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

[Higus]

If you actually believe that (which I do), then you wouldn't support de-platforming. Right wing ideas are overwhelmingly unpopular and we don't need to grant massive censorship powers to private entities to win.

Here's the thing: the market place of ideas is working as intended. The bad ideas have lost and the people that keep trying to bring them back won't take the fucking hint. The arguments haven't changed, they've been rejected thoroughly by society, and they aren't bringing anything new to the table. The market doesn't want to keep talking about it, it doesn't want to be exposed to it, it doesn't want to host it, and it doesn't want to pay for it.

 

[ferrisjso]

Nazism is just facism...period. And part of that facism was limits and restrictions on what people could say and what information could be shared.

Question. Who do you suggest should be in position to police the marketplace of ideas and prevent harmful ones from taking root?

That's not fair equation given that Nazism tends to involve a lot more blood than Fascism does. If it was, the term Nazi wouldn't have to exist. Every society has restrictions on speech, even this one. Basically 99.99% of all humans who've ever lived are Fascists under your definition.

Before the last few decades, reasonable people could agree on what facts were and this was true when the Founders wrote the first amendment. The whole "everyone has a right to their opinion" concept would be bizzare to people prior to this generation. Like, what. Freedom of speech blurs that line and makes your last question very hard to answer in 2019. It shouldn't be hard to answer though, that difficulty is a consequence of not being able to say something is wrong because a large segment of the population thinks it isn't. Generally does speech cause harm? Is it harmful. Unlike offensiveness I'd hope there is little to no ambiguity(beyond mental health) to what constitutes harm.

 

[SleepyBoy]

An opinion needs to have a potential to be accurate to be an opinion. Can't say an empirically false thing and call it your opinion it isn't, the ambiguity and potential for being true is a requirement for it being an opinion. Of course my argument is divorced from this situation cause this ain't about opinions and facts it's about offensiveness. But freedom of speech proponents are the worst virtue signallers in our society and were doing it for decades before SJW's got shit for copying them.

Huh? Opinions need to he qualified to count?
That's ridiculous.

But freedom of speech proponents are the worst virtue signallers in our society and were doing it for decades before SJW's got shit for copying them.

 

[VivaRevolution]

There is room for 100 gradients in between IMO. However it is up to the owners of the site to decide where that line is and the viewers participants to vote with their business and traffic.

I cant see any way around this.

Vote where?

Where is the alternative to Facebook and YouTube?

You can point me to a knock off without near the content or reach, or you can point me to a completely different social media product, but no equivalent competitor.

 

[ferrisjso]

Huh? Opinions need to he qualified to count?
That's ridiculous.

Well yes, yes they do. Being able to say anything and have instant credibility is ridiculous. You don't want freedom of speech you want a stupidity license. Freedom of speech was designed to protect people who disagreed with government officials, not people who were just being dumb who want credibility they don't deserve.

Most pro freedom of speech talk I hear is empty virtue signalling. You're signalling virtue you've been told since childhood is a good thing.

 

[TheComebackKid]

That's not fair equation given that Nazism tends to involve a lot more blood than Fascism does. If it was, the term Nazi wouldn't have to exist. Every society has restrictions on speech, even this one. Basically 99.99% of all humans who've ever lived are Fascists under your definition.

Before the last few decades, reasonable people could agree on what facts were and this was true when the Founders wrote the first amendment. The whole "everyone has a right to their opinion" concept would be bizzare to people prior to this generation. Like, what. Freedom of speech blurs that line and makes your last question very hard to answer in 2019. It shouldn't be hard to answer though, that difficulty is a consequence of not being able to say something is wrong because a large segment of the population thinks it isn't. Generally does speech cause harm? Is it harmful. Unlike offensiveness I'd hope there is little to no ambiguity(beyond mental health) to what constitutes harm.

You say it's hard to answer the question in 2019. Ok, so answer the question for the year 1919 or 1819...Who should have been in charge of regulating harmful ideas back then? Who should ever be in charge of that?

