the free speech big lie...

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:14 am

Mr R wrote:like i don't think that someone is censored if i refuse to let them speak in my yard. so i can tell someone to get out of my yard if they are saying things that i don't like. they can then move on and say whatever they like someplace else.


I don't see anything wrong with that. Indeed, even if everyone was in your yard, I'd still see nothing wrong with it. But this is based on the assumption that you're not using dirty tricks to keep people in your yard. For example, I'm assuming that people made a free choice to stay in your yard and that you're not shaping the outside world such that people have nowhere else to go.

Companies are in the business of serving other people's needs, right? But past a certain a point, they seem to realize that it's more efficient to simply preserve a need (rather than let it take its natural course and evolve) and offer services that they have developed in the past instead of constantly adapting. And in order to preserve the need they can so easily serve, they have to interfer with other people's freedoms by changing their minds and situation in the appropriate direction.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5075
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:23 am

i think if facebook and twitter really did have monopolies on disseminating speech, then what you are saying would have a lot more impact. but they really don't. parler did it's thing. tiktok survived being nearly banned by trump, ilp exists, and thousands of other sites where people can go and publish their speech or otherwise express themselves. it may be the case that facebook and twitter have disproportionate shares of the market, and that this could be a result of their business practices, but that's just how competition works. it can't be the case that we should punish them for their success.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.


Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 29360
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:24 am

The internet and social media is not your backyard.

It's called "social"-media because it's public, and intended to be public.



It's a violation of the First Amendment to regulate political speech on public platforms, especially during an election year, and especially upon the proposition that a political party must be banned, censored, and doxxed outright, which is what happened.



All you defending this, are straight up Anti-American, Communist bastards. Your Free Speech, here in this forum, is premised on what you are trying to destroy. Without the Free World intact, it will become standard fare for any political party who takes power to censor, banish, dox their opposition.



We already see how many retarded, low iq arguments and "debates" there are on this forum. Those who cannot use reason, rationality, and logic, would simply resort to banishing ulterior view-points. That is what you are arguing for. That means you are against Philosophy, open-minded dialogues, rational discussion, in general.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:25 am

that's not why its called social media bruh.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.


Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 29360
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:37 am

yes it is
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:40 am

Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:53 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:yes it is


who told u that
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.


Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 29360
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Jan 22, 2021 8:02 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's a violation of the First Amendment to regulate political speech on public platforms...


Which part is violated?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.


Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 29360
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:34 am

who elected twitter, facebook, youtube, google as to who can or cannot use their social media?

nobody did, corporations are not above the law
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5308
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby MagsJ » Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:59 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:i think if facebook and twitter really did have monopolies on disseminating speech, then what you are saying would have a lot more impact. but they really don't. parler did it's thing. tiktok survived being nearly banned by trump, ilp exists, and thousands of other sites where people can go and publish their speech or otherwise express themselves. it may be the case that facebook and twitter have disproportionate shares of the market, and that this could be a result of their business practices, but that's just how competition works. it can't be the case that we should punish them for their success.

So many Facebook accounts kept getting suspended here, simply for voicing a Conservative narrative that the Facebook police obviously didn’t like. They weren’t strong a narrative, so just disliked by Facebook, it seems.

Twitter is equally contemptible in the way it deals with its subscribers, in calling them liars and not resolving issues that have been raised to be looked into and resolved i.e. they don’t give a shit.

You truly really are unaware of many aspects of reality, aren’t you, Mr Logic unaware.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 22174
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby polishyouthgotipbanned » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:07 pm

the issue is with perception of an American...democracy and freedom of speech are not without HEAVY flaws,,, this is inconceivable to a culture that almost worships it...and on its own neither democracy nor freedom of speech are anything special...democracy is a mechanism of passing on power without constant civil wars and tensions which would pull a civilised country apart...freedom of speech is nothing special if your population is so dumbed down it cares not or attempts not at the Catholic or empirical truth...but somebody should show me something that works better than a democracy in a modern world...Communism, National Socialism failed spectacularly and were tremendously inefficient, the only alternative I can see that would be sensible would be Mussolini's fascism...there I am willing to debate somebody which is better: democracy or chamber fascism...the rest is a bad joke.
At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence. Firstly, blackwinged Night laid a germless egg in the bosom of the infinite deeps of Erebus, and from this, after the revolution of long ages, sprang the graceful Eros with his glittering golden wings, swift as the whirlwinds of the tempest. He mated in deep Tartarus with dark Chaos, winged like himself, and thus hatched forth our race, which was the first to see the light. That of the Immortals did nove yielded themselves to their lovers when almost at the end of their youth, being led away by the gift of a quail, a waterfowl, a goose, or a cock.
User avatar
polishyouthgotipbanned
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:47 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby polishyouthgotipbanned » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:16 pm

