Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Freedom Of Speech]: More Than The First Amendment

2456748

Posts

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Jephery wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Frankiedarling, you're quoting that section while ignoring the fact that the alt-right don't care about about rational argument or debating in good faith.

    I don’t see how that’s relevant to the quote. It’s not my bible anyways, I just get annoyed how everyone uses the “don’t tolerate intolerance” part as a club while ignoring the “but really guys, unless it’s a super emergency suppressing speech is probably unwise” part.

    Overall, it’s strange to see him used essentially as gospel on the subject.

    We need anti-hate-speech laws, and its not going to be a slipperly slope into fascism because we're already on a slope towards fascism and anti-hate-speech laws are on the books in numerous other countries that haven't turned into fascist hellholes yet.

    Yeah, there is no slippery slope as long as normal constitutional order is in place. The Supreme Court exists precisely to stop any such slippery slope.

    On the other hand, the supreme court is also the primary roadblock to hate speech laws

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    KaputaElvenshae
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    SleepJaysonFourSkeithAngelHedgieMrVyngaardArchMoridin889Havelock2.0iTunesIsEvilGnome-InterruptusMegaMekMaclaymysticjuicerCommander ZoomElldrenKristmas KthulhuYamiB.
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Frankiedarling, you're quoting that section while ignoring the fact that the alt-right don't care about about rational argument or debating in good faith.

    I don’t see how that’s relevant to the quote. It’s not my bible anyways, I just get annoyed how everyone uses the “don’t tolerate intolerance” part as a club while ignoring the “but really guys, unless it’s a super emergency suppressing speech is probably unwise” part.

    Overall, it’s strange to see him used essentially as gospel on the subject.

    We need anti-hate-speech laws, and its not going to be a slipperly slope into fascism because we're already on a slope towards fascism and anti-hate-speech laws are on the books in numerous other countries that haven't turned into fascist hellholes yet.

    Yeah, there is no slippery slope as long as normal constitutional order is in place. The Supreme Court exists precisely to stop any such slippery slope.

    On the other hand, the supreme court is also the primary roadblock to hate speech laws

    For sure. Its a high bar to pass. But its meant to be so that we don't do extremely stupid shit.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Lanz wrote: »
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    The US government is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. This goes beyond making a new amendment - the principles of the constitution must be revamped.

    The first amendment comes before all other amendments, even the 14th amendment of equality. Think about what that means.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    I'd like to ask: What is the slippery slope for "You do not get to advocate turning the nation into a pure ethnostate and purging the deviant hordes."

    Because that is the movement we're talking about. The movement advocating turning every nation they live in into a pure white "christian" ethnostate where anyone who doesn't fit that image is removed, either by deportation or execution.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    JaysonFourMrVyngaardMegaMek
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'd like to ask: What is the slippery slope for "You do not get to advocate turning the nation into a pure ethnostate and purging the deviant hordes."

    Because that is the movement we're talking about. The movement advocating turning every nation they live in into a pure white "christian" ethnostate where anyone who doesn't fit that image is removed, either by deportation or execution.

    The slippery slope, for a very, very similar situation, is civil war. I do not think following the tenets of the Popper dilemma avoids this outcome. Maybe it can't or shouldn't be avoided. In any case, if that is unpalatable, alternate approaches should be explored.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'd like to ask: What is the slippery slope for "You do not get to advocate turning the nation into a pure ethnostate and purging the deviant hordes."

    Because that is the movement we're talking about. The movement advocating turning every nation they live in into a pure white "christian" ethnostate where anyone who doesn't fit that image is removed, either by deportation or execution.

    The slippery slope, for a very, very similar situation, is civil war. I do not think following the tenets of the Popper dilemma avoids this outcome. Maybe it can't or shouldn't be avoided. In any case, if that is unpalatable, alternate approaches should be explored.

    You are suggesting that if we enacted hate speech legislation that prohibited the advocation of ethnostates, particularly via the deportation or execution of those outside of the "true people" of the nation, that we would get Civil War.

    Is that your position?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    FrankiedarlingAridholElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'd like to ask: What is the slippery slope for "You do not get to advocate turning the nation into a pure ethnostate and purging the deviant hordes."

    Because that is the movement we're talking about. The movement advocating turning every nation they live in into a pure white "christian" ethnostate where anyone who doesn't fit that image is removed, either by deportation or execution.

    The slippery slope, for a very, very similar situation, is civil war. I do not think following the tenets of the Popper dilemma avoids this outcome. Maybe it can't or shouldn't be avoided. In any case, if that is unpalatable, alternate approaches should be explored.

    Well the concern there is that we need to avoid making the right in the US feel like they've been completely shut out of politics by demographic change.

    The Democratic party does need to preserve its rural/conservative wing and make sure that rural/conservative voters feel like they have a voice in the party. The Democrats are trying.

    The trouble is that, the Republicans and alt-right spend a lot of time demonizing the Democratic party.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    FeralJaysonFourMrVyngaardGnome-InterruptusMegaMekElldrenKristmas Kthulhu
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Furthering on the paradox, speech aimed at accumulating political power in order to enact violence must be treated equal to violence.

