremacist constitutional conventions, and the largest "criminal justice system" the world has every seen isn't fascist at all…
More or less what I'm saying. Even disorganized Young Republicans and whatnot are managing to kill people. They're like Hitler youths and just waiting for the training. Same for the leftists. What are you. blind? You do too much stupid shit talking to be taken seriously.
Carter Wood
I wish Young Republicans would kill tripfags.
Jack Long
Huh, that's strange. It's almost like the KKK rose to prominence at the same time as the Italian fascists and German Nazis on nearly ideological identical lines and also based on a fabricated, romanticized history, in this case about a reconstruction-era domestic terrorist operation that bore little resemblance to it and lasted only six years from 1865–1871.
But I suppose it's useless to try and reason with a racist.
Because this thread is about crayon munchers like you failing to grasp the nuance of "people I disagree with, but who are open to some of my ideas", and "people who are actually too indoctrinated to respond with anything but violence punctuated by autistic screeching".
My primary goal isn't "pwn da libz epig style" nor "smash the fash" LARP, it's to get leftism back in a functional state, fit to push back against capital and win victories for labor once again.
Part of that is reacquainting people with a sincere commitment to principles of reason and truth.
Logan Morales
Yeah, because leftists aren't taken seriously because they just aren't being reasonable enough to appeal to the average voter with LOGIC and FACTS, not because of systemic subjugation and concerted state and international anticom efforts
Please think this through. In the minds of most people communism = stalinist terror, and your saying that only the nazis were actually bad won't help you. If, on top of that, you have no problem with lumping all kinds of nationalist righties under fascism, you're participating in laying the groundwork for suppressing all kinds of leftists for being totalitarian anarcho-terrorists. Every form anti-fash suppression will most readily be used to crush anti-capitalists.
Aaron Bennett
Diluting leftists' actions and words with retardation is how the suppression works
Xavier Diaz
No platforming other socialists internally is generally a negative idea No platforming leftists who have detrimental ideas is sometimes necessary No platforming reactionaries is generally ok
Lucas Gray
t. miss piggy
Noah Sanchez
How is that like BO? I basically just meant Liberulz SucDems and kooky retards
Jason Brooks
You first. You seem to be well on the way there, arguing with the versions of people in your head instead of what is posted, and then claiming that you're the only one being reasonable.
Respectability politics is foolish. We should just lynch all the counterrevolutionary elements. The market of ideas is a Petit bourg myth. You don't beat back people who endorse violence as political praxis with drum circles and hunger strikes. You do it with assault rifles, IEDs, and terrorism. In other words revolution is won with guerillas, not by dressing in your Sunday best and bloviating with highfalutin words in syllogistically valid paragraphs.
Nope. It just suggests not feeding those trolls one's self. Some folks have taken to using the word "deplatforming" to try to counteract the fact that plastic leftists can't even basic theory and (IMO, deliberately and in coordinated fashion) corrupt the fuck out of everything they touch.
Carson Robinson
No Platform isn't a viable strategy, since the #1 use of No Platforming is to No Platform labor.
This much can be seen with the recent UC worker protests: every time students brought up working conditions within their circles (student union, protest application permits, the dean, the ombudsman) they were deplatformed and explicitly told that labor issues could not be discussed due to each worker's "right" to privacy (and by "right" I mean it in the "right to work" context). And if students persisted, they'd be disciplined and threatened with expulsion for violating the safety of school staff. The issues surrounding wages could never be addressed at all by students, eventually forcing the recent strike.
All the while, scabs had no problems handing out anti-union flyers and organizing unions. In fact, UCs hosted numerous scab promoters in their lecture halls who did nothing but shit on how lazy professors were and joke about incompetent school bureaucrats with students. Individual depts hosted scab work in the form of unpaid internships, and assisted companies with finding scabs willing to work for free or below industry standard wages. Nobody could dispute this because policies allowed for open discussing of scabbing, but not organizing.
It spreads to other issues, too. The recent UC attempt to ban criticism, promoted by Dianne Fienstien's husband who is a UC Regent, was reborn nationally by Fienstien herself and passed into law. Come Jan 1st of next year, it's debatable if any criticism of Israel will be allowed on any American public school campus as all will be forced to adopt strict antisemitism policies.
When labor is deplatformed we can at least strike. What happens when individual groups of people are deplatformed due to their religion, race or ethnicity?
Free speech doesn't matter. It's a Petit bourg myth and definitionless contradictory platitude, and if the law really determines your behavior you don't have anything interesting to say anyway.
