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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

De-platforming fascists works

1…89101214

Comments

  • #552
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    A lot of people make statements like “the country can’t afford more economic migrants”, which is false, as it suggests most so called “economic migrants” don’t pay their own way - all evidence is to the contrary.

    Should such statements be allowed under free speech?

    Is that not a false and damaging (to migrants) statement about an economic migrant, in pretty much any country, and hence a slanderous statement?

    Yes IMO they should be allowed. They could be interpreted by you or someone else as 'damaging'. But you must admit they also very well could be opinion.
    Even if something is completely obviously untrue, people should still be allowed to say it if it doesn't hurt someone else directly.

    I believe the charge of damaging should be one that is proved also beyond a shadow of a doubt what harm was caused and would it not have been caused if such thing wasn't said(for reasons cited previous post). I don't believe a statement like that causes harm to migrants.


    What I believe more important about the example you give is that the person who expresses such distasteful opinion should be allowed to be challenged and possibly change their mind. It also can allow others to sharpen their arguments. You could argue that someone might hear them and believe them, but I tend to believe most people have a strong faculty for these things when they are out in the open and people are free to talk about them honestly.

    If you can prove how the statement (bolded) can damage immigrants you could change my mind.


  • #553
    statesaver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭statesaver


    Has Trudeau the racist not fallin' on his sword and resigned yet ?

    Some people must be allowed to be racist, who knew


  • #554
    The_Brood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 838 ✭✭✭The_Brood


    statesaver wrote: »
    Has Trudeau the racist not fallin' on his sword and resigned yet ?

    Some people must be allowed to be racist, who knew


    Dy0aZNIVYAAjioP.jpg


  • #555
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Deflection and whataboutisms, is this all the extremist right is capable of? All this free rent 'lEfTiStS' get living in your head.

    Also Sarah Silverman ain't sh!t.


  • #556
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Good point.

    That's why I believe it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt when prosecuting a crime like a hate crime. Too many of us these days form opinions too quickly in these respects IMO.

    For example, Marcus Meechan was told by his judge that context didn't matter. Surely that's all that matters.

    It's often difficult to differentiate between opinion and slander as you allude to, this is why when in doubt you must assume otherwise and give the benefit of doubt.

    the standard of proof for all criminal offences is beyond a reasonable doubt.


  • #557
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the standard of proof for all criminal offences is beyond a reasonable doubt.

    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:
    ‘Any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hate, based on a person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation’ .

    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"


  • #558
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Yes IMO they should be allowed. They could be interpreted by you or someone else as 'damaging'. But you must admit they also very well could be opinion.
    Even if something is completely obviously untrue, people should still be allowed to say it if it doesn't hurt someone else directly.

    I believe the charge of damaging should be one that is proved also beyond a shadow of a doubt what harm was caused and would it not have been caused if such thing wasn't said(for reasons cited previous post). I don't believe a statement like that causes harm to migrants.


    What I believe more important about the example you give is that the person who expresses such distasteful opinion should be allowed to be challenged and possibly change their mind. It also can allow others to sharpen their arguments. You could argue that someone might hear them and believe them, but I tend to believe most people have a strong faculty for these things when they are out in the open and people are free to talk about them honestly.

    If you can prove how the statement (bolded) can damage immigrants you could change my mind.


    By statement (bolded) I'm assuming you mean the "false and damaging (to migrants)" bit - I'll explain what I meant.

    Due to the common misconception that immigrants "take our jobs" and "take our social welfare" (at the same time!), which exists in probably every country I can think of, most countries' laws and public attitude (including Irelands) towards immigrants is overwhelmingly negative. The term "immigrant" even has a negative connotation for this reason, whereas it should actually be a positive thing - this person wanted to better their personal circumstances through work, and was willing to move country to follow their goal, surely this person is going to be a net contributor to any society they move to.
    The net result is that this misinformation turns ordinary people into anti-immigrants, and a lot of "good" immigrants often leave the country due to people's behaviour towards them.

    I've been personal friends with at least 3 people who left Ireland after living here for 7 years in one case, due to how they perceived ordinary people's attitudes were towards them.

    They never came back, and every single one of them is on over 100k euros salary now - that means the Irish government lost approx 40k per year in taxes from each of them, and I lost a friend in each case.


  • #559
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    ...

    I would argue that these 'misconceptions' aren't as clear cut as you express.
    e.g.
    surely this person is going to be a net contributor to any society they move to.

    But even if they were, obvious untruths and clear cut lies then the only important thing left would be whether you can prove that person saying these lies did it with the intent to slander someone else.

    To deny the Holocaust is a crime in some countries in Europe. The holocaust is a very real event that obviously happened, but I see no utility in criminalizing people who express the view that it didn't happen. People could argue it causes harm, just like you have argued. I don't see this 'harm' as having met the threshold. I see far more harm in denying people the ability to tell an untruth, since who decides what is true and untrue?


  • #560
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    ...

    I don't see this 'harm' as having met the threshold ...


    Once again, the difference in our opinions comes down to the acceptable threshold.


