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

[xcvbn]

Businesses should be free to discriminate.

Businesses should not be free to discriminate.

Pick.

 

[7437]

Depends on how you spin it right?

Would you support tearing down Aushwitz because it is a hate symbol, or is that something that should be remembered?

Is Auschwitz a hate symbol? Or a part of history.

Does Auschwitz have a statue of the supervisor?

 

[7437]

Businesses should be free to discriminate.

Businesses should not be free to discriminate.

Pick.

I would say not, but the left lost a supreme court case on that. So here we are.

 

[ferrisjso]

Is Auschwitz a hate symbol? Or a part of history.

Does Auschwitz have a statue of the supervisor?

Historically relevant locations and sites can't be hate symbols.

Also almost all of the Confederate statues that people scream "muh history" over(their supposed proud history of mass slaughtering US servicemembers and enslaving people) were erected in the mid 1900s as a fuck you to desegregation.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Historically relevant locations and sites can't be hate symbols.

Also almost all of the Confederate statues that people scream "muh history" over(their supposed proud history of mass slaughtering US servicemembers and enslaving people) were erected in the mid 1900s as a fuck you to desegregation.

And should we forget that just a 100 years ago segregation was very popular?

I get that some people still support these sites because they also agree with segregation, but what about those that have reverence for the sacrifice and tragedy of it?

Are you not concerned at all that as the statues are removed, that the historical importance of the events will be lost?

 

[ferrisjso]

I would say not, but the left lost a supreme court case on that. So here we are.

The "bake a cake" court case's outcome was largely determined by the fact the service the guy provided involved a message he'd have to craft for the cake. It wasn't so much "do you have to bake a cake" so much as "do you have to bake a cake with a message you disagree with on it". While this SCOTUS was super friendly to business even before the last two were put on(Hobby Lobby etc) there's a good chance a similar case where the nature of the business isn't quite as hands on goes different.

Point is shouldn't be taken as a blank check for the legality of businesses right to discriminate. Also businesses had almost a blank check to discriminate for non religious or race reasons(where there's laws that say you can't, civil rights, ADA etc), 14th amendment applies to state governments not business(guess you can say indirect?), if there's not a law that says you can't do it, you can and always could discriminate, states just can't pass law that supports that in any way. This case is only about religious people discriminating for religious reasons which brings the first amendment issue.

 

[ferrisjso]

So there are... say... 8 of these "real progressives" in existence.

In Congress more or less. Maybe 20-25, let's be generous.

 

[ferrisjso]

And should we forget that just a 100 years ago segregation was very popular?

I get that some people still support these sites because they also agree with segregation, but what about those that have reverence for the sacrifice and tragedy of it?

Are you not concerned at all that as the statues are removed, that the historical importance of the events will be lost?

Historically no. But civially yeah I think we'd all like to forget. It was 50 years also and that's just instiutionally, less even. While there aren't active efforts to resist segregation anymore(and there were until like 40 years ago), desegregation doesn't just magically happen when Congress passes a law. We are still desegregating today and even though there isn't an effort to resist that anymore much of the country is either segregated or overwhelmingly segregated.

Those sites are of Civil War generals. Don't think one would go to a Civil War statue to pay reverance to the sacrifice and tragedy of segregation. If you're referring to the war, even in terms of Southern perspective, the generals should be seen as criminals because they had hundreds of thousands of southerners die, not even over slavery but cause a guy who didn't want to them expand slavery into territories they previously had agreed slavery wouldn't go won an election as President. They also kind of intentionally made Lincoln President by what they did at the DNC that year so you can kind of say they planned it beforehand like someone who makes something happen so they have an excuse to get upset. 1850's saw the US governemnt appease the South more than Neville Chamberlein appeased the Nazi's and when the first President was elected in 20 years who wouldn't kiss their ass they seceded. Even within their immoral world view those people did nothing except throw a temper tantrum that got hundreds of thousands of their own people killed. Even from a Southern perspective there's nothing to celebrate there.

That applies to the first 7, the last four were "forced" to choose but they still chose wrong and their geographical location makes the choice just pure incompetent. Virginia's state legislature literally voted to host a fucking industrial war in their state(both capitals were in VA), why the fuck would that be a decision worth celebrating? Imagine a state legislature voting to have their state destroyed? At least the people in Mississippi and Alabama were kind of voting to secede and cross their fingers no one bothered them but Virginia was just committing suicide. There is legit no reason to celebrate these people except the racism. It was such a horrible decision West Virginia secede seceded and that's how they exist.

And not worried the relevance of the events will be lost, we aren't the British who destroy their most sacred military artifacts to stimulate the economy, we go the opposite way and hoard everything instead regardless of importance. Believe me USA is doing great in the historical preservation field compared to our peers. But yeah the statues don't have historical importance. We have civil war battlesites and the war is documented at length. It's the first war with actual photographs for christs sakes. We can never see the Revolution through human eyes the same way. We're good, we don't need the 20th century fuck you statues.

 

[franklinstower]

This video is in the OP....

what you are missing here is the way in which you are defining and thinking about your rights. Imo, you're thinking about it too narrowly.

