Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

De-platforming fascists works

Options
1…1718202223

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Just the way it should be, for fear of convicting innocent people.

    It seems though that hate laws might be challenging this long established norm:



    It looks like hate crime advocates aren't willing to meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof.

    Just look at some threads on this boards such as "Homophobic Attack on London Bus"

    I'm going to just assume you dont understand what burden of proof actually means.


  • Options
    #573
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    yoke wrote: »
    Germany was a free speech country and a democracy before the nazi's gained power. The nazi party was democratically elected in a free society, where even jews and ethnic minorities were allowed to vote.
    Well not really. There were many thuggish groups tolerated by the state and associated with various political movements shutting down those with different views.

    But I think the more important point is that the regimes you mentioned (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan) thought they had a monopoly on truth and used force to silence opposition.

    The role of the state in a liberal country therefore must not be to shut down opposing views but rather shut down those who use violence to silence others.


  • Options
    #574
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I'm going to just assume you dont understand what burden of proof actually means.

    Yes I've seen you assume many things in the past. I don't see why now should be any different.


  • Options
    #575
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    Well not really. There were many thuggish groups tolerated by the state and associated with various political movements shutting down those with different views.

    But I think the more important point is that the regimes you mentioned (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan) thought they had a monopoly on truth and used force to silence opposition.

    The role of the state in a liberal country therefore must not be to shut down opposing views but rather shut down those who use violence to silence others.

    What do we do when the government tries to suppress voting? Protest is the last democratic tool many have. What do we do when goverment bans certain groups or people from gathering in peaceful protest?
    What do we do when the goverment uses scaremongering to spin puplic opinion in a partisan manner?
    What do we do when government spins anti fascist protesting like it's a threat to society, over and above fascists and racists?


  • Options
    #576
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    What do we do when the government tries to suppress voting? Protest is the last democratic tool many have. What do we do when goverment bans certain groups or people from gathering in peaceful protest?
    What do we do when the goverment uses scaremongering to spin puplic opinion in a partisan manner?
    What do we do when government spins anti fascist protesting like it's a threat to society, over and above fascists and racists?

    The argument made by advocates of free speech is that allowing people to freely express themselves is the best way to stop such things from happening.
    It is by restricting expression that it is easier to control the things you mention(bolded). I.e. you could say that people that advocate to abolish abortion laws are 'anti-women' anti-choice' 'discriminatory',etc.. you could then make the case to ban them from protesting.

    South Park did a great episode that I found personally very difficult. It was about NAMBLA(Not for the feint of heart). The theme was allowing those you vehemently disagree with to protest.

    But I see your other point also. Adam Curtis mentioned it in newest documentary(Bitter Lake) about the tactic's employed by Putin's aide Vladislav Surkov.
    His aim is to undermine people's perception of the world, so they never really know what is happening. He sponsored all sorts of groups, he even backed parties that were opposed to president Putin, but the key thing, is that he then let people know what he was doing, so no one knew what was real or fake. It was a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused, unstoppable because it is indefinable.

    I feel this has only been able to take hook on the post-modern undertones already extremely present in society, but by restricting any expression we risk being controlled in a far worse way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭yoke


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    Well not really. There were many thuggish groups tolerated by the state and associated with various political movements shutting down those with different views.

    But I think the more important point is that the regimes you mentioned (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan) thought they had a monopoly on truth and used force to silence opposition.

    The role of the state in a liberal country therefore must not be to shut down opposing views but rather shut down those who use violence to silence others.

    Once the nazis took power, it was already too late and the game was lost. They changed the rules so the jews etc. couldn’t vote anymore, they had a referendum with only one option on the ballot sheet.

    I’d argue that the role of the state regarding education of its citizens doesn’t end with secondary school, and they need to ensure that “fake news” and bullsh!t in general isn’t peddled as truth in society.
    Advertising standards, consumer protection, all are based on these same ideas (advertisers cannot make outrageously bullsh!t claims - what is bullish!t is decided by the state, and the government helps you out if you get ripped off as well, you don’t personally have to take the shop to court every time).

    It’s all about balance really.

    What’s interesting is that the state didn’t even shut down Milo Yiannopoulis, he merely got kicked off twitter for breaking the terms of his contract repeatedly.


  • Options
    #578
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    The argument made by advocates of free speech is that allowing people to freely express themselves is the best way to stop such things from happening.
    It is by restricting expression that it is easier to control the things you mention(bolded). I.e. you could say that people that advocate to abolish abortion laws are 'anti-women' anti-choice' 'discriminatory',etc.. you could then make the case to ban them from protesting.

    South Park did a great episode that I found personally very difficult. It was about NAMBLA(Not for the feint of heart). The theme was allowing those you vehemently disagree with to protest.