    In some cases that would be escalation. You don't want that

    Yes I do.

    Be safe then

    It's already unsafe out there. No sense in pretending otherwise.

    MrVyngaardMegaMek
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Yeah but they're basically destroying themselves because most Americans are still economically comfortable. They're not ready for radical action.

    Now if a terrible economic recession lines up with a Democratic presidency, things could go ugly.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    The US government is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. This goes beyond making a new amendment - the principles of the constitution must be revamped.

    The first amendment comes before all other amendments, even the 14th amendment of equality. Think about what that means.

    I'm going to put this as nicely as I can manage: you have no idea what you're talking about. The order of amendments is very strictly last one wins if they conflict. The 1st doesn't have a special spot.

    Moridin889Kristmas KthulhuYamiB.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Yeah but they're basically destroying themselves because most Americans are still economically comfortable. They're not ready for radical action.

    Now if a terrible economic recession lines up with a Democratic presidency, things could go ugly.

    But like


    They aren’t.

    There is no real indication that they’re destroying themselves, unless you call getting shot while doling our mass murder against non-whites to be that.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Gnome-InterruptusMegaMekElldren
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    .
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'd like to ask: What is the slippery slope for "You do not get to advocate turning the nation into a pure ethnostate and purging the deviant hordes."

    Because that is the movement we're talking about. The movement advocating turning every nation they live in into a pure white "christian" ethnostate where anyone who doesn't fit that image is removed, either by deportation or execution.

    The slippery slope, for a very, very similar situation, is civil war. I do not think following the tenets of the Popper dilemma avoids this outcome. Maybe it can't or shouldn't be avoided. In any case, if that is unpalatable, alternate approaches should be explored.

    You are suggesting that if we enacted hate speech legislation that prohibited the advocation of ethnostates, particularly via the deportation or execution of those outside of the "true people" of the nation, that we would get Civil War.

    Is that your position?

    My position is that the root concept of the popper doctrine goes beyond hate speech law - the effectiveness of which has yet to be determined. Basically, hate speech laws may not prevent this outcome. It is an incomplete thought with a big question mark at the end of how to truly deal with the intolerant. Can hate speech laws stop the intolerant from destroying the tolerant? Popper doesn't say. This was in 1945. A war had been fought over this issue, so he must have been keenly aware of the implication.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    The US government is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. This goes beyond making a new amendment - the principles of the constitution must be revamped.

    The first amendment comes before all other amendments, even the 14th amendment of equality. Think about what that means.

    I'm going to put this as nicely as I can manage: you have no idea what you're talking about. The order of amendments is very strictly last one wins if they conflict. The 1st doesn't have a special spot.

    Also someone needs to ask: In what way are Amendments 1 and 14 in opposition such that the first triumphs over the other?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    The argument kind of jumps from hate speech to the general removal of civil rights from the intolerant. The focus is on making them criminals so they can be completely removed from society. Hate speech laws deter behavior. This kind of goes further, putting these offenders in a different class from the rest of society.

    Everyone is in the same class. The class that doesn't get to use their freedoms as a weapon to demolish those freedoms.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.

    This is, broadly speaking, my take. Nothing about the current movement has scared me. The biggest events are what? Some pasty dudes with torches, a vehicular homicide and a shooting in New Zealand? I know there’s more and I know I’m being light here but most of the alt right advances are, as I see it, Democrats being bad at politics and letting a reactionary opponent have their 4 years in the sun. That comes with consequences but it will pass.

    Liberals won the culture war, and while they were stomping on the corpse it twitched. A death gasp, if you will. It’s not something I’m going to throw away our freedoms over. I get it’s serious but overreactions can have dire consequences.

    Frankiedarling on
    electricitylikesmeAridhol
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    .
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'd like to ask: What is the slippery slope for "You do not get to advocate turning the nation into a pure ethnostate and purging the deviant hordes."

    Because that is the movement we're talking about. The movement advocating turning every nation they live in into a pure white "christian" ethnostate where anyone who doesn't fit that image is removed, either by deportation or execution.

    The slippery slope, for a very, very similar situation, is civil war. I do not think following the tenets of the Popper dilemma avoids this outcome. Maybe it can't or shouldn't be avoided. In any case, if that is unpalatable, alternate approaches should be explored.

    You are suggesting that if we enacted hate speech legislation that prohibited the advocation of ethnostates, particularly via the deportation or execution of those outside of the "true people" of the nation, that we would get Civil War.

    Is that your position?

    My position is that the root concept of the popper doctrine goes beyond hate speech law - the effectiveness of which has yet to be determined. Basically, hate speech laws may not prevent this outcome. It is an incomplete thought with a big question mark at the end of how to truly deal with the intolerant. Can hate speech laws stop the intolerant from destroying the tolerant? Popper doesn't say. This was in 1945. A war had been fought over this issue, so he must have been keenly aware of the implication.