Gabriel Howard
Tell me how allowing cops to throw you in jail for insulting supreme leader, without even the flimsiest excuse or attempt at secrecy, wouldn't make that a thousand times worse.
You seem to be under the delusion that rights can protect a person from such things. If they really want you, they will get you. Remember that rights are nothing but the empty promises made by the fox to the hens.
Cooper Cooper
Yet it's infinitely easier to express yourself openly in 1st-world nations than in Saudi Arabia or wherever, and this has resulted in a far more powerful counterculture.
You still haven't positively stated any reason why shredding free expression, both at the legal level, and as an ideal held by leftists, isn't retarded praxis, let alone actually good praxis.
So really this is about dragging down the right along with the left. Radicals and socialists are already censored and marginalized by the bourgeois state, but the right isn't, so the solution is more censorship, so that the entire spectrum of political debate is suppressed instead of just us.
Liam Peterson
uh, the far-right is massively censored and deplatformed.
Hudson Morales
Perhaps that is because nobody is making that argument.
Easton Rogers
The far-right can jump niggas in the street while cops watch and get interviews in national television as well as benefit from the aut-light and lolberts getting platformed regularly by Fox and other media platforms. Socialists don't have anything close to this.
Elijah Jenkins
Yeah, you can hear them screaming about it on every major corporate media outlet.
Christian Lewis
Aside from
at least
Aiden Moore
L-legal? What're ya nuts?
The law known as Freedom of Speech is a very squishy selective thing that can be stripped away at the stroke of a pen of the state's hand. I'm for free speech. But you advocate taking fascism, slavery and any kind of censuring of me or my friends and I will use my freedom of speech to knock you and yours to the pavement
None of that mentions legality of any kind, those posts state the fact that free expression will not be afforded to socialists by the state. Learn to read and then fuck off to the socdem hive you crawled from.
Joseph Cruz
Just like laws against child slavery etc., but I don't hear too many people offering apologia for the very efforts to undermine those laws. Indeed Acts Also acts
You seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between feelz and reelz most toddlers have mastered.
All of those posts advocate censorship being done by some someone, that entity in ultimate reality invariably being the state, large corporations, and bootlicking collaborators. Do you really, truly think socialist organization is easier when there are explicit laws on the books prohibiting expression on the basis of its socialist, unionist, pacifist, atheist, etc. content? Because that's where apologizing for censorship invariably leads. Your position is textbook nirvana fallacy.
Setting the entire matter of laws aside, however, note that throughout the thread I and others have emphasized the problem with anti-free-expression as not only one of appeasing censorship by the establishment, but of "leftists" rejecting free expression itself as an absolute philosophical ideal to be defended.
Kevin Roberts
In that very post I mention slavery. And we haven't brought up because we haven't been talking about it. Duh.
And?
Squawk squawk squawk. I can get nothing of value from you.
Ryan Reed
When you say "slavery", you use in reference to the spooks, desperately upheld by idpol libs to keep the darkies in line, of long defunct antebellum slavery tortuously extended into a metaphor encompassing everything from generational poverty or abusive policing to not enough black Oscar winners.
When I speak of slavery, I mean actual slavery, the kind that's happening to tens of millions of people around the globe right now, and which is suppressed in most countries by strict laws through relatively corruption-free regulatory regimes.
Acts are countered by acts, expression by expression. Pretending the two are the same is fundamentally dishonest.
Jack Ramirez
You haven't even read Stirner. Stop using Zig Forumsbonics already, Nazi-poster. No I mean slavery as in all varieties from both past and present. This isn't a barn. keep your straw out. We weren't talking about slavery, we were talking about shutting up and shutting down fascists, capitalists, and all manner of intolerant dickwads.
The topic of the thread is about deplatforming those that would deplatform you and kill you. Simply say "I do not understand Popper's paradox". and then simply leave. or lurk more.
Amendments 13-15 did not end slavery. There is no such thing as a corruption free regulatory regime under a bourgeois state with a capitalist mode of production. Your liberalism and obsession with supposed formal democracy are both products of your ideological blinders. There is no real distinction between acts and speech acts. Free speech relies on the idea that we live in a society of equals where everyone has the ability to get a fair say. This is a bourgeois lie. Your speech actually does mean nothing when your opponent has 5050 2 million dollar microphones. What do a piece of cardboard, an electronic voting machine keycard, and ab airhorn really do in comparison to 140 billion dollar votes of regulatory capture?
You think that you're fighting for the little guy when you're couching your position in terms of free speech, but your actually just fighting for the guy who can pay the most parrots.
Kayden Perry
so basically just censorship as it currently stands. useless ideas. leads to the breeding of radicals. you can kill a people but you can't kill an idea.