A utility company can't ban you from receiving heating, power, or gas, because they don't like your political views. The government can't ban you from driving a car because they don't like your political views. A phone or internet company can't or shouldn't be able to ban you from using their services because they don't like your political views. To do so would effectively bar you from being able to live a normal life. As the economy and society become increasingly digitized, so too does our livelihood. In 100 years (if we haven't destroyed ourselves), to be banned from the internet could basically be a death sentence. We have to evolve our thinking about this.

Well I don't see Youtube or Facebook as being life or death for anything at all. I think Facebook is even harmful and don't use it-- nor will my daughter be on it either.

I see a lot of what you are calling necessary as being harmful to a good life. One of the creators of Facebook said the same thing, that it was designed to be addictive and that none of his children are allowed to even use it.

Earlier in this thread someone listed like ten other possible sites to go to that are similar to Youtube so I cannot see the monopoly angle either.

I don't mind if I am wrong on this and am not very invested but it seems like you guys are reaching here and its all built on IF we change the way we define Youtube but we haven't even done that yet.

Facebook is a lost cause IMO and a total waste of time and space.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

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

But how does that measure up to the murder mane?

Let's find out...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponytail#Ponytail_equation

 

[Prutfis]

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

Spoiler warning. The series is at like book 10 and he is still nowhere near taking Bebbanburg back. Just running around in circles.

 

[Prutfis]

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?

I think you should be in charge. That way no idea is ever to crazy.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I think you should be in charge. That way no idea is ever to crazy.

I think the idea that boys can be girls and girls can be boys is pretty crazy

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Kyle is one of the good guys for sure. I just watched his most recent piece on this topic. Here it is.

I still cant back what he is saying. I agree with the principle of free speech but it is NOT the government doing it. This is a private service provided by a pirivate company.

Why not either declare a monopoly and take it to the courts, or start your own video streaming service to compete with YouTube?

What am I missing here?

The issue is that companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others have become too powerful. Virtually everyone with internet access uses them. These companies are literally influencing elections, our society and helping people communicate in restricted areas of the world.

Where do you draw the line between private company and being too powerful and need to be regulated? A private company doesn't exclude you from discrimination and other regulations. I think the issue is that these companies are clearly targeting people they disagree with politically.

You don't see them banning Kathy Griffin or Chris Pratt. It's easy to say start your own YouTube but that takes billions of dollars

I think they should be regulated as a public utility with freedom of speech being the guideline. If you incite violence, you're banned no matter your political affiliation. Otherwise, you can say what you want and you are responsible for your own words. Not billionaires deciding what you can and cannot say.

 

[franklinstower]

The issue is that companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others have become too powerful. Virtually everyone with internet access uses them. These companies are literally influencing elections, our society and helping people communicate in restricted areas of the world.

Where do you draw the line between private company and being too powerful and need to be regulated? A private company doesn't exclude you from discrimination and other regulations. I think the issue is that these companies are clearly targeting people they disagree with politically.

You don't see them banning Kathy Griffin or Chris Pratt. It's easy to say start your own YouTube but that takes billions of dollars

I think they should be regulated as a public utility with freedom of speech being the guideline. If you incite violence, you're banned no matter your political affiliation. Otherwise, you can say what you want and you are responsible for your own words. Not billionaires deciding what you can and cannot say.

I think the public utility Idea is the best solution so far but that is IF the case can be made and won in court that it is a public utility.

I can see it for Youtube but have a hard time seeing that for Facebook.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Under Brentwood Academy, it could be argued that this is a violation of 1st amendment rights through significant entwinement and close nexus between the private company and the United States government. I.e., the government giving tax breaks to these companies and essentially treating YouTube, Facebook and Google as utilities.

Under Adickes, one could argue that government officials and private companies conspired to deprive certain people of their first amendment right. There has been a huge push to de-platform several right wing personalities, and the timing of all the companies banning these people at once make it look suspicious. Facts would need to be established to prove the conspiracy, but it's not that crazy of a conspiracy. We've seen the news run with a crazier conspiracy for the past few years with the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy.

Even if there is no conspiracy, there still could be state action via encouragement by the state under Reitman. None are a slam dunk, but a straight faced argument could be made.

 

[Gregolian]

Spoiler warning. The series is at like book 10 and he is still nowhere near taking Bebbanburg back. Just running around in circles.

The first two seasons of the show were damn good and now you go and shit all over my hopes for a decent historical fiction adaptation only to tell me the books sound like they've turned to shit.

ASSHOLE

 

[Prutfis]

The first two seasons of the show were damn good and now you go and shit all over my hopes for a decent historical fiction adaptation only to tell me the books sound like they've turned to shit.

ASSHOLE

I gave up at book 9 when it was more of the same. Show sucks compared to the books though

 

[djacobox372]

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.

I don't even think a moron like you should be deplatformed.

 

[ferrisjso]

I don't even think a moron like you should be deplatformed.

Democracy is dependent on the good quality of information cause more people make decisions. Freedom of speech means you can't control information leaving a democray more vulnerable to bad decisions. The two things are opposing forces like oil and water. People wants restrictions on government officials but when they as voters pick the government they want no restrictions on themselves.

Stop virtue signalling.