    The "Popper Doctrine" simply says that we regard intolerance as a criminal act akin to the incitement to murder.

    Primarily because the type of intolerance we are discussing is literally incitement to genocide.

    White Supremacy is an incitement to genocide. It has no other logical end result.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    electricitylikesmeMrVyngaardGnome-InterruptusMegaMekBigJoeMMoridin889PhillishereElldrenKristmas Kthulhu
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.

    I largely agree. To quote one modern thinker paraphrasing another, "the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

    On the other hand, to quote yet another paraphrase, "on a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." While we wait for that moral arc to bend, a lot of people lose years of their lives, or their lives entirely, to injustice.

    I don't have any wisdom to integrate this juxtaposition. I'm just observing that the juxtaposition exists.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    MrVyngaard
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    The argument kind of jumps from hate speech to the general removal of civil rights from the intolerant. The focus is on making them criminals so they can be completely removed from society. Hate speech laws deter behavior. This kind of goes further, putting these offenders in a different class from the rest of society.

    Everyone is in the same class. The class that doesn't get to use their freedoms as a weapon to demolish those freedoms.

    That is the real paradox, since members of such a class cannot enforce this restriction.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Yeah but they're basically destroying themselves because most Americans are still economically comfortable. They're not ready for radical action.

    Now if a terrible economic recession lines up with a Democratic presidency, things could go ugly.

    But like


    They aren’t.

    There is no real indication that they’re destroying themselves, unless you call getting shot while doling our mass murder against non-whites to be that.

    When you look at them, they're people who have no sense of purpose in Western society and are trying to find it via extremism. Same with the jihadist movement - Muslim men disenchanted with modern life, whether in the West or in the Muslim world.

    But as long as the majority of people are economically sound and find fulfilling work and community, we're ok. They shouldn't fall down that hole, and the extremists who have already dropped down there do not make it look attractive with their violence.

    Now like I said before, if the economy drops out from under them, the hole starts looking better and better,

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    electricitylikesmeMrVyngaard
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.

    This is, broadly speaking, my take. Nothing about the current movement has scared me. The biggest events are what? Some pasty dudes with torches, a vehicular homicide and a shooting in New Zealand? I know there’s more and I know I’m being light here but most of the alt right advances are, as I see it, Democrats being bad at politics and letting a reactionary opponent have their 4 years in the sun. That comes with consequences but it will pass.

    Liberals won the culture war, and while they were stomping on the corpse it twitched. A death gasp, if you will. It’s not something I’m going to throw away our freedoms over. I get it’s serious but overreactions can have dire consequences.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-supremacists-committed-most-extremist-killings-2017-adl-says-n838896
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/20/donald-trump-doesnt-think-white-nationalism-rise-d/
    https://www.theroot.com/who-broke-a-record-for-extremist-killings-in-2018-spo-1831987223

    Shit doesn't just "pass." This shit isn't the goddamn weather. We actually have to work towards making this shit go away. The last time it took a goddamn world war, and even then that just repressed it*, not actually getting rid of it.

    White Supremacy doesn't just "go away," especially when you're a nation that refuses to ever actually deal with it and how it's informed our entire society.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    JaysonFourMrVyngaardDescendant XshrykeHavelock2.0Gnome-InterruptusMegaMekMaclayMoridin889PhillishereNyysjanFANTOMASCommander ZoomElldrenKristmas KthulhuYamiB.
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    .
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    I'd like to ask: What is the slippery slope for "You do not get to advocate turning the nation into a pure ethnostate and purging the deviant hordes."

    Because that is the movement we're talking about. The movement advocating turning every nation they live in into a pure white "christian" ethnostate where anyone who doesn't fit that image is removed, either by deportation or execution.

    The slippery slope, for a very, very similar situation, is civil war. I do not think following the tenets of the Popper dilemma avoids this outcome. Maybe it can't or shouldn't be avoided. In any case, if that is unpalatable, alternate approaches should be explored.

    You are suggesting that if we enacted hate speech legislation that prohibited the advocation of ethnostates, particularly via the deportation or execution of those outside of the "true people" of the nation, that we would get Civil War.

    Is that your position?

    My position is that the root concept of the popper doctrine goes beyond hate speech law - the effectiveness of which has yet to be determined. Basically, hate speech laws may not prevent this outcome. It is an incomplete thought with a big question mark at the end of how to truly deal with the intolerant. Can hate speech laws stop the intolerant from destroying the tolerant? Popper doesn't say. This was in 1945. A war had been fought over this issue, so he must have been keenly aware of the implication.

    The "Popper Doctrine" simply says that we regard intolerance as a criminal act akin to the incitement to murder.

    Primarily because the type of intolerance we are discussing is literally incitement to genocide.

    White Supremacy is an incitement to genocide. It has no other logical end result.

    Yeah but the extrapolation is a hell of a drug. I’m Jewish, with “roots” in the holocsust, and I’ve been called alt right and nazi for not toeing party line on some issues. At the moment I can happily ignore the people who actually hate me. They don’t scare me, they’re nothing like the Nazis of old. The only people who are an actual threat to me are people who equate my speech to the speech of people who hate me, and want to criminalize that speech. Or, failing criminalizing, cause me financial ruin.