Jaxon Nguyen
Along with anyone else porky can smear with that attribution >deplatforming those that would deplatform you and kill you. Again, try to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Even ignoring a lot of ridiculous things Popper said about politics, every instance of this maxim I see looks more like a dishonest quotemine from a lengthy book than a position the man actually held.
Along with other laws, up to bankruptcy reform and minimum wage in the 1900s? They certainly did. Relatively corruption free. Again, nirvana fallacy. No, free expression relies on the observation that thoughts can't actually effect anything by themselves, but actions can. Excuses for censorship are excuses for tyranny, period. Enlarging the establishment's powers of censorship, reinforcing such efforts through your own activism, and crushing advocates of free expression within the left will make this situation worse.
Nolan Allen
Slavery was never ended, the 13th amendment specifically left a clause in for prison sentences.
I am beginning to understand why leftypol banned you.
Kevin Collins
You're new to this thread, user. Reading up on it is a boring back and forth between me and one user and this Zig Forumsyp with the ancom flag. He doesn't just support free speech, he supports it conditionally. He supports the law that grants certain kinds of "hate speech" (and probably wishes it supported every kind, since he seems to) He seems to insist we can't tell what a fascist is until after its too late.
The intolerant ought to be met with intolerance. It's a paradox that needs to be navigated till you don't need to. Do they still end cartoons with the old "But we'd be no better than they are" liberal moral?
Anyway, tankypol bans me for making points that hurt their feelings. I'm obviously not a liberal or a fascist, so the last ban was for "arguing in bad faith". Calling the leftists, the actual socialists, liberal or reactionary is of course what a tankie state do to their people. They're notoriously thin skinned.
Bentley Perez
the "Zig Forumsyp" you're debating is, if I'm not mistaken, one of the few oldfags remaining on Zig Forums that has been a part of leftypol and its splinter boards for a long time.
which is exactly what I see you doing here.
Brayden Morales
...
Ryder Hernandez
I used to prefer Zig Forums. Then I moved to /liberty/. Then I finally moved to Zig Forums.
I've seen the sun at morning, at noon, and at twilight.
So trust me when I say this: No Platform as a concept is extremely dangerous. It almost feels like a false-flag sort of concept, in the sense that once a person says, "You cannot talk about this, and anyone who does is censored," it's been revealed that the idea that is being censored is too powerful. Too true. Too persuasive. The other side is weak. It is the side that censors that is weak and impotent, in its authoritarian desire to keep people ignorant.
I instantly question the one who censors. I assume that they are incredibly wrong, no matter the issue. There is nothing more telling than "You can't even talk about that idea, because it might be too convincing."
If an idea is that convincing, then it's right. It is the right idea.
The idea that cannot survive conversation, opposition, or an opposing idea is the wrong idea. It is inherently intuitive. If leftists want any hope, they need to seriously repeal all of their retarded policies that make them look like censorial authoritarians who are afraid of opposition, to the point that they must censor it.
It's not a show of strength. It is a sign of weakness.
Cameron Sullivan
You'd have to be either illiterate or convinced of Zig Forums-tier delusion regarding socialists being funded by soros to buy into that. The state is more than willing to bend or break its own laws to go after socialists, as can be determined by looking at the history of the socialist movement. In addition the state is willing to employ other underhanded tactics such as infiltration and framing to destroy socialists without passing any official law. The implication that the state will "play by the rules" is as absurd as the implication that policy is shaped by socialists, such liberalism is retarded from any supposed socialist but to see an anarchist of all people trusting the state is baffling. Accepting that the state will always suppress socialists isn't apologetics for censorship anymore than accepting that capitalism is inherently exploitative is apologetics for capitalism. On the contrary I am accepting reality as it is, you are the one peding the fantasy of free speech as an unalienable right as opposed to the reality of free speech being a farce the bourgeoisie have no problem trampling when it comes to socialists. That you're concerned about socialists rejecting liberal ideas concerning rights means you need to accept that you're spooked by liberal ideology. "Defending free speech" will have as much real effect as our tankie friends "resisting US imperialism" has had, it will be completely ignored because the state conducts itself to protect bourgeois interests and not based on debate in the marketplace of ideas. There is nothing gained for the communist movement from defense of free speech in a capitalist society and if a state exists post-revolution the revolution failed and you've got capitalism with a red flag.
I've been here since Ismail got bullied off of Zig Forums with bunker memes. Being here since 2014 doesn't make you right, as anyone who remembers when marksucc was one of the most popular ideologies can attest to, it just means you're too stubborn to jump off a sinking ship.