von Rivers wrote:
phoneutria wrote:the point is that there is a monopoly on communications
much like a power grid
or landlines
or railroads

cutting someone off AWS
can very well make it impractical or impossible for them to run a digital platform
alongside AWS, the number of companies owned by facebook and google is such
that they can damn near make someone disappear off the internet

this is a scary fucking precedent, dude
no matter how much you hate the guy
no person should be gagged like he was
in a free country
you don't want to talk about moral philosophy
but you have to acknowledge that this was wrong


Why is it wrong? Choose your adventure:

1. Because J.S. Mill. Mill thought that a free-market of ideas was the best way to get truth. (See below)
2. Because "freedom at all costs". (Even if it leads to anti-democracy and untruth, like how a pure capitalist becomes a monopolist? No, consequences matter. If your principle results in its opposite, that is a reductio of your principle).
3. Because regulation/censorship is bad. (But don't then make regulations to censor a private buisness).
4. Optional other. (What do you say?)

Back to Mill. He would assume that the population is educated and mature.
1. It's not. Look at urwrongx1000, fucking dumb as bricks. No disrespect. Plato wrote a story about urwrongx1000, and he was chained in a cave watching shadows. To urwrongx1000: Plato is a philosopher, you dumb sh_t.

More to the point, it is not true that a free market of ideas is the best way to get truth. Not in a courtroom, where standards of evidence apply. Not in a classroom, where the students don't do all the teaching. Not in a laboratory, where peer review doesn't mean "just anyone review". Not anywhere. Free speech, like most of your freedoms in actual practice, is earned---when it is really public speech (i.e., tv, news, radio, internet).

Unfortunately, market incentive and privatization made news into sensationalized propagandizers. Social media empires, on the other hand, pander to the lowest common denominator where the heirarchy of epistemic authority is flatlined. It is a free market of ideas, and now millions think the president is illegitimate, because they are the proper evaluators, (and Rudy Guiliani), and not people who are trained investigators. Well, that, and they're listening to someone who was lieing who happened to be the president.

I don't think it's inherently or absolutely wrong for some social media company to censor a government official, for spreading self-serving misinformation. That shit starts wars. In practice there are serious problems with doing so. But the moral discussion is about how, when, why, what consequences count... not a flat "never ever... totally wrong". What is your justification of that?

About Trump in particular and the actual context... it sounds like being a fucking cry-baby. Build a fucking wix.com website. Even a billionaire could do it. Watch the commercials.

quite good post but childish and naive, good pointers on social medias profit incentive to actually magnify misinformation and political radicalisation through their algorithms. freedom of speech is not about arriving at a perfect and most selected truth though, the freedom of speech is best left untouched because any attempts at its moderation will lead to censorship...and who will decide what to censor and what not to censor and why???, a perfect, indifferent and objective matrix or power hungry and heavily politically invested elites, be it from the tech sector, or the law sector, or the banking or wherever?the answer is simple enough...dont meddle with the free speech...if you have a president like Trump and what happens happens this is not simply 'patchable' with 'moderation' but is an outcome of years of trampling human dignity, democracy and republican values...this is what it boils down to from the perspective of democracy...if a population can't use its freedoms sensibly it wont be free for long and nothing can help it so there is no point meddling with the democratic mechanisms since it can do only harm.
At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence. Firstly, blackwinged Night laid a germless egg in the bosom of the infinite deeps of Erebus, and from this, after the revolution of long ages, sprang the graceful Eros with his glittering golden wings, swift as the whirlwinds of the tempest. He mated in deep Tartarus with dark Chaos, winged like himself, and thus hatched forth our race, which was the first to see the light. That of the Immortals did nove yielded themselves to their lovers when almost at the end of their youth, being led away by the gift of a quail, a waterfowl, a goose, or a cock.
User avatar
polishyouthgotipbanned
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:47 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby phoneutria » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:39 pm