    Personally, I’d like to avoid getting in shit for threatening to genocide myself, or something weird like that. We far too easily connect Wrong Opinion to Alt Right to Nazi to Genocide. The last 3..... eh. Sure. But the ludicrous number of people I’ve seen labeled as alt right and this associated to Nazis and genocide makes me want to keep speech laws locked up in an iron box at the bottom of the god damn ocean.

    SleepJebus314AridholMrMisterLanlaorn
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Lanz wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    The US government is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. This goes beyond making a new amendment - the principles of the constitution must be revamped.

    The first amendment comes before all other amendments, even the 14th amendment of equality. Think about what that means.

    I'm going to put this as nicely as I can manage: you have no idea what you're talking about. The order of amendments is very strictly last one wins if they conflict. The 1st doesn't have a special spot.

    Also someone needs to ask: In what way are Amendments 1 and 14 in opposition such that the first triumphs over the other?

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The paradox of tolerance demonstrates a situation where a group is denied equal protection under the law. We presume this is due to exercise of the first amendment.

    Yet the supreme court continues to strike down hate speech laws repeatedly. Go figure.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Yeah but they're basically destroying themselves because most Americans are still economically comfortable. They're not ready for radical action.

    Now if a terrible economic recession lines up with a Democratic presidency, things could go ugly.

    But like


    They aren’t.

    There is no real indication that they’re destroying themselves, unless you call getting shot while doling our mass murder against non-whites to be that.

    When you look at them, they're people who have no sense of purpose in Western society and are trying to find it via extremism. Same with the jihadist movement - Muslim men disenchanted with modern life, whether in the West or in the Muslim world.

    But as long as the majority of people are economically sound and find fulfilling work and community, we're ok. They shouldn't fall down that hole, and the extremists who have already dropped down there do not make it look attractive with their violence.

    Now like I said before, if the economy drops out from under them, the hole starts looking better and better,

    To a certain degree I can agree with this, but there's two problems:

    The economy actually isn't all that great and all that stable, but that's a discussion for another thread

    and

    At the same time, while economic distress is a factor that can drive people towards ethnic supremacy movements, we have to acknowledge that this sort of radicalization is a wholly separate beast from just economic distress. It isn't just a symptom, it's a societal disease of its own.

    To a degree, we've tried to talk about the second somewhat in the fascism thread. We can see this happening in post WWI Europe, where the societal and economic distresses of the post-war period didn't wholly drive people to fascism, in many case you also had socialist groups of all kinds popping up as a response to those distresses. There's specific issues that ends up driving someone to fascism and ethnic supremacy, versus other kinds of political thinking

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Gnome-InterruptusElldren
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    The US government is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. This goes beyond making a new amendment - the principles of the constitution must be revamped.

    The first amendment comes before all other amendments, even the 14th amendment of equality. Think about what that means.

    I'm going to put this as nicely as I can manage: you have no idea what you're talking about. The order of amendments is very strictly last one wins if they conflict. The 1st doesn't have a special spot.

    Also someone needs to ask: In what way are Amendments 1 and 14 in opposition such that the first triumphs over the other?

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The paradox of tolerance demonstrates a situation where a group is denied equal protection under the law. We presume this is due to exercise of the first amendment.

    This is not the thing we're talking about though!

    If you threaten violence against someone, that isn't protected speech! We have laws against the incitement to violence, and these have not somehow run afoul of the first amendment!

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Gnome-InterruptusKristmas Kthulhu
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Also, in regards to "news stories that we ignored the white supremacist angle on"

    We all remember Parkland?

    This bit wound up flying under the radar as it just got chalked up to another school shooting because America's gun problems:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swastikas-ammunition-magazines-parkland-florida-school-shooting-suspect-nikolas-cruz/

    The shooter had Swastikas carved into his magazines.


    But yet somehow, we never consider that maybe white supremacist speech played a role in his radicalization and mass murder.


    EDIT: Oh right, a white supremacist militia claimed he was one of them too, before trying to walk it back: http://time.com/5161203/republic-of-florida-nikolas-cruz-white-supremacist-militia/



    I guess what my point ultimately here is: We have a major problem, globally, with white supremacist ideology. We allow it to hide behind a veneer of free speech, ignoring the inherent call to violence behind it, because we are not comfortable with the ramifications that this is happening, and that it is infiltrating our online spaces, so we pretend it's not a big deal, that it's not happening, and that all the acts of violence it erupts in are random flukes that burst out of the collective unconscious or some other bullshit manner of maintaining the denial that we have a massive problem that is murdering people by the dozens every time it erupts.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    MrVyngaardGnome-InterruptusMoridin889Kristmas KthulhuBandableYamiB.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    The US government is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. This goes beyond making a new amendment - the principles of the constitution must be revamped.

    The first amendment comes before all other amendments, even the 14th amendment of equality. Think about what that means.