    So let's stop calling it "free speech" vs "tyranny" as it's a huge exaggeration of the difference


  • #561
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    Once again, the difference in our opinions comes down to the acceptable threshold.

    So let's stop calling it "free speech" vs "tyranny" as it's a huge exaggeration of the difference

    It might not currently be a tyrannical force opposing free speech, but once a tyrannical force does take the reigns of power we're all ****ed- that's what I'm trying to warn against.
    That's how tyrannical forces came into power all over the world! People wanted more protection more security less harm etc..

    If I tell you your favourite shop is open tomorrow, and it's not, and you go there tomorrow to visit and realize it wasn't open, and in your anger turn and slip and hurt your ankle, would it be my fault that you hurt your ankle? Did my speech cause your damage?


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    yoke wrote: »
    But that’s exactly what I said in a previous post!
    “The problem with free speech is that it’s an illusion, and always has been. You can’t allow people to spread lies, but who decides what the lies are?”

    If you do allow people to spread lies, with the expectation that it’ll be self-policing, you’ll be sorely disappointed.
    History has shown time and time again that lies are not self-policing.
    The problem is who is the "you" in the above that allows or does not allow something to be said.

    In the examples you give below:
    The people of Japan honestly thought they could win a war with the US, because when their generals said “we can run amok for 6 months”, they saw what they wanted to see. The generals obviously knew they couldn’t win from before the war.
    The people of Germany fell for the same sh!te, they really believed a German was worth more, and would do better, than an opposing soldier.
    In more recent years I’ve seen some bush!t being peddled about saying that the Chinese can’t innovate. Unfortunately by the time that’s proved wrong, it’ll be too late and they’ll already be at the leading edge of technology - the only thing holding back their innovation is their current government and education style, not their ethnicity.
    It needs to be noted that Japan and Germany during the ware were not free speech countries. In these countries, no doubt the people supporting Nazi and Japanese imperialist values considered themselves supporters of the truth and used the very same arguments you are using to suppress those who disagreed with them.


  • #563
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    It might not currently be a tyrannical force opposing free speech, but once a tyrannical force does take the reigns of power we're all ****ed- that's what I'm trying to warn against.
    That's how tyrannical forces came into power all over the world! People wanted more protection more security less harm etc..

    If I tell you your favourite shop is open tomorrow, and it's not, and you go there tomorrow to visit and realize it wasn't open, and in your anger turn and slip and hurt your ankle, would it be my fault that you hurt your ankle? Did my speech cause your damage?


    Right, I'm agreeing with you here - once a tyrannical force does take the reigns of power we're all ****ed.



    We differ on the way to prevent tyrannical forces from coming into power though. "Tyrannical forces" don't suddenly appear out of nowhere, they grow slowly and surely out of groups of people who tell lies to each other to make themselves feel better about their situation - whether it was that "we're germans, we're not ****, we're worth something! the jews made us lose ww1" leading to ww2, or "we're japanese, we can do anything! we're better than everyone!" leading to the same.


    Not allowing the spread of obvious lies and obvious junk science should be a good first step towards preventing tyrannical forces from growing to begin with.

    Hence, de-platforming people like Milo Yiannopoulos is actually a positive step


  • #564
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    The problem is who is the "you" in the above that allows or does not allow something to be said.

    In the examples you give below:It needs to be noted that Japan and Germany during the ware were not free speech countries. In these countries, no doubt the people supporting Nazi and Japanese imperialist values considered themselves supporters of the truth and used the very same arguments you are using to suppress those who disagreed with them.


    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.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth refers to antisemitism in germany growing based on the false allegation that wartime Germany (in WW1) had been betrayed by an enemy within - it surged again after the economic crash in 1929 as Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "a virulent strain". If enough german people had defended the truth at the time, that german jews werent much different to ordinary germans, and stopped the nazis from spreading their sh!te, perhaps the nazis never would have got power.


  • #565
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    Right, I'm agreeing with you here - once a tyrannical force does take the reigns of power we're all ****ed.

    I didn't define myself properly. I meant to say once a tyrannical force takes power, and has the power of hate speech laws, we're all toast.

    Consider these two environments, which one is a tyrannical force more likely to propagate within:
    • One where they have hate speech laws which the tyrannical force can interpret to suit them.
    • One where freedom of expression is a right which can not be suppressed.(independent courts and constitution etc..)

    We may stop tyrannical forces using the method you mention(preventing people from talking about things), but you also throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I believe de-platforming people like Milo only leads to bitterness between his supporters and others. Why not have him out in the open where we can mock him(where he will most likely fade to obscurity).

    De-platforming them also martyrs them. Which is the opposite of what you originally sought to accomplish. Akin to the Streisand Effect.


  • #566
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I didn't define myself properly. I meant to say once a tyrannical force takes power, and has the power of hate speech laws, we're all toast.

    Consider these two environments, which one is a tyrannical force more likely to propagate within:
    • One where they have hate speech laws which the tyrannical force can interpret to suit them.
    • One where freedom of expression is a right which can not be suppressed.(independent courts and constitution etc..)