    But I see your other point also. Adam Curtis mentioned it in newest documentary(Bitter Lake) about the tactic's employed by Putin's aide Vladislav Surkov.
    His aim is to undermine people's perception of the world, so they never really know what is happening. He sponsored all sorts of groups, he even backed parties that were opposed to president Putin, but the key thing, is that he then let people know what he was doing, so no one knew what was real or fake. It was a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused, unstoppable because it is indefinable.

    I feel this has only been able to take hook on the post-modern undertones already extremely present in society, but by restricting any expression we risk being controlled in a far worse way.

    I see Trump and on a broader scale the Republican right doing exactly that. You've also got people on social media complaining about proponents of equality and anti fascism being against equality and being fascist. It's a right wing dog and pony show passed off as faux civil rights.
    There's a lot of energy and threads on boards put into stamping out moves by women and minorities and their supporters. I feel we've a long long way to go before anyone can genuinely worry about society being 'too equal', which at the end of the day is a big fear and concern for those on top.


  • Options
    #579
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    I’d argue that the role of the state regarding education of its citizens doesn’t end with secondary school, and they need to ensure that “fake news” and bullsh!t in general isn’t peddled as truth in society.
    Advertising standards, consumer protection, all are based on these same ideas (advertisers cannot make outrageously bullsh!t claims - what is bullish!t is decided by the state, and the government helps you out if you get ripped off as well, you don’t personally have to take the shop to court every time).

    It’s all about balance really.

    What’s interesting is that the state didn’t even shut down Milo Yiannopoulis, he merely got kicked off twitter for breaking the terms of his contract repeatedly.

    Mostly again we're in agreement, but I'd say we still differ on where those lines are.

    Regarding Yiannopoulis, here is the twitter exec (head of trust and safety team) Vijaya Gadde explaining why she banned him, and Tim Pool arguing that people have no problem with them implementing rules(their own rules) its how those rules are implemented based upon loose language that is free to interpretation. (taking sides-hypocrisy)

    The full interview is not always easy to watch especially when Jack Dorsey is talking... but the 'sparring' moments between Vijaya and Tim were interesting.


  • Options
    #580
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    The argument made by advocates of free speech is that allowing people to freely express themselves is the best way to stop such things from happening.
    It is by restricting expression that it is easier to control the things you mention(bolded). I.e. you could say that people that advocate to abolish abortion laws are 'anti-women' anti-choice' 'discriminatory',etc.. you could then make the case to ban them from protesting.
    So we have the same views in general, but we differ on a technicality - “how to stop tyrannical groups from taking power”.

    Is free speech supported in medical publications?

    Is free speech supported in education/secondary school, given that a lot of leaving cert students are over 18?

    It’s not supported because it would make nonsense out of our education system, there is a state approved syllabus out there and any teacher found to be wildly out of sync with it and teaching complete sh!te will probably be removed.

    Similarly, any medical journal found to be publishing rubbish will probably get closed down. Individual doctors can’t be expected to figure out what’s the truth and what’s not, they rely on the state along with scientists to do that.
    Thus, the medical journals de-platform the nutjobs themselves, in an effort to be seen as trustworthy sources of medical info.

    Similarly, Twitter is trying to be seen as a reputable/reliable source of info, and is trying to self-police before it gets banned or penalized itself - removing obvious idiots like Yiannopoulos.

    South Park did a great episode that I found personally very difficult. It was about NAMBLA(Not for the feint of heart).
    Great episode!


  • Options
    #581
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    Similarly, any medical journal found to be publishing rubbish will probably get closed down. Individual doctors can’t be expected to figure out what’s the truth and what’s not, they rely on the state along with scientists to do that.
    Thus, the medical journals de-platform the nutjobs themselves, in an effort to be seen as trustworthy sources of medical info.

    I'm guessing we disagree on the premise of how information spreads, correct me if I'm wrong.

    I believe the biggest way to stop disinformation is to allow everyone to speak their minds.

    You seem to believe that allowing false information into the world will spread and create hateful movements all on it's own and that we need government intervention(i.e. t.v. laws about broadcasting) to prevent this spread.

    I would argue we don't need these laws andnthat akin to the Streisand effect any attempt to hide or censor information has the unintended consequence of spreading it more widely.

    To the point about Milo, have a look at video above, see if you think it is fair. It is how these rules/laws are applied that is the problem. Who decides. It will always have bias included from that person. That's why they must be as stringent as possible.

    I believe something is happening in the humanities of which you speak, those disciplines are becoming corrupt from the inside of people trying to propagate their bull$hit and have credentials in doing so, we need the rights to criticize these people so it can stop happening.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I'm guessing we disagree on the premise of how information spreads, correct me if I'm wrong.