    I'm going to put this as nicely as I can manage: you have no idea what you're talking about. The order of amendments is very strictly last one wins if they conflict. The 1st doesn't have a special spot.

    Also someone needs to ask: In what way are Amendments 1 and 14 in opposition such that the first triumphs over the other?

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The paradox of tolerance demonstrates a situation where a group is denied equal protection under the law. We presume this is due to exercise of the first amendment.

    This is not the thing we're talking about though!

    If you threaten violence against someone, that isn't protected speech! We have laws against the incitement to violence, and these have not somehow run afoul of the first amendment!

    I thought we were talking about hate speech, which is currently protected under US law with a few exceptions. Have I gotten my wires crossed again?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Yeah but they're basically destroying themselves because most Americans are still economically comfortable. They're not ready for radical action.

    Now if a terrible economic recession lines up with a Democratic presidency, things could go ugly.

    But like


    They aren’t.

    There is no real indication that they’re destroying themselves, unless you call getting shot while doling our mass murder against non-whites to be that.

    When you look at them, they're people who have no sense of purpose in Western society and are trying to find it via extremism. Same with the jihadist movement - Muslim men disenchanted with modern life, whether in the West or in the Muslim world.

    But as long as the majority of people are economically sound and find fulfilling work and community, we're ok. They shouldn't fall down that hole, and the extremists who have already dropped down there do not make it look attractive with their violence.

    Now like I said before, if the economy drops out from under them, the hole starts looking better and better,

    To a certain degree I can agree with this, but there's two problems:

    The economy actually isn't all that great and all that stable, but that's a discussion for another thread

    and

    At the same time, while economic distress is a factor that can drive people towards ethnic supremacy movements, we have to acknowledge that this sort of radicalization is a wholly separate beast from just economic distress. It isn't just a symptom, it's a societal disease of its own.

    To a degree, we've tried to talk about the second somewhat in the fascism thread. We can see this happening in post WWI Europe, where the societal and economic distresses of the post-war period didn't wholly drive people to fascism, in many case you also had socialist groups of all kinds popping up as a response to those distresses. There's specific issues that ends up driving someone to fascism and ethnic supremacy, versus other kinds of political thinking

    I think that Democrats need to enact legislation targeted at improving rural communities and economics. The Republicans always seem to shit on them (trade war) while leading them with dogwhistles.

    Even if they keep hating the Democrats, as long as their economies get better they shouldn't start a civil war.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    FeralFrankiedarlingNobodyKristmas Kthulhu
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    The US government is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. This goes beyond making a new amendment - the principles of the constitution must be revamped.

    The first amendment comes before all other amendments, even the 14th amendment of equality. Think about what that means.

    I'm going to put this as nicely as I can manage: you have no idea what you're talking about. The order of amendments is very strictly last one wins if they conflict. The 1st doesn't have a special spot.

    Also someone needs to ask: In what way are Amendments 1 and 14 in opposition such that the first triumphs over the other?

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The paradox of tolerance demonstrates a situation where a group is denied equal protection under the law. We presume this is due to exercise of the first amendment.

    Yet the supreme court continues to strike down hate speech laws repeatedly. Go figure.

    I'm not sure you want to go with "The Supreme Court Said" when the Supreme Court has also OK'd
    - Keeping people as Slaves
    - Imprisoning Japanese-Americans because they might be disloyal traitors ready to sabotage America on behalf of the "homeland"
    - "Sure, we're okay with you Nazis marching through this majority Jewish neighborhood. To prevent you from exercising your speech rights here surely would be unconstitutional, because there's no way that your actions are actually an implicit threat against the people whose neighborhood you're marching through and we're not just looking at the surface level issue at play."

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    AngelHedgieMrVyngaardshrykeGnome-InterruptusMegaMekMoridin889PhillishereNyysjanKristmas KthulhuYamiB.
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Yeah but they're basically destroying themselves because most Americans are still economically comfortable. They're not ready for radical action.

    Now if a terrible economic recession lines up with a Democratic presidency, things could go ugly.

    But like


    They aren’t.

    There is no real indication that they’re destroying themselves, unless you call getting shot while doling our mass murder against non-whites to be that.

    When you look at them, they're people who have no sense of purpose in Western society and are trying to find it via extremism. Same with the jihadist movement - Muslim men disenchanted with modern life, whether in the West or in the Muslim world.

    But as long as the majority of people are economically sound and find fulfilling work and community, we're ok. They shouldn't fall down that hole, and the extremists who have already dropped down there do not make it look attractive with their violence.

    Now like I said before, if the economy drops out from under them, the hole starts looking better and better,

    To a certain degree I can agree with this, but there's two problems:

    The economy actually isn't all that great and all that stable, but that's a discussion for another thread

    and

    At the same time, while economic distress is a factor that can drive people towards ethnic supremacy movements, we have to acknowledge that this sort of radicalization is a wholly separate beast from just economic distress. It isn't just a symptom, it's a societal disease of its own.

