9 ms·

Censorship from one side or the other is never the answer.

by 4v0v 3y ago

barry-cotter 3y ago
No, censorship can totally be the answer to getting people to stop saying things you don’t want them to say if you don’t have any commitment to free speech. See how Tucker Max or Milo Yiannopolous are no longer culturally relevant. Censorship works.
- throwaway29812 3y ago
  I would argue it's more about eliminating bad faith actors from an otherwise healthy discussion. If you aren't arguing to make a point, just to get a reaction, you have no right to a platform.
- flangola7 3y ago
  If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. Because bad actors use speech and claims om they are "defending free speech!" in bad faith as a weapon to further their ends, and once they're in a position of power will shameless drop the pretenses and restrict any speech that doesn't entrench their position.
  - beefpies 3y ago
    Here's a video on the subject: Debate and Deplatforming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFAYN6oWyIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFAYN6oWyIo And it's sequel: Why Deplatforming Works (And Why it Doesn't) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r5C-G0VrjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r5C-G0VrjI
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Known as the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - dsr_ 3y ago
      If you stop treating it as a moral commandment and instead consider it a treaty which allows civilization to exist, it becomes obvious that it doesn't apply to those who won't remain bound by it. It's not a paradox. Tolerance is for all points of view that will allow the discussion to continue.
      - strken 3y ago
        I trace tolerance in general back to the religious tolerance introduced by the Peace of Westphalia, and the centuries of religious war that preceded it. It obviously goes much further back, but that's the archetypical example for me. Seen in this light, tolerance is somewhere between symbiosis and mutually assured destruction, and much less wishy-washy than everyone thinks it is.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true.
    - krapp 3y ago
      >The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true. The paradox doesn't apply to actors operating in good faith who simply disagree, but those whose intolerance extends to authoritarianism and violence in oppressing the free speech of their opponents, such as the Nazi regime that insipired it, and its truth seems self-evident. You'll have to explain to me how greater tolerance of the Nazis would have resulted in a better outcome for anyone (besides the Nazis) than intolerance of them in order to disprove the premise.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        In America it is legal to advocate for Nazism. This is legal and simultaneously a non-threat because our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government. They are not denied their first amendment rights, and yet they're abject losers. The US government is simultaneously tolerant of them and not threatened by them. The supposed paradox of intolerance says that silencing people who would silence you is the only way to prevent yourself from being silenced, but this is demonstrably not true.
        Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
        We can see this so clearly on reddit. They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralism,' the meaning of which is well understood.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
  I don't know about Milo, but after looking at Wikipedia, it looks like Tucker grew up and so did his former audience.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Jury’s still out for a while, but Carlson’s being kicked out of Fox recently has been a big hit so far. Latest book sold 3k copies: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/15/tucker-carlson-biography-chadwick-moore https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/15/tucker-carlson...
    - astrange 3y ago
      Tucker Max, not Carlson. He was a pick up artist/bro influencer.
- gmerc 3y ago
  You are comparing getting fired for costing your network billions by lying about elections and smearing, without substance, a company with getting silenced for your sexuality Nice.
jacquesm 3y ago
This goes well beyond just censorship.
- ajross 3y ago
  No, this is just censorship. The government showed up and told her to stop saying stuff, so she did. The problem is that the word has been diluted in contemporary usage. Almost everything that people call "censorship" in the discourse mostly amounts to "People disagree with me and I don't liek that", or occasionally "I got banned on <service A> so I'm yelling about it on <service B>". This is what actual censorship looks like.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tbrownaw 3y ago
    Censorship is not solely its most extreme form. Getting banned from your favorite baseball forum because you keep talking about hockey does in fact count, even if it's relatively minor and most people would even agree with it.
    - ajross 3y ago
      > Getting banned from your favorite baseball forum because you keep talking about hockey does in fact count, even if it's relatively minor and most people would even agree with it. Fine. But then what word do you use for repressive coercion of speech by governments? I'm no linguistic purist. I get that words change their meanings over time. What I was complaining about were people (1) using the word to imply terrible behavior on the part of some imagined enemy while (2) citing irrelevant nonsense evidence, as in your example. That's not a semantic argument, that's just lying.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    "I got my wings clipped and they weren't gentle about it" "I can leave but Kaidi can't" "In fact, one of the latest turns is the Beijing LGBT Center's closure by the Chinese government in May of this year. " And many other useful bits of information in the article. Censorship is when you send a message from jail and someone elides stuff they don't want you to talk about. It doesn't involve goons visiting you, travel restrictions and wholesale restrictions on sizeable chunks of the population in terms of education or association.