    I believe the biggest way to stop disinformation is to allow everyone to speak their minds.

    You seem to believe that allowing false information into the world will spread and create hateful movements all on it's own and that we need government intervention(i.e. t.v. laws about broadcasting) to prevent this spread.

    I would argue we don't need these laws andnthat akin to the Streisand effect any attempt to hide or censor information has the unintended consequence of spreading it more widely.

    To the point about Milo, have a look at video above, see if you think it is fair. It is how these rules/laws are applied that is the problem. Who decides. It will always have bias included from that person. That's why they must be as stringent as possible.

    I believe something is happening in the humanities of which you speak, those disciplines are becoming corrupt from the inside of people trying to propagate their bull$hit and have credentials in doing so, we need the rights to criticize these people so it can stop happening.

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, regarding our differences.

    Incidentally, I watched the video and I thought the twitter rep was very good - I don’t take things at face value, and I know that Yiannopoulos has a long history of threatening doxxing etc and bullying that Leslie woman online, whereas the other person mentioned, I’ve never even heard of before.

    We’ll probably just have to agree to continue this discussion in a pub somewhere :)


  • Options
    #583
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    Incidentally, I watched the video and I thought the twitter rep was very good - I don’t take things at face value, and I know that Yiannopoulos has a long history of threatening doxxing etc and bullying that Leslie woman online, whereas the other person mentioned, I’ve never even heard of before.

    Tim Pool (The beanie hat guy- Rose to fame documenting Occupy Wallstreet-self described liberal) details far worse crimes that hadn't yet, and consequently weren't actioned by twitter.

    Tim's charge of Twitter: that they are implementing their rules with bias(demonstrates this)

    Twitter response: They look at the rules and try to make the best case they can. They argue they are free from bias(clearly untrue).

    I hope we can agree when it comes to hate crimes/rules that they should at least be explicitly defined. As per your example of harm earlier, that's why I would argue it needs to be direct harm, and not some ambiguous middle ground open to misinterpretation. (like me directing you to your favourite closed shop).

    Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.


  • Options
    #584
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    <...> They argue they are free from bias(clearly untrue).

    I don’t see how he is concluding that there is bias based only on the fact that “mostly it is trump supporters who get deplatformed by twitter”. I believe this is just the result of twitter not coming down hard on everyone who breaks the rules, only multiple repeat offenders who insist on breaking the rules despite many fair warnings, such as Yiannopoulos.
    There’s a simple way for these guys not to get de-platformed - follow the twitter rules, at least after they are pointed out.
    I hope we can agree when it comes to hate crimes/rules that they should at least be explicitly defined

    I agree - but I’m not seeing that the twitter rules aren’t easily accessible, I did a quick search and found this: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

    I haven’t seen any credible claims that someone was unfairly deplatformed yet - it seems to always be a$$holes like Yiannopoulos, who totally deserve it.


  • Options
    #585
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    I haven’t seen any credible claims that someone was unfairly deplatformed yet - it seems to always be a$$holes like Yiannopoulos, who totally deserve it.

    Luckily I have a recent example from one hour ago, Avi Yemini, the Australian 'Tommy Robinson' was banned from twitter.
    He may be an asshole, but what right has twitter to ban him here?
    I actually agree with the sentiment he's expressing.



  • Options
    #586
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Luckily I have a recent example from one hour ago, Avi Yemini, the Australian 'Tommy Robinson' was banned from twitter.
    He may be an asshole, but what right has twitter to ban him here?
    I actually agree with the sentiment he's expressing.


    [edit - I can see the video now] but a quick google search says that he was temporarily banned in May for saying Ilhan Omar was in the muslim brotherhood.
    You can’t go around making accusations like that without any proof, it looks like he was given fair warning...

    [edit - saw the video and it looks like he was banned for saying that Greta Thunbergs parents put her through child abuse]


  • Options
    #587
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    [edit - saw the video and it looks like he was banned for saying that Greta Thunbergs parents put her through child abuse]

    Could one not legitimately make that case? Or is it so obviously wrong?

    She admits herself she knows nothing about the science, to refer to scientists, yet he world will end in 12 years and she talks about suffering, dying, entire eco systems collapsing. Isn't it possible they were leading her? Just like the parents of Soph?

    Do you think this was a fair reason to ban the guy?

    Specifically he wrote this "They[UN] did not steal your childhood, your parents did"
    491494.jpg


  • Options
    #588
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Could one not legitimately make that case? Or is it so obviously wrong?