    To a degree, we've tried to talk about the second somewhat in the fascism thread. We can see this happening in post WWI Europe, where the societal and economic distresses of the post-war period didn't wholly drive people to fascism, in many case you also had socialist groups of all kinds popping up as a response to those distresses. There's specific issues that ends up driving someone to fascism and ethnic supremacy, versus other kinds of political thinking

    I think that Democrats need to enact legislation targeted at improving rural communities and economics. The Republicans always seem to shit on them (trade war) while leading them with dogwhistles.

    Even if they keep hating the Democrats, as long as their economies get better they shouldn't start a civil war.

    But that isn't going to do anything to actually tackle the issue of "We think whites are superior humans and these other people bring rot and disease to our communities and any problems we have are actually their fault.

    It also ignores that White Supremacy isn't just a "rural problem"

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    shrykeNyysjanKristmas Kthulhu
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    The US government is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. This goes beyond making a new amendment - the principles of the constitution must be revamped.

    The first amendment comes before all other amendments, even the 14th amendment of equality. Think about what that means.

    I'm going to put this as nicely as I can manage: you have no idea what you're talking about. The order of amendments is very strictly last one wins if they conflict. The 1st doesn't have a special spot.

    Also someone needs to ask: In what way are Amendments 1 and 14 in opposition such that the first triumphs over the other?

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The paradox of tolerance demonstrates a situation where a group is denied equal protection under the law. We presume this is due to exercise of the first amendment.

    Yet the supreme court continues to strike down hate speech laws repeatedly. Go figure.

    I'm not sure you want to go with "The Supreme Court Said" when the Supreme Court has also OK'd
    - Keeping people as Slaves
    - Imprisoning Japanese-Americans because they might be disloyal traitors ready to sabotage America on behalf of the "homeland"
    - "Sure, we're okay with you Nazis marching through this majority Jewish neighborhood. To prevent you from exercising your speech rights here surely would be unconstitutional, because there's no way that your actions are actually an implicit threat against the people whose neighborhood you're marching through and we're not just looking at the surface level issue at play."

    I don't treat the supreme court as some kind of moral authority. I do trust them to demonstrate what tends to happen when constitutional amendments are at odds with each other.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Yeah but they're basically destroying themselves because most Americans are still economically comfortable. They're not ready for radical action.

    Now if a terrible economic recession lines up with a Democratic presidency, things could go ugly.

    But like


    They aren’t.

    There is no real indication that they’re destroying themselves, unless you call getting shot while doling our mass murder against non-whites to be that.

    When you look at them, they're people who have no sense of purpose in Western society and are trying to find it via extremism. Same with the jihadist movement - Muslim men disenchanted with modern life, whether in the West or in the Muslim world.

    But as long as the majority of people are economically sound and find fulfilling work and community, we're ok. They shouldn't fall down that hole, and the extremists who have already dropped down there do not make it look attractive with their violence.

    Now like I said before, if the economy drops out from under them, the hole starts looking better and better,

    To a certain degree I can agree with this, but there's two problems:

    The economy actually isn't all that great and all that stable, but that's a discussion for another thread

    and

    At the same time, while economic distress is a factor that can drive people towards ethnic supremacy movements, we have to acknowledge that this sort of radicalization is a wholly separate beast from just economic distress. It isn't just a symptom, it's a societal disease of its own.

    To a degree, we've tried to talk about the second somewhat in the fascism thread. We can see this happening in post WWI Europe, where the societal and economic distresses of the post-war period didn't wholly drive people to fascism, in many case you also had socialist groups of all kinds popping up as a response to those distresses. There's specific issues that ends up driving someone to fascism and ethnic supremacy, versus other kinds of political thinking

    I think that Democrats need to enact legislation targeted at improving rural communities and economics. The Republicans always seem to shit on them (trade war) while leading them with dogwhistles.

    Even if they keep hating the Democrats, as long as their economies get better they shouldn't start a civil war.

    But that isn't going to do anything to actually tackle the issue of "We think whites are superior humans and these other people bring rot and disease to our communities and any problems we have are actually their fault.

    It also ignores that White Supremacy isn't just a "rural problem"

    Well there is also the issue of suburban decay, and that is causing a lot of suburban white communities to start looking like inner city black communities in terms of drug use and crime. Breaking Bad is a monument to this.

    They're racist and angry, and have been for a long time now, but they won't have a reason to act on those ideas if they're comfortable with their lives.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Yeah but they're basically destroying themselves because most Americans are still economically comfortable. They're not ready for radical action.

    Now if a terrible economic recession lines up with a Democratic presidency, things could go ugly.

    But like


    They aren’t.

    There is no real indication that they’re destroying themselves, unless you call getting shot while doling our mass murder against non-whites to be that.

    When you look at them, they're people who have no sense of purpose in Western society and are trying to find it via extremism. Same with the jihadist movement - Muslim men disenchanted with modern life, whether in the West or in the Muslim world.

    But as long as the majority of people are economically sound and find fulfilling work and community, we're ok. They shouldn't fall down that hole, and the extremists who have already dropped down there do not make it look attractive with their violence.