Censorship from one side or the other is never the answer.

by 4v0v 3y ago

Censorship from one side or the other is never the answer.

No, censorship can totally be the answer to getting people to stop saying things you don’t want them to say if you don’t have any commitment to free speech. See how Tucker Max or Milo Yiannopolous are no longer culturally relevant. Censorship works.

throwaway29812 3y ago
I would argue it's more about eliminating bad faith actors from an otherwise healthy discussion. If you aren't arguing to make a point, just to get a reaction, you have no right to a platform.
flangola7 3y ago
If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. Because bad actors use speech and claims om they are "defending free speech!" in bad faith as a weapon to further their ends, and once they're in a position of power will shameless drop the pretenses and restrict any speech that doesn't entrench their position.
- beefpies 3y ago
  Here's a video on the subject: Debate and Deplatforming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFAYN6oWyIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFAYN6oWyIo And it's sequel: Why Deplatforming Works (And Why it Doesn't) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r5C-G0VrjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r5C-G0VrjI
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Known as the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - dsr_ 3y ago
    If you stop treating it as a moral commandment and instead consider it a treaty which allows civilization to exist, it becomes obvious that it doesn't apply to those who won't remain bound by it. It's not a paradox. Tolerance is for all points of view that will allow the discussion to continue.
    - strken 3y ago
      I trace tolerance in general back to the religious tolerance introduced by the Peace of Westphalia, and the centuries of religious war that preceded it. It obviously goes much further back, but that's the archetypical example for me. Seen in this light, tolerance is somewhere between symbiosis and mutually assured destruction, and much less wishy-washy than everyone thinks it is.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the intolerant, isn't true. The paradox doesn't apply to actors operating in good faith who simply disagree, but those whose intolerance extends to authoritarianism and violence in oppressing the free speech of their opponents, such as the Nazi regime that insipired it, and its truth seems self-evident. You'll have to explain to me how greater tolerance of the Nazis would have resulted in a better outcome for anyone (besides the Nazis) than intolerance of them in order to disprove the premise.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      In America it is legal to advocate for Nazism. This is legal and simultaneously a non-threat because our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government. They are not denied their first amendment rights, and yet they're abject losers. The US government is simultaneously tolerant of them and not threatened by them. The supposed paradox of intolerance says that silencing people who would silence you is the only way to prevent yourself from being silenced, but this is demonstrably not true.
      - Dan_Sylveste 3y ago
        We can see this so clearly on reddit. They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralism,' the meaning of which is well understood.
zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
I don't know about Milo, but after looking at Wikipedia, it looks like Tucker grew up and so did his former audience.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Jury’s still out for a while, but Carlson’s being kicked out of Fox recently has been a big hit so far. Latest book sold 3k copies: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/15/tucker-carlson-biography-chadwick-moore https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/15/tucker-carlson...
  - astrange 3y ago
    Tucker Max, not Carlson. He was a pick up artist/bro influencer.
gmerc 3y ago
You are comparing getting fired for costing your network billions by lying about elections and smearing, without substance, a company with getting silenced for your sexuality Nice.

jacquesm 3y ago

This goes well beyond just censorship.

ajross 3y ago
No, this is just censorship. The government showed up and told her to stop saying stuff, so she did. The problem is that the word has been diluted in contemporary usage. Almost everything that people call "censorship" in the discourse mostly amounts to "People disagree with me and I don't liek that", or occasionally "I got banned on <service A> so I'm yelling about it on <service B>". This is what actual censorship looks like.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tbrownaw 3y ago
  Censorship is not solely its most extreme form. Getting banned from your favorite baseball forum because you keep talking about hockey does in fact count, even if it's relatively minor and most people would even agree with it.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > Getting banned from your favorite baseball forum because you keep talking about hockey does in fact count, even if it's relatively minor and most people would even agree with it. Fine. But then what word do you use for repressive coercion of speech by governments? I'm no linguistic purist. I get that words change their meanings over time. What I was complaining about were people (1) using the word to imply terrible behavior on the part of some imagined enemy while (2) citing irrelevant nonsense evidence, as in your example. That's not a semantic argument, that's just lying.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  "I got my wings clipped and they weren't gentle about it" "I can leave but Kaidi can't" "In fact, one of the latest turns is the Beijing LGBT Center's closure by the Chinese government in May of this year. " And many other useful bits of information in the article. Censorship is when you send a message from jail and someone elides stuff they don't want you to talk about. It doesn't involve goons visiting you, travel restrictions and wholesale restrictions on sizeable chunks of the population in terms of education or association.