    She admits herself she knows nothing about the science, to refer to scientists, yet he world will end in 12 years and she talks about suffering, dying, entire eco systems collapsing. Isn't it possible they were leading her? Just like the parents of Soph?

    Do you think this was a fair reason to ban the guy?

    Specifically he wrote this "They[UN] did not steal your childhood, your parents did"
    491494.jpg

    and how does that constitute child abuse?


  • Options
    #589
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    and how does that constitute child abuse?

    Avi Yemini didn't mention child abuse. way to muddy the waters.


  • Options
    #590
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    yoke wrote: »
    [edit - I can see the video now] but a quick google search says that he was temporarily banned in May for saying Ilhan Omar was in the muslim brotherhood.
    You can’t go around making accusations like that without any proof, it looks like he was given fair warning...

    [edit - saw the video and it looks like he was banned for saying that Greta Thunbergs parents put her through child abuse]
    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Avi Yemini didn't mention child abuse. way to muddy the waters.

    Well i haven't watched his video and i have no attention of doing so but one poster seems to think he did mention it


  • Options
    #591
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Well i haven't watched his video and i have no attention of doing so but one poster seems to think he did mention it

    It's easy to understand how you've averaged 11+posts per day since creating your account. Why not watch the 90second video and formulate a view of your own?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    It's easy to understand how you've averaged 11+posts per day since creating your account. Why not watch the 90second video and formulate a view of your own?

    why would i want to listen to a **** like that?


  • Options
    #593
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why would i want to listen to a **** like that?

    How do you know he's a **** if you don't listen to him? Do you listen to what someone else says about him? Who is this somebody else?


  • Options
    #594
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    How do you know he's a **** if you don't listen to him? Do you listen to what someone else says about him? Who is this somebody else?

    You told me so
    the Australian 'Tommy Robinson'


  • Options
    #595
    SexBobomb
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Well i haven't watched his video and i have no attention of doing so but one poster seems to think he did mention it

    That sums up my aversion to this whole deplatforming rubbish.


  • Options
    #596
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Could one not legitimately make that case? Or is it so obviously wrong?

    She admits herself she knows nothing about the science, to refer to scientists, yet he world will end in 12 years and she talks about suffering, dying, entire eco systems collapsing. Isn't it possible they were leading her? Just like the parents of Soph?

    Do you think this was a fair reason to ban the guy?

    Specifically he wrote this "They[UN] did not steal your childhood, your parents did"
    491494.jpg

    Yep, he is basically just insulting her and her family by saying that. The appropriate response from her would no longer be “normal discourse”, but something more like “yeah well your ma was a retard so I guess it’s expected from you” kind of thing. Next step “wanna fight about it?”. It’s pretty stupid, he’s not attacking her arguments, he’s attacking her/her family.

    Last I heard there was broad consensus across the scientific community that man made climate change is real. The world is very unlikely to end in 12 years but there will be extra conflict and more famines in poor areas of the world because of it.


  • Options
    #597
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    It's easy to understand how you've averaged 11+posts per day since creating your account. Why not watch the 90second video and formulate a view of your own?

    I’m not a moderator, but let’s keep it civil shall we? I was enjoying our discussion Veritas


  • Options
    #598
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Avi Yemini didn't mention child abuse. way to muddy the waters.

    He basically just insulted her and her parents, saying “they should be jailed for the sickening child abuse they put her through”.

    So his response to an argument is to switch to taunting his opponent. And then he cries when someone hits him back


  • Options
    #599
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    He may be an asshole, but what right has twitter to ban him here?

    Uhh... they're a private company? Ever seen 'management retains the right to refuse admission' signs all around the country?

    What makes you think he's entitled to use Twitter????

    Hilarious conspiracy hole you're going down, sifting through a little girl's life. Vile. Seriously.


  • Options
    #600
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,235 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    It's easy to understand how you've averaged 11+posts per day since creating your account. Why not watch the 90second video and formulate a view of your own?
    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Avi Yemini didn't mention child abuse. way to muddy the waters.
    yoke wrote: »
    He basically just insulted her and her parents, saying “they should be jailed for the sickening child abuse they put her through”.

    So his response to an argument is to switch to taunting his opponent. And then he cries when someone hits him back

    as we have established that he did mention child abuse perhaps you could back off a little veritas.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Luckily I have a recent example from one hour ago, Avi Yemini, the Australian 'Tommy Robinson' was banned from twitter.
    He may be an asshole, but what right has twitter to ban him here?
    I actually agree with the sentiment he's expressing.


    Rights? Are you talking about constitutional rights or something?

    Twitter can ban whoever they like, whenever they like and they don't have to explain the reasons either. "What right does twitter have..." must be some sort of a joke.


Advertisement