this whole thing was worth it
just to see a bunch of communists
arguing in defense of private property
and corporate rights
i'm getting hella screenshots
and some good laughs
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4265
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby polishyouthgotipbanned » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:51 pm

you
are
one
nasty
Brazilian
CUNT
of a human being
you CUNT
you keep provoking me and insulting me and good people around here and I swear I will fly to Brazil find you and pull your trousers down in front of your family and spank the fuck out of you
BAE.
At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence. Firstly, blackwinged Night laid a germless egg in the bosom of the infinite deeps of Erebus, and from this, after the revolution of long ages, sprang the graceful Eros with his glittering golden wings, swift as the whirlwinds of the tempest. He mated in deep Tartarus with dark Chaos, winged like himself, and thus hatched forth our race, which was the first to see the light. That of the Immortals did nove yielded themselves to their lovers when almost at the end of their youth, being led away by the gift of a quail, a waterfowl, a goose, or a cock.
User avatar
polishyouthgotipbanned
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:47 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby polishyouthgotipbanned » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:55 pm

how long will it take somebody else to locate you
given
you
have
the JJ gym you train at public
your face public
your house public
around your house public
the city you live public
???
200dollars-500dollars max and within a week I will get the exact location
so don't act up to clever and take screenshots of posts
as if
you
are
making threats
to somebody here
At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence. Firstly, blackwinged Night laid a germless egg in the bosom of the infinite deeps of Erebus, and from this, after the revolution of long ages, sprang the graceful Eros with his glittering golden wings, swift as the whirlwinds of the tempest. He mated in deep Tartarus with dark Chaos, winged like himself, and thus hatched forth our race, which was the first to see the light. That of the Immortals did nove yielded themselves to their lovers when almost at the end of their youth, being led away by the gift of a quail, a waterfowl, a goose, or a cock.
User avatar
polishyouthgotipbanned
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:47 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:26 pm

phoneutria wrote:no, i mean that this matter has been taken to the supreme court a number of times
and they've ruled consistently in favor of the business' right to deny service

that is not to say
that this subject won't end up at the supreme court again
it probably will, time and time again


I believe the subject of this thread isn't "What did SCOTUS rule?" but rather "Is it truly unconstitutional?" Two different questions.

And if by "not debatable" you mean "barely disputed", "easy to resolve" or "there isn't much discussion to be had", then I can agree the first subject isn't much debatable but I can't agree the same applies to the second.

And the second subject is what this thread is about.

i didn't see any questions or any prompts in the OP
only statements of fact
it does not seem to me based on the OP
that that was the aim of the thread


And statements of fact are not enough? He said "This is what I believe and this is why I believe that". He exposed his belief and part of the underlying reasoning for others to examine.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5075
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:42 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:
Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's a violation of the First Amendment to regulate political speech on public platforms...


Which part is violated?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The part that was violated is that in red.

When the US Congress passed Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230.

At the time it was passed, it wasn't in violation of free speech - merely giving extra rights in order to promote the communication business. But because of those extra protections the communication corporations gained the ability to strongly limit free speech - which has been used for that intent.

So the law that Congress passed BECAME precisely unconstitutional because making any law that abridges (even by accident or default) free speech is expressly forbidden.

You can bicker all you want but that is the fact of it.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby polishyouthgotipbanned » Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:54 pm

bro only fools obsess over constitutions... constitution without citizenry behind it is a meaningless piece of paper...and anything that requires societal engagement is subject to their interpretation of it, to their needs and desires and formations...there is no abstract power in the dark or light that shapes humans, humans shape humans. or like in my language: ludzie ludzi robia, to express disdain for law and lawyers meaning people make people.
At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence. Firstly, blackwinged Night laid a germless egg in the bosom of the infinite deeps of Erebus, and from this, after the revolution of long ages, sprang the graceful Eros with his glittering golden wings, swift as the whirlwinds of the tempest. He mated in deep Tartarus with dark Chaos, winged like himself, and thus hatched forth our race, which was the first to see the light. That of the Immortals did nove yielded themselves to their lovers when almost at the end of their youth, being led away by the gift of a quail, a waterfowl, a goose, or a cock.
User avatar
polishyouthgotipbanned
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:47 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Silhouette » Fri Jan 22, 2021 8:45 pm

phoneutria wrote:he did not manifest himself to be for or against it
he simply defended it
the parallel with a defense attorney is pertinent
because a defense attorney's job is
regardless of whether his client did it or not,
to acquit him of the charges

so no I did not read into his words
he defended it
and that was all there was to read in that post

