Opinion Real progressives don't support the deplatforming of right-wingers; Kyle Kulinkski responds

[Reactionary Corporatist]

It does not serve progressives and economic populists well to cheer the de-platforming of controversial right-wingers. It serves to increase polarization and it poisons the well. We should all support the freedom of speech for our political enemies, and educate ourselves well enough to embarrass the right in the marketplace of ideas, the public square. This is an easy task, because right wing positions are utter dog shit and typically not supported by any evidence or data.

In the end, supporting restrictions on individual liberty serves the elite and the corporations. Don't give in and support this just to score cheap points on the board.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It does not serve progressives and economic populists well to cheer the de-platforming of controversial right-wingers. It serves to increase polarization and it poisons the well. We should all support the freedom of speech for our political enemies, and educate ourselves well enough to embarrass the right in the marketplace of ideas, the public square. This is an easy task, because right wing positions are utter dog shit and typically not supported by any evidence or data.

In the end, supporting restrictions on individual liberty serves the elite and the corporations. Don't give in and support this just to score cheap points on the board.

I think that if twitter will still allow people who think ponytails look good on a man to tweet, they should allow Farrakhan and Alex Jones. All three are equally repugnant.......

 

[ferrisjso]

My issue is I'm a fervently pro deplatforming but I'm against the angle it's being done from. I'm for deplatforming harmful speech(like SCOTUS was for 100 years ago even though we disagree on what consitutes harmful) the issue is deplatforming is being based on feelings and being offended. I despise the 21st century of freedom of speech, it's beyond the founders comprehension and think except for one of two of them think they'd be appalled this is how their words have been interpreted. But going after offensive rather than speech that is a harm to society is a mistake. Don't think it's against the first amendment think the first amendment's only function is to keep people out of prison for words, but it's petty af and a terrible look.

I oppose people like Kyle and Bill for upholding the principle of what they consider free speech and the "marketplace of idea's" is a sham, if you think a shitty idea can't gain support and facts can't struggle to gain support you are idealistic and naive. But on the substance of these specific cases of censorship I agree with them. If we want to remove speech that harms society, going after people who are basically memes is not the place to start, or finish for that matter. But yeah I see people wanting climate deniers and anti single payer advocates to have a voice as criminals, the worst of the worst.

Think freedom of speech is the main problem with democracy. For democracy to work idea's have to be heavily policed. Without that democracy is a ticking time bomb that'll just go off differently than authoritarianism.

Farrakahn isn't an anti semite IMO and if he is(it's not as outrageous an interpretation as the Omar one was, more understandable), the evidence for him being such can easily be used to dragnet anyone who critiques the Likud. The fault on Alex Jones's conspiracy's being taken literally lies more with his listeners and their mental health than him himself. Conspiracy theories are theories and people consuming that sort of media should realize there's a great chance any theory on his show is false. But more so bothered both people were censored not cause they were harms to public safety because they offended people.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Freedom of speech is specifically for unpopular speech. If we only said what is popular, then we wouldn't need freedom of speech.

That's just civics 101

 

[Higus]

It does not serve progressives and economic populists well to cheer the de-platforming of controversial right-wingers. It serves to increase polarization and it poisons the well. We should all support the freedom of speech for our political enemies, and educate ourselves well enough to embarrass the right in the marketplace of ideas, the public square. This is an easy task, because right wing positions are utter dog shit and typically not supported by any evidence or data.

Newsflash: the well has been poisoned for over a decade.
History has shown that compromise and reason don't work when the other party acts in bad faith. Liberals have no reason to acquiesce. They lost blue collar political support thru decades of concessions, and they'll lose the culture war if they think that compromise is a virtue. Make no mistake, if the roles were reversed, things would be nastier than they are today. Look at any right wing platform and look at the quality of discourse there.

 

[ferrisjso]

Freedom of speech is specifically for unpopular speech. If we only said what is popular, then we wouldn't need freedom of speech.

That's just civics 101

Freedom of speech is designed to prevent people from being incarcerated not to prevent people from being deplatformed.

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

Freedom of speech is designed to prevent people from being incarcerated not to prevent people from being deplatformed.

You are operating on an understanding of "freedom of speech" from 300 years ago. The world has changed dramatically due to the internet. What "freedom of speech" means has radically changed along with it. Being banned from speaking in the public square in the 18th century is equivalent to being banned from social media today. You are standing up for corporations with this position.

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

Newsflash: the well has been poisoned for over a decade.
History has shown that compromise and reason don't work when the other party acts in bad faith. Liberals have no reason to acquiesce. They lost blue collar political support thru decades of concessions, and they'll lose the culture war if they think that compromise is a virtue.

So... is your solution totalitarianism?

Make no mistake, if the roles were reversed, things would be nastier than they are today. Look at any right wing platform and look at the quality of discourse there.

Don't just stop at the "level of discourse" in your analysis. Extend it further. Look at the support of the discourse on right wing platforms. The public does not support what goes on on 4chan or stormfront.

 

[Serenity Now]

The problem is people have low Internet/Social IQ.


I been saying it, old people are specially susceptible to internet bullshit...their internet IQ is low as fuck, they believe anything....They probably believe the photoshops as well.

Banning famous right wingers, won't fix the problem...Dumbasses will be dumbasses, in fact you will add credibility to the dumbasses way of thinking because now they could say "See, they are banning famous right wingers because they are scared of the truth!"