    Now like I said before, if the economy drops out from under them, the hole starts looking better and better,

    To a certain degree I can agree with this, but there's two problems:

    The economy actually isn't all that great and all that stable, but that's a discussion for another thread

    and

    At the same time, while economic distress is a factor that can drive people towards ethnic supremacy movements, we have to acknowledge that this sort of radicalization is a wholly separate beast from just economic distress. It isn't just a symptom, it's a societal disease of its own.

    To a degree, we've tried to talk about the second somewhat in the fascism thread. We can see this happening in post WWI Europe, where the societal and economic distresses of the post-war period didn't wholly drive people to fascism, in many case you also had socialist groups of all kinds popping up as a response to those distresses. There's specific issues that ends up driving someone to fascism and ethnic supremacy, versus other kinds of political thinking

    I think that Democrats need to enact legislation targeted at improving rural communities and economics. The Republicans always seem to shit on them (trade war) while leading them with dogwhistles.

    Even if they keep hating the Democrats, as long as their economies get better they shouldn't start a civil war.

    But that isn't going to do anything to actually tackle the issue of "We think whites are superior humans and these other people bring rot and disease to our communities and any problems we have are actually their fault.

    It also ignores that White Supremacy isn't just a "rural problem"

    Well there is also the issue of suburban decay, and that is causing a lot of suburban white communities to start looking like inner city black communities in terms of drug use and crime. Breaking Bad is a monument to this.

    They're racist and angry, and have been for a long time now, but they won't have a reason to act on those ideas if they're comfortable with their lives.

    You are aware how utterly depressing and nihilistic this sounds right?

    "Give the bigots their comforts and we'll be fine"

    And how it still fails to actually solve the underlying problem and leaves it there to fester and erupt once another major societal stressor hits?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    MrVyngaardshrykeGnome-InterruptusDarkPrimusMaclayMoridin889Commander ZoomElldrenKristmas Kthulhu
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    There are chessgamelike tactical reasons why the Democratic Party should give extra attention to rural areas (the US electoral system constitutionallly privileges the electoral rights of low-population-density areas).

    But let us not forget that the "economic anxiety" hypothesis about Trump's victory was greatly exaggerated in the first couple of months after the 2016 election. Support for Trump correlates most strongly with racial animus and racism isn't just a poor rural white problem.

    It wasn't that long ago in history when the Democratic Party did have major inroads with rural whites. They mostly did this by throwing non-whites under the bus.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    shrykeGnome-InterruptusMoridin889Kristmas Kthulhu
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    So how did we get from:

    "We should treat movement preaching intolerance and incitement to action on that intolerance as we do the incitement to murder or attempts at kidnapping."

    To

    "Why do you want to make the intolerant second-class citizens or worse?"

    Like

    Literal Nazis! Literal Goddamn Goose Stepping Third Reichening Adolf Adoring Nazis are back as a political force. They are literally forming an international movement and guising it under every bullshit term they can think of, while their membership is literally going around murdering and plotting to murder anyone who isn't goddamn white.


    At what point have we not literally found ourselves facing the very thing Popper wrote about during the goddamn Second World War?

    The US government is fundamentally incompatible with that philosophy. This goes beyond making a new amendment - the principles of the constitution must be revamped.

    The first amendment comes before all other amendments, even the 14th amendment of equality. Think about what that means.

    I'm going to put this as nicely as I can manage: you have no idea what you're talking about. The order of amendments is very strictly last one wins if they conflict. The 1st doesn't have a special spot.

    Also someone needs to ask: In what way are Amendments 1 and 14 in opposition such that the first triumphs over the other?

    "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The paradox of tolerance demonstrates a situation where a group is denied equal protection under the law. We presume this is due to exercise of the first amendment.

    Yet the supreme court continues to strike down hate speech laws repeatedly. Go figure.

    Except that they're not being denied the equal protection of the law - everyone is just as restricted about spreading hate. And yes, such "ministerial" laws do, in fact, past muster - for example, public colleges are allowed to enforce rules that require officially recognized student organizations to open their membership to all students as they are receiving funding from the student body as a whole.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Gnome-InterruptusDarkPrimusKristmas Kthulhu
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.


    The problem is we still have a radicalized white supremacist fringe whose answer to that liberalization is “go build some bombs, gather some rifles and pistols and go kill as many of the enemy as possible”

    Yeah but they're basically destroying themselves because most Americans are still economically comfortable. They're not ready for radical action.

    Now if a terrible economic recession lines up with a Democratic presidency, things could go ugly.

    But like


    They aren’t.

    There is no real indication that they’re destroying themselves, unless you call getting shot while doling our mass murder against non-whites to be that.

    When you look at them, they're people who have no sense of purpose in Western society and are trying to find it via extremism. Same with the jihadist movement - Muslim men disenchanted with modern life, whether in the West or in the Muslim world.

    But as long as the majority of people are economically sound and find fulfilling work and community, we're ok. They shouldn't fall down that hole, and the extremists who have already dropped down there do not make it look attractive with their violence.