So all this time, when you've been saying "do y'all really want to argue in favor of a bunch of companies banding together who together hold monopoly over communications to refuse service to speech that they don't like?" and "i saw a cut and dry defense of corporate censorship in the OP" you've been strictly using the factual use of both terms only?
You were only saying PK was arguing "in favour" that it is a fact that corporations can ban as they please when exercising their free speech to say only what they freely want to say as a company?
You were only saying PK was "defending" that it is a fact that corporations can ban as they please when exercising their free speech to say only what they freely want to say as a company?
You didn't mean at all in any shape or form to imply that PK "liked" this fact?

I interpretted the way you wrote these things as implying PK liked the fact that corporations can ban as they please when exercising their free speech to say only what they freely want to say as a company.
So if and only if you weren't implying anything at all about PK liking this fact, then you leave me no choice but to concede what I thought was a reasonable interpretation, but turned out not to be.

phoneutria wrote:i can't be the only person who responds to the OP, am I?
i'm old school from when forums were a cascade
kind of like what reddit comments are now
the OP is the head of the conversation
and every reply addressed to the OP is a parallel conversation
i rarely read the thread before replying to the OP
you know why, right?
cuz i got toys to deliver
but i am certain that i am not alone
i think the OP of a thread should have a complete line of reasoning
heck ideally it should have a hypothesis and a counter hypothesis and an analysis and a conclusion
but beggers can't be choosers eh
anyway
i think that should have gone in the OP to clear out that bad air
of a defense attorney letting someone get away with murder, you know?
like sure i defended it but i don't condone that shit

so maybe i'm the one being pedantic
wanting the OP to not only defend something but also take a stance
but if anything
this entire conversation is testimony
to why that would be a good thing
lest people think you believe something you don't
knowwhatimsayin'?

Nothing wrong with replying only to the OP. Obviously toys gotta get themselves delivered, but you'll agree that reading any subsequent amendments by the same poster can help clarify their OP, no? Everything's an opportunity cost/benefit analysis, I agree. How dare PK not take that into account for you!

phoneutria wrote:in other words
my question was
do you really want to defend what happened?
this is me prompting the OP to take a side
a simple "no" in response to my post would have cleared the air

so as you can see
I didn't read into nor assume anything
i made a post to resolve the perplexion that the OP caused in my mind

the only one reading into another's words here is you :)

I don't want to defend what happened, no. I don't have to like his speech, but I have to respect the right of actual people (and not corporations) to speak freely. So I can "like" him being shut up because, to my personal tastes: the less he speaks the better, but I'm morally obliged to support what I don't like in this particular case - and that duty comes before my personal preferences.

This is why the following is kinda annoying - and I suspect intentionally so, because I think you're just casually having a little fun at the expense of others here:

phoneutria wrote:this whole thing was worth it
just to see a bunch of communists
arguing in defense of private property
and corporate rights
i'm getting hella screenshots
and some good laughs

Obviously all "a bunch of communists" were arguing in favour of was free speech, and there's nothing odd about that.
Here, by "in favour" I mean both in the sense of liking the right to free speech and being in favour that it's a fact that there is free speech.

Unless I've missed communists actually going on about how much they like private property and corporate rights...
You can only be saying here that they've been "in favour of" or "defending" that it is fact that private property and corporate right currently exist. Not that they're "in favour of" or "defending" them as expression of their individual tastes. Only the latter could be funny, because speaking true facts as in the former is apolitical. That leaves nothing to find funny, unless of course you are actually conflating the two after all, which reinforces my initial suspicions that you were conflating the two before as well - like I thought. But contrary to your suspicions, the last thing I want to do is read something into another's words that isn't there.

phoneutria wrote:
Silhouette wrote:"Like" is a strong word, phon :lol:

But yes, he ought to be as free to speak his clear stupidity as much as he wants, with no private or governmental body silencing him.

here you go ladies and gents
silhouette wants trump back on twitter

So as I was saying above, this quote can only be intentionally annoying - conflating the greater want for free speech with the lesser non-want to have his stupidity widely broadcast. A greater want taking priority doesn't mean one thereby wants all of the consequences - they must merely be tolerated and indirectly supported in spite of not wanting them.