    We may stop tyrannical forces using the method you mention(preventing people from talking about things), but you also throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I believe de-platforming people like Milo only leads to bitterness between his supporters and others. Why not have him out in the open where we can mock him(where he will most likely fade to obscurity).

    De-platforming them also martyrs them. Which is the opposite of what you originally sought to accomplish. Akin to the Streisand Effect.




    When a tyrannical force takes power, they can make their own hate speech laws. They won't need to hide behind ours. Are we a tyrannical force?


    History has shown that trying to leave a$$holes like Milo alone doesn't work. In germany shortly before the nazis, the government allowed right wing groups to grow, despite the huge amount of lies they were spreading (they even accused the government of being run by jews), with the exact same hope - that 'normal' people would see through the lies. They didnt.


  • #567
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    yoke wrote: »
    When a tyrannical force takes power, they can make their own hate speech laws. They won't need to hide behind ours. Are we a tyrannical force?


    History has shown that trying to leave a$$holes like Milo alone doesn't work. In germany shortly before the nazis, the government allowed right wing groups to grow, despite the huge amount of lies they were spreading (they even accused the government of being run by jews), with the exact same hope - that 'normal' people would see through the lies. They didnt.

    Right is bad...left is good...
    Jesus thats some dumb sh1t.


  • #568
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    When a tyrannical force takes power, they can make their own hate speech laws. They won't need to hide behind ours. Are we a tyrannical force?

    That's the thing.. its not so easy just to make your own laws like that. It's far easier to have existing laws in place to abuse. Do you admit these laws can be abused? I'm sure a lot of people would be happy calling Trump a tyrant, imagine if he got his pre-election wish to silence those he disagreed with?

    Imagine he had hate laws that he could interpret for his own purpose. I'm sure the U.S. won't succumb to tyranny precisely because of their independent justice system and constitution.

    I see good intentions behind the people advocating hate laws, but that's what the road to hell is paved with.

    When thinking of hate laws you must consider; how could my worst enemy interpret this?

    This hypocrisy from the allies during the Nuremberg trials was quite telling. A lot of the crimes they prosecuted the Nazis for they were guilty of themselves.
    "Making Justice at Nuremberg, 1945 - 1946"
    By Professor Richard Overy
    Most difficult of all, the western states had to accept Soviet insistence that only Axis aggression was covered by the new legal instruments[hate crimes].

    The victor will always be the judge and the vanquished the accused.


  • #569
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    Right is bad...left is good...
    Jesus thats some dumb sh1t.

    Right and left? You’re the only one mentioning those words.. did you even read the discussion?

    What a fvcking moronic post


  • #570
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,428 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    yoke wrote: »
    When a tyrannical force takes power, they can make their own hate speech laws. They won't need to hide behind ours. Are we a tyrannical force?


    History has shown that trying to leave a$$holes like Milo alone doesn't work. In germany shortly before the nazis, the government allowed right wing groups to grow, despite the huge amount of lies they were spreading (they even accused the government of being run by jews), with the exact same hope - that 'normal' people would see through the lies. They didnt.

    Comparing modern western society with the socio economic disaster zone that was post World War One Germany isn't reasonable. Nor is comparing Milo with the Nazi's.
    The normal German people of that era were in a situation that lent itself to being taken advantage of by a group like the Nazis in a way which just doesn't exist in the west in modern times.

    Glazers Out!



  • Advertisement
  • #571
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    That's the thing.. its not so easy just to make your own laws like that. It's far easier to have existing laws in place to abuse. Do you admit these laws can be abused?

    Of course they can be abused - any law can be abused. I’ve been painting immigrants in a good light in my above posts, but I’m also aware of the “bad” immigrants who very often leave the country without paying their last electricity bill and/or racking up a nice credit card debt before they leave. It’s basically abusing the fact that they’re allowed to leave a country while still having a debt in that country, ie. abusing our freedom laws. Does that mean we should remove that freedom, ie. People with debt can’t leave the country?
    I see good intentions behind the people advocating hate laws, but that's what the road to hell is paved with.

    When thinking of hate laws you must consider; how could my worst enemy interpret this?

    It’s always going to be a balance between how often the law can be abused, and how often it can be applied to good effect. That’s the same with any law, whether it’s about “standing your ground when a burglar enters your home” or about “spreading hatred”, any law is going to have a potential for abuse. The job of the lawmakers is to make the law in such a way as to minimize potential for abuse, and they can adjust the laws if they are seen to be being abused a lot.
    <...>
    The victor will always be the judge and the vanquished the accused.

    Not arguing with you here, rape was a huge problem perpetrated by some of the victors, and not prosecuted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Soviet_occupation_of_Poland


  • #572
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #573
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #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.


  • #575
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #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
  • #577
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭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.


  • #578
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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.


  • #580
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭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!


  • #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
  • #582
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭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 :)


  • #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.


  • #584
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭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.


  • #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.



  • #586
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭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]


  • #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


  • #588
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #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.


  • #590
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #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
  • #592
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #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?


  • #594
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭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'


  • #595
    SexBobomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #596
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭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.


  • #597
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭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


  • #598
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭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


  • #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.


  • #600
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #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