• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is exactly why we need to have open and censorship resistant platforms.

    We should never celebrate deplatforming people for unpopular or evil opinions, not because we agree with those opinions, but because those tools can and will be used against good causes / us eventually.

    The cancelling culture, and rage framework that has existed in the west media is now being turned against “worthy” causes.

    I’ve gotten into many deplatforming is evil, and shouldn’t be encouraged/allowed arguments on lemmy - this is exactly why I engage. Do I care about kiwifarms, communists, racists, no… I do not, but when its time for my voice to be heard above the whargarble of public opinion i need those very same platforms to exist.

    The next step would be to legistate that protected free speech should also protect people from employment discrimination and reprisals, but that is probably a discussion for another day.

    Today I think the big fight is over saying : Killing civilians is bad, ethnic cleansing is bad, genocide is bad…

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should never celebrate deplatforming people for unpopular or evil opinions

      Bullshit, people with evil opinions keep others from expressing themselves, tolerating them means deplatforming others and means they have more space to recruit.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. The central example is a NDP member being censured by the party for her views. THAT IS WHAT A POLITICAL PARTY IS. She would have also been removed if she started arguing for tax cuts to the wealthy and restrictions on union activity. Even perfectly legitimate political opinions can make you totally unfit to be a representative of a political party. Words have consequences and political parties are social structures with social rules. Cry me a river, this isn’t a free-speech issue.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Then you get this situation the article speaks of, people being de-platformed for speaking against evil in the world.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Clearly we have a philosophical divide. We value different things in this world. We are both “right” to our own philosophies.

            If one group can make another voiceless i think that is a larger risk to the human condition, but I see where your coming from.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m very consistent in my views, I do not tolerate anyone being de-platformed. I am intolerant of de-platforming. I do not tolerate anyone trying to remove the voice of anyone else.

                I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. - Poppel The Open Society and It’s Enemies

                De-platforming is a form of rhetorical suppression, as OPs article points out.

                • moody@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Which means that you tolerate intolerance.

                  as long as we can counter them by rational argument

                  The saying goes that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

                  De-platforming is a means to show that the platform doesn’t want to be associated with specific content. Being against de-platforming means you are on the side of forced speech.

                  • jet@hackertalks.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I’ve never heard the term forced speech before, the only references I can find are legal referring to compelled testimony in court. Can you give me a reference so I can better understand you?

                    The saying goes that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

                    I’m afraid I missed that part of Open Society, my understanding is the intolerance of tolerance was making it criminal to have calls to violence, at least as I understood the book.

    • acargitz@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The article points out that those that have been bitching about free speech being suppressed when it’s about some bigot spewing fash crap, are uniquely silent when it comes to racialized people speaking out about genocide and apartheid. The “free speech debate”, “anti-wokism”, “anti-cancelling” etc has never been about lifting the voices of those who are structurally silenced at every turn in this country. It has always been about people that already have privilege being able to punch down with impunity. So fuck that.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      As an aside, the number of times, this week!, I’ve had a argument about the dictionary being wrong, and that the definitions are inaccurate, sensational, antisemitic… is laughably high.

      • ram@bookwormstory.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Arguing that the dictionary is correct and should be cited as the arbiture of language ignores that language is a fluid, evolving structure. Dictionaries are guides to help seek understanding and seeking to be understood. They’re not law by which we must abide.