They are feeding into the right wing narrative that there is a conspiracy by the elites against them(Which is Ironic because Trump is the definition of an elite but yet they got bamboozled by him to think he is for the people lulz) .


It's hilarious how easy they are conned by Alex Jones(Who sells them over expensive products lol)...just goes to show how their social IQ is low that they believe a Conman like Alex Jones.



If we want to fix this problem, we need to address the problem...people....Invest in education, perhaps give them lessons on the Internet(Im serious old people are dumb when it comes to this).

 

[Gregolian]

I think that if twitter will still allow people who think ponytails look good on a man to tweet

No romo.

 

[hillelslovak87]

No romo.

Those aren't ponytails, they're murder braids. Those also aren't real.

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

Those aren't ponytails, they're murder braids. Those also aren't real.

But how does that measure up to the murder mane?

 

[Gregolian]

Those aren't ponytails, they're murder braids. Those also aren't real.

"Murder braids"

Nice

 

[ferrisjso]

You are operating on an understanding of "freedom of speech" from 300 years ago. The world has changed dramatically due to the internet. What "freedom of speech" means has radically changed along with it. Being banned from speaking in the public square in the 18th century is equivalent to being banned from social media today. You are standing up for corporations with this position.

And the first amendment was written 300 years ago. The issue was never banning from public square it was imprisonment. The public square didn't exist in anything resembling the context it did today. Only ones who clearly have protection from being deplatformed is the media and SCOTUS's media freedom of speech cases have always been much more generous much sooner than their renderings on individual speech.

I see opinion culture as a cancer on society whether or not that view coincides with corporations wanting to kiss ass for PR purposes is not really relevant. Most of why I hate modern "freedom of speech" is it allows corporations to get what they want by poisoning the unregulated well of information. Censorship for all this crap hurts censorship where it's truly desperately needed. Freedom of speech is a multi dimensional issue and unconditional support for it is selfishness dressed up as empathy for others. People can say they support it cause values blah blah blah, but reality the concern is that it's mutually beneficial for everyone to have a stupidity license and it's about protecting one's self hence why all these arguments are typically based in "well, what if the Twitter mob comes for you?". People want that insurance if they say something dumb and if Rome has to burn for them to get that insurance, oh well.

 

[franklinstower]

You are operating on an understanding of "freedom of speech" from 300 years ago. The world has changed dramatically due to the internet. What "freedom of speech" means has radically changed along with it. Being banned from speaking in the public square in the 18th century is equivalent to being banned from social media today. You are standing up for corporations with this position.

I think Kyle is one of the best progressive voices out there even though his style may be hard for some to take. He is very intelligent and thoughtful and I think fair too.

On this issue though I think he is wrong. The reason why is because these are private companies with advertising dollars and they have the right to not allow any content they want if they don't like it. I cant see the argument against this honestly.



I think the real solution is that we need a public option sight or sights that are NOT private and that cannot de-platform people.

 

[ferrisjso]

The problem is people have low Internet/Social IQ.


I been saying it, old people are specially susceptible to internet bullshit...their internet IQ is low as fuck, they believe anything....They probably believe the photoshops as well.

Banning famous right wingers, won't fix the problem...Dumbasses will be dumbasses, in fact you will add credibility to the dumbasses way of thinking because now they could say "See, they are banning famous right wingers because they are scared of the truth!"

They are feeding into the right wing narrative that there is a conspiracy by the elites against them(Which is Ironic because Trump is the definition of an elite but yet they got bamboozled by him to think he is for the people lulz) .


It's hilarious how easy they are conned by Alex Jones(Who sells them over expensive products lol)...just goes to show how their social IQ is low that they believe a Conman like Alex Jones.



If we want to fix this problem, we need to address the problem...people....Invest in education, perhaps give them lessons on the Internet(Im serious old people are dumb when it comes to this).

Democracy and modern freedom of speech work against each other but they are treated like common principles. Having both at the same time is downright dangerous and they are opposing forces.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

It does not serve progressives and economic populists well to cheer the de-platforming of controversial right-wingers. It serves to increase polarization and it poisons the well. We should all support the freedom of speech for our political enemies, and educate ourselves well enough to embarrass the right in the marketplace of ideas, the public square. This is an easy task, because right wing positions are utter dog shit and typically not supported by any evidence or data.

In the end, supporting restrictions on individual liberty serves the elite and the corporations. Don't give in and support this just to score cheap points on the board.

The baseless and utter shit right-wing positions on immigration are going to win Trump the whitehouse again. Haha

 

[hillelslovak87]

But how does that measure up to the murder mane?

I am Uthred, son of Uthred.........

 

[Gregolian]

I am Uthred, son of Uthred.........

Uhtred Ragnarsson and I am Uthred of Bebbenbrr (NO idea how to spell). I am all of these and none of these.

 

[Higus]

So... is your solution totalitarianism?

Totalitarianism isn't the only option, but at the very least conservatives need make the first move to show more good faith in discourse and politics. They poisoned the well; they need to clean it up.

Don't just stop at the "level of discourse" in your analysis. Extend it further. Look at the support of the discourse on right wing platforms. The public does not support what goes on on 4chan or stormfront.

If the public does not support what goes on in 4chan or stormfront, why should they support it on the mainstream platforms?