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

And she lost the election. Talk about delusional, do you even understand how presidential elections are won? There are about 7 states that will decide the next election. Those states are not going to swing for progressive immigration policy, no matter how bad Trump acts. Get a clue dude.

What is "progressive immigration policy", and what about your answer makes you think that that position is "progressive"?

Talk about delusion - "polls don't matter lol 2016 election", well... the polls were actually right.

Talk about delusion - "a person that doesn't win the majority of American votes should be allowed to sit in the white house" ========> delusion

 

[Mcountry]

Well Kyle got red pilled.

That was fast.

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

Here's the thing: the market place of ideas is working as intended. The bad ideas have lost and the people that keep trying to bring them back won't take the fucking hint. The arguments haven't changed, they've been rejected thoroughly by society, and they aren't bringing anything new to the table. The market doesn't want to keep talking about it, it doesn't want to be exposed to it, it doesn't want to host it, and it doesn't want to pay for it.

I basically agree with all of this. Far-right ideas have been thoroughly rejected. So there's need to institute a ban on the accounts and people spreading them. They can stay dead. This position is far better as it preserves the rights of individuals.

 

[VivaRevolution]

That's not fair equation given that Nazism tends to involve a lot more blood than Fascism does. If it was, the term Nazi wouldn't have to exist. Every society has restrictions on speech, even this one. Basically 99.99% of all humans who've ever lived are Fascists under your definition.

Before the last few decades, reasonable people could agree on what facts were and this was true when the Founders wrote the first amendment. The whole "everyone has a right to their opinion" concept would be bizzare to people prior to this generation. Like, what. Freedom of speech blurs that line and makes your last question very hard to answer in 2019. It shouldn't be hard to answer though, that difficulty is a consequence of not being able to say something is wrong because a large segment of the population thinks it isn't. Generally does speech cause harm? Is it harmful. Unlike offensiveness I'd hope there is little to no ambiguity(beyond mental health) to what constitutes harm.

I don't think this is right at all. In the 1780's there were hundreds of newspapers in a single American city.

Presidential campaigns included accusations of the opposition being a tranny.

Politicians and rich merchants would buy newspapers to sow disinformation.

None of this is new, except for the tools being used to do it.

 

[ferrisjso]

You say it's hard to answer the question in 2019. Ok, so answer the question for the year 1919 or 1819...Who should have been in charge of regulating harmful ideas back then? Who should ever be in charge of that?

That's the thing this used to be self regulated by society. It wasn't something that needed to be discussed. This last generation are the special people who caused so much damage(literally might have destroyed the world) it would actually need to be literally regulated. It's pathetic.

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

Well Kyle got red pilled.

That was fast.

Lol? Show me a video where kyle isn't against deplatforming conservatives. He's always maintained this position.

 

[sloppypie]

nobody actually gives a shit, these "right wingers" are con artists and propagandists and they have no right or expectation to have time on someone else's platform. i could really give a shit.

i find it far more egregious and idiotic when politicians shun networks. it's their business to reach out and talk to people. so when democrats avoid fox news, or any liberal outlet denies a republican politician or pundit a platform, i think that certainly does a disservice.

but facebook banning a fat evil fuck like alex jones or twitter kicking off some racist pricks spouting evil shit is just regulating their own platforms. so conservatives can eat a dick with their whiny bullshit when it comes to that. if you don't want to play out a victim mentality, stop saying stupid/evil/racist shit and propping up psychos like alex jones. that's a good fuckin start right there instead of crying and pointing the finger at the world being mean to you for being an idiot.

 

[SleepyBoy]

Well yes, yes they do. Being able to say anything and have instant credibility is ridiculous. You don't want freedom of speech you want a stupidity license. Freedom of speech was designed to protect people who disagreed with government officials, not people who were just being dumb who want credibility they don't deserve.

Most pro freedom of speech talk I hear is empty virtue signalling. You're signalling virtue you've been told since childhood is a good thing.