But yeah. It's your free speech to joke, and presumably even smile - which I won't try to take away from you, and I hope you enjoyed yourself at my expense.

phoneutria wrote:i can't credit myself for a brilliant "worming my way out"
when i never wormed in to begin with
it was your mistake
to take the word 'defense' to mean 'agreement with'
and i have not muddied anything
i've clarified it
and not in my favor
but in the direction of correctness
and you feel like i'm trying to best you
because you suspect that i am better than you
and you want to try to prove that that's not the case
better luck next time
(you are smiling, stop that)

Smiling, being body language, which makes up 55% of communication is a First Amendment right, no? ;) Unless the original authors really meant only the 7% of communication that is actual words, and definitely not the remaining 93% of communication, when they specified "speech". Stop oppressing me :mrgreen:

I would like very much for you, and anyone, to be better than me - because that's what I need to have something to learn from, which is all I want to do really. I don't need to be right or best, it just consistently turns out that way much to my disappointment, and I refuse to allow wrongness to claim rightness is wrong uncontested. By contrast, most others here as I'm sure you'll agree, "need" to feel right or best whether or not they are - and pretty much inversely proportional to the degree that they actually are. I suspect only that I might have something to learn from you, or at least this is my hope.

phoneutria wrote:i see it is ok to speculate then?
perhaps i will speculate as well

Of course it's okay to speculate, if you're being very clear that you are speculating as I did and do. The standard of this forum seems to be to express speculation as certain fact, and that is most very NOT okay. Can't stand that shit - drives me up the fucking wall.

phoneutria wrote:my own reading of the op
leaving out objectivity
i notice the emphaticness of it
"nothing, absolutely nothing"
the repetitions
like the nail is already in
but he has to keep banging on it
until the wood is dented
and the contempt
"trying reading the constitution...it might actually
educate you"

this are the words of a man who is trying to set this in stone
they are not the words of a man who objects to it

and without knowing about the conversation with urwrong
my own speculative reading of it is essentially
that he is gloating about the fact
that there is nothing trump can do
to get back on twitter
other than take the case to the supreme court

Fair enough if you had no knowledge of other threads, and thought he was talking non-specifically about "people who have no idea what is in the constitution" out of nowhere.
If he was just using the opportunity to randomly assert superior knowledge of facts, then I guess it could come across rather patronising, as opposed to frustrated by the repeated ignorance of other posters on this forum. So your misunderstanding is understandable.

phoneutria wrote:and so here is my own calling out hypocrisy

So you'd like to know PK's stance on refusing cake service to gays, and that truck driver incident (with which I'm not familiar?), Zoom's decision to block a university online academic event, black and south african liberation movements, and jewish voices for peace?
I suspect that you suspect that he'd be okay with all and any banning as long as it's of people with opposing politics?
Refusing service is a business matter, which can be distinguished from anything spoken during or around any business transaction or lack thereof. You agreed that Corporate Personality was bullshit, but then you also said "business should have as much freedom as possible". Yet you also said "freedoms end where another's begin", which is a weird one to throw into business decisions, because obviously the refused gays were not free to purchase a cake like straight people would be. So the business should have no First Amendment rights if Corporate Personality is bullshit, they shouldn't infringe on the freedoms of gays or otherwise, but they should still be able to do whatever they want?

May I ask you the same questions that you asked of PK about your stance on all the above? From what you've said so far, I'm struggling to find a coherent stance.

Presumably Zoom were acting on "having as much freedom as possible", though I suspect you object to it being constitutional for them to block events if such events are not what the Corporate Personality "wants" to say, and that protection resulted in the free speech of others being denied, so obviously they shouldn't have as much freedom as possible? I'd like to know how you marry all this together without reading anything into your words or assuming.

phoneutria wrote:it sounds like what you support might be social anarchism, not communism

Since I was mirroring your own sentiments, and you suggest that what I support might be Social Anarchism, can I assume that what you support might be Social Anarchism?