    Now like I said before, if the economy drops out from under them, the hole starts looking better and better,

    To a certain degree I can agree with this, but there's two problems:

    The economy actually isn't all that great and all that stable, but that's a discussion for another thread

    and

    At the same time, while economic distress is a factor that can drive people towards ethnic supremacy movements, we have to acknowledge that this sort of radicalization is a wholly separate beast from just economic distress. It isn't just a symptom, it's a societal disease of its own.

    To a degree, we've tried to talk about the second somewhat in the fascism thread. We can see this happening in post WWI Europe, where the societal and economic distresses of the post-war period didn't wholly drive people to fascism, in many case you also had socialist groups of all kinds popping up as a response to those distresses. There's specific issues that ends up driving someone to fascism and ethnic supremacy, versus other kinds of political thinking

    I think that Democrats need to enact legislation targeted at improving rural communities and economics. The Republicans always seem to shit on them (trade war) while leading them with dogwhistles.

    Even if they keep hating the Democrats, as long as their economies get better they shouldn't start a civil war.

    But that isn't going to do anything to actually tackle the issue of "We think whites are superior humans and these other people bring rot and disease to our communities and any problems we have are actually their fault.

    It also ignores that White Supremacy isn't just a "rural problem"

    Well there is also the issue of suburban decay, and that is causing a lot of suburban white communities to start looking like inner city black communities in terms of drug use and crime. Breaking Bad is a monument to this.

    They're racist and angry, and have been for a long time now, but they won't have a reason to act on those ideas if they're comfortable with their lives.

    You are aware how utterly depressing and nihilistic this sounds right?

    "Give the bigots their comforts and we'll be fine"

    And how it still fails to actually solve the underlying problem and leaves it there to fester and erupt the next time some sort of economic or societal stressor hits?

    Well we can't change their minds if they won't listen. We can't stop them from talking to each other and sharing their views. We aren't running reeducation camps.

    Bread and circuses are the American way. The only power over our lives the Federal Government has achieved is economic.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    electricitylikesme
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I get the feeling that as society becomes more educated regarding technology, speech on a global scale will become uncontrollable.

    Information security has always been a losing battle. China's firewall will fall, and in addition to everyone learning about Tiananmen square, tools will be created to circumvent all speech control.

    Distilled down to the essence we literally cannot stop speech, we cannot revoke the right to communication, unless we turn to grossly inhumane methods like locking them solitary and naked in a cell a'la Marquis de Sade in Quills. If a fascist wants to distribute his propaganda by writing it in crayon on yellow notebook paper in a cell block, I'm happy letting him have that right. Similarly, we ultimately cannot stop sites like 4chan from forming, if somebody wants to go to great lengths to disseminate whatever bullshit they want behind a veil of anonymity, a wealth of technology exists and will continue to exist to enable that.

    Political power is bought with, to borrow the blog title, lawyers guns and money. A broad right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you get to keep your high-paying TV anchor position or your highly-monetized YouTube channel or your speaking gigs at major universities. You can speak all you want but the establishment can revoke your access to the privileges of civilization.

    (Obviously there needs to be caution exercising such power. Deplatforming can have a chilling effect on speech almost as much as government censorship. There's a real danger in blacklisting, as in the US in the 1950s or China today. I am absolutely not arguing that this is unproblematic.)

    Optimistic point of view: Liberalism has largely won the culture war already. Corporations are pretty responsive to calls for private sanctioning of obvious bigots. Even Fox News looks like it might be positioning itself to buck its alt-right hosts if Trump loses the next election.

    We might not need to do anything if things keep going our way. Society will do its job.

    This is, broadly speaking, my take. Nothing about the current movement has scared me. The biggest events are what? Some pasty dudes with torches, a vehicular homicide and a shooting in New Zealand? I know there’s more and I know I’m being light here but most of the alt right advances are, as I see it, Democrats being bad at politics and letting a reactionary opponent have their 4 years in the sun. That comes with consequences but it will pass.

    Liberals won the culture war, and while they were stomping on the corpse it twitched. A death gasp, if you will. It’s not something I’m going to throw away our freedoms over. I get it’s serious but overreactions can have dire consequences.

    I'd just like to address this real quick?

    This?

    This thign doesn't happen.

    You don't "win" a culture war. Culture Wars, essentially, do not stop. Culture is this always shifting, always evolving thing. There is no end of history, there is no final state utopia, there is no "finished"

    And shit like White Supremacy? It doesn't go away. Not ever, not fully. You have to be on guard for it, you have to be ready to always tamp its fires back down before it kills countless numbers of people.

    We're not, as a society, doing that.

    We're ignoring it as it spreads and saying everything is fine.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    FeralIncenjucarTynnanJaysonFourMrVyngaardEtiowsaForarQuidshrykeStyrofoam SammichMatevHavelock2.0iTunesIsEvilMegaMekGnome-InterruptusDarkPrimusMaclayMoridin889Dee KaePhillishereNyysjanCommander ZoomElldrenKristmas KthulhuYamiB.
Sign In or Register to comment.