What does credibility have to do with anything, i never brought it up?

 

[ferrisjso]

I don't think this is right at all. In the 1780's there were hundreds of newspapers in a single American city.

Presidential campaigns included accusations of the opposition being a tranny.

Politicians and rich merchants would buy newspapers to sow disinformation.

None of this is new, except for the tools being used to do it.

Fundamentally different sort of speech. This is the slander or no slander convo more than the freedom of speech convo. In politics I think there comes the semi waiver of the right to not be slandered or at least to not sue over it. Now THAT sort of speech the founders loved. But it's more fighting than actually making policy.

 

[Mcountry]

Lol? Show me a video where kyle isn't against deplatforming conservatives. He's always maintained this position.

On the surface you may think this is his having a conservative ideology in this one instance because he's coming to the defense of some nut bags who have conservative leaning politics.

Kyle is subtly asking conservatives to "bake the cake."

Not gonna happen.

Facebook and the rest are totally within their rights to decide what content they want on their platforms. And in a free market, conservative nut bags like Jones and Milo can create their own facebooks and twitters and have at it.

I find "The View" to be full on Alex Jones level wacko and ridiculous. With cunts like Woopee refusing to say the god damn president's name ffs. How immature can a bunch of old hags get? But they are allowed to be on the air. That's their right.

Sorry Kyle. I'm not gonna be forced to bake no fucking cake.

 

[ferrisjso]

What does credibility have to do with anything, i never brought it up?

Sigh. Then you're fundamentally not understanding why I'm opposed to people being able to say whatever they want.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Well yes, yes they do. Being able to say anything and have instant credibility is ridiculous. You don't want freedom of speech you want a stupidity license. Freedom of speech was designed to protect people who disagreed with government officials, not people who were just being dumb who want credibility they don't deserve.

Most pro freedom of speech talk I hear is empty virtue signalling. You're signalling virtue you've been told since childhood is a good thing.

Free speech isn't just about a person being free to express an idea. It's also about a person being free to listen to and accept an idea. You can't control and regulate ideas without controlling and regulating people.

I'm sorry that there are ideas being promoted and accepted that you disagree with. We are all dealing with this reality no matter our views. It's frustrating but mental enslavement isnt the answer.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Fundamentally different sort of speech. This is the slander or no slander convo more than the freedom of speech convo. In politics I think there comes the semi waiver of the right to not be slandered or at least to not sue over it. Now THAT sort of speech the founders loved. But it's more fighting than actually making policy.

Not sure if it was just slander though.

Did you know the Free Mason's were once banned in much of the US?

Conspiracy theories aren't exactly new.

Ever seen this comic before, and do you know it's history?

 

[ferrisjso]

nobody actually gives a shit, these "right wingers" are con artists and propagandists and they have no right or expectation to have time on someone else's platform. i could really give a shit.

i find it far more egregious and idiotic when politicians shun networks. it's their business to reach out and talk to people. so when democrats avoid fox news, or any liberal outlet denies a republican politician or pundit a platform, i think that certainly does a disservice.

but facebook banning a fat evil fuck like alex jones or twitter kicking off some racist pricks spouting evil shit is just regulating their own platforms. so conservatives can eat a dick with their whiny bullshit when it comes to that. if you don't want to play out a victim mentality, stop saying stupid/evil/racist shit and propping up psychos like alex jones. that's a good fuckin start right there instead of crying and pointing the finger at the world being mean to you for being an idiot.

So journalists are entitled to interviews now? Freedom of speech ain't good enough we're going to require sources to give interviews to private media companies?

This is far more oppressive than any of the horrors I've allegedly suggested.

There are almost no liberal outlets though, hard to tell if that happens. Another distinction is society seems to focus deplatforming on people rather than unique ideas in an otherwise acceptable persons arsenal. Do think deplatforming should be about the idea's not about the individuals. With society seems more about blackballing the people rather than what they actually said.