There's no conflict between Social Anarchism and Communism - Communism is for non-Capitalistic economic conditions - what you do outside of business transactions could be whatever you want, depending on whatever everyone as a commune chooses to any social law to be, if any at all, though fully allowing anyone to move to any other commune with a preferred set of such rules. Again, that's all up to classless society to determine democratically. So yes, I support Social Anarchism as consistent with Communism.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:06 pm

phoneutria wrote:i saw a cut and dry defense of corporate censorship in the OP
that's all i saw
so yeah the OP did give me that impression

and I'm just sitting here thinking well?
are we going to let people be silenced, just like that?


This suggests to me she assumed that PK is arguing in favor of "letting people be silenced, like that". Which he is not.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5075
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:16 pm

The "free speech"/censorship debate always brings me back to the controversies that revolved around particular art exhibits in museums:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=yi0LYI ... OwQ4dUDCA0
https://www.complex.com/style/2013/10/c ... hibitions/
https://www.iloboyou.com/controversial- ... allations/
https://blooloop.com/features/shocking- ... hibitions/

Suppose a truly talented artist created works of art that championed racism, misogyny, homophobia. Or works of art that savagely mocked those who championed these themes.

How would this not create a context in which hypocrisy comes into play? And how might philosophers using the tools at their disposal, react to it?

My own "contribution" to debates of this sort is to suggest that the convictions that individuals hold in regard to either an art exhibit or to a corporate or governmental speech policy is embedded in prejudices derived from the lives that they lived. More so than from their capacity to arrive [philosophically or otherwise] at a conclusion said to be either the optimal rational assessment or the only rational assessment.

My focus is less on what people think about free speech and more on how they came to acquire what they do think about it given this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41057
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby polishyouthgotipbanned » Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:25 pm

I AM OUT SEE YOU AROUND,...A BIRD JUST TOOK A RUNNY DUMP ON MY FOREHEAD!!!
At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence. Firstly, blackwinged Night laid a germless egg in the bosom of the infinite deeps of Erebus, and from this, after the revolution of long ages, sprang the graceful Eros with his glittering golden wings, swift as the whirlwinds of the tempest. He mated in deep Tartarus with dark Chaos, winged like himself, and thus hatched forth our race, which was the first to see the light. That of the Immortals did nove yielded themselves to their lovers when almost at the end of their youth, being led away by the gift of a quail, a waterfowl, a goose, or a cock.
User avatar
polishyouthgotipbanned
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:47 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby phoneutria » Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:27 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
phoneutria wrote:i saw a cut and dry defense of corporate censorship in the OP
that's all i saw
so yeah the OP did give me that impression

and I'm just sitting here thinking well?
are we going to let people be silenced, just like that?


This suggests to me she assumed that PK is arguing in favor of "letting people be silenced, like that". Which he is not.


he did
an argument in favor of a stance is a defense of a stance
he did not position himself in agreement or disagreement with that stance
but he did argue for it
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4265
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby polishyouthgotipbanned » Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:30 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:
phoneutria wrote:i saw a cut and dry defense of corporate censorship in the OP
that's all i saw
so yeah the OP did give me that impression

and I'm just sitting here thinking well?
are we going to let people be silenced, just like that?


This suggests to me she assumed that PK is arguing in favor of "letting people be silenced, like that". Which he is not.


he did
an argument in favor of a stance is a defense of a stance
he did not position himself in agreement or disagreement with that stance
but he did argue for it

SHUT THE FK UP BTCH!!!
dumb cow!!!
At the beginning there was only Chaos, Night, dark Erebus, and deep Tartarus. Earth, the air and heaven had no existence. Firstly, blackwinged Night laid a germless egg in the bosom of the infinite deeps of Erebus, and from this, after the revolution of long ages, sprang the graceful Eros with his glittering golden wings, swift as the whirlwinds of the tempest. He mated in deep Tartarus with dark Chaos, winged like himself, and thus hatched forth our race, which was the first to see the light. That of the Immortals did nove yielded themselves to their lovers when almost at the end of their youth, being led away by the gift of a quail, a waterfowl, a goose, or a cock.
User avatar
polishyouthgotipbanned
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:47 am

Re: the free speech big lie...

Postby phoneutria » Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:36 pm

have considered the possibility
that if you stop this insufferable act
that is neither funny nor smart
just plain disruptive and cringeworthy
people might like you?
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4265
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]