reminds of the whole bari weiss debacle. some with a reputation of pushing their own narrow view point gets told no and melts down epicallyGlenn Greenwald has resigned from The Intercept, apparently because the editors ... well, as he explains↱:
The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept's editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.
The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden's conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.
I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.
Given Greenwald's recent behavior on Twitter, there is a strong prospect that he may have just canceled himself in promotion of a fake scandal.
The article in question will apparently be published, but for the moment, this is apparently the hill where Greenwald wants to plant his flag and make a stand. It's been a strange few years for the congressional spouse and now former media CEO.
†
Update: The Intercept↱ responded this afternoon:
The narrative Glenn presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies—all of them designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign—the Trump campaign—and launder them as journalism.
We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept ....
.... We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors—such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks. We get it. But facts are facts, and The Intercept's record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself.
Ouch.
Greenwald did, as promised, post the disputed article↱, and part of what the reader needs to know is that if the New York Post bombshell fell flat, and by the end of the day it was published had attracted a federal investigation for the possibility of a foreign influence operation, none of that matters insofar as his argument↱, requires the evidence against Biden cannot possibly be false:
The biggest scandal in this whole tawdry, shameful episode isn't (yet) the misconduct or corruption exposed by the emails, but rather the way the intelligence community & journalists united to censor & just lie about these documents ....
Which, in turn, brings us to NBC News↱:
One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden's laptop, a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son and business in China.
The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.
The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.
One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.
†
It is easy enough to remind that function is important, but the tension between what Greenwald considers principled reportage, to the one, and what the publication's legal department might have to say about potential exposure for factual errors in a consequential news story, to the other, is one of the more dramatic examples we have seen, of late, suggesting a problem about the cancel culture complaint.
There will always remain some possibility that it's all true, and if anyone on the side of goodness and rightness had simply failed to go about it in a less delegitimizing manner, we might have been able to prevent some great evil.
This is the same would-be scandal that has Tucker Carlson retreating↱, tonight. Glenn Greenwald is not silenced insofar as his article is up, but the cost is a fair enough question: He has resigned from the media company he founded. But the whole would-be scandal is a complete mess, and in this point we find the turn: The failure to meet certain standards does not mean one is being unfairly canceled or silenced.
And in a time when some dissenters apparently seek to boost their profile through self-cancellation, we come back to the point of the hill where Greenwald wants to plant his flag, and we might consider the possibility that he just canceled himself in promotion of a fake scandal.
____________________
Notes:
@ggreenwald. "The biggest scandal in this whole tawdry, shameful episode isn't (yet) the misconduct or corruption exposed by the emails, but rather the way the intelligence community & journalists united to censor & just lie about these documents. And why is the @nypost account still locked?" Twitter. 21 October 2020. Twitter.com. 29 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3oF6ULB
Baragona, Justin. "Tucker Carlson Suddenly Says It's Time to Leave Hunter Biden Alone". The Daily Beast. 29 October 2020. TheDailyBeast.com. 29 October 2020. https://bit.ly/34CKN0l
Collins, Ben and Brandy Zadrozny. "How a fake persona laid the groundwork for a Hunter Biden conspiracy deluge". NBC News. 29 October 2020. NBCNews.com. 29 October 2020. https://nbcnews.to/2TIx2Xz
Greenwald, Glenn. "Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept". Substack. 29 October 2020. Greenwald.Substack.com. 29 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3kGExKG
—————. "My Resignation From The Intercept". Substack. 29 October 2020. Greenwald.Substack.com. 29 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3kGwCgt
The Intercept. "Glenn Greenwald Resigns From The Intercept". 29 October 2020. TheIntercept.com. 29 October 2020. https://bit.ly/37YLa7L
(Updated 29 Oct 2020, 20.56 PST)
On "Cancel Culture"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
reminds of the whole bari weiss debacle. some with a reputation of pushing their own narrow view point gets told no and melts down epically
The Greenwald adventure probably requires its own thread, but at the same time I can't imagine it going well because the recent stages of his career have been so strident and, ultimately, bizarre. I wonder when he officially fell off the world-go-round. It's easy to note a particular RT appearance, but that's not really it. At least, I don't think so. It might actually be a personal thing he has against the United States, because his country wasn't there for him at a time when he really, really needed them. To the other, he wouldn't be a congressional spouse, either, if we had. Or maybe he would. I just don't see David's ascension happening the same way if we had a different policy in place at some point during the Obama years. Even still, that's reading a lot into it.
But this? Part of yesterday involved any number of journalists pointing out that they wouldn't be where they are without having been saved from themselves by their editors. And the article itself really is something; as cartoonist Tom Tomorrow↱ put it, "My 9000 words on how I don't need an editor is raising many questions answered by …".
There is in this thread a question about left-side cancel culture and insufficient leftwardness, and here we have strange example: The ostensible leftist canceling himself in order to complain about the inadeqacies of liberals and other insufficently leftist associates he finds personally unsatisfactory, in such a manner as to actually support rightism and authoritarianism. Which doesn't actually sound so strange, these days.
____________________
Notes:
@tomtomorrow. "My 9000 words on how I don't need an editor is raising many questions answered by …". Twitter. 29 October 2020. Twitter.com. 30 October 2020. https://bit.ly/37SbReb
Felicity Huffman was given her first actin job sinse she cheeted to get her dauthers into college.!!!
Was she properly cancel cultured considerin the crime she comitted.???
Was she properly cancel cultured considerin the crime she comitted.???
Last edited:
Per Steve Inskeep↱ of NPR, via Twitter:
Cartoonist Barry Deutsch↱ responds, wondering, "Is there anything that isn't cancelling nowadays?"
It was all of August↑ when departing U.S. Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) lamented celebrity endorsement of her opponent, complaining about "out of control cancel culture" that "wants to shut out anyone who disagrees with them".
And this is the thing about the cancel culture complaint in particular. While there exist in the world examples of overzealous censorship, shaming, and cancellation, basic questions of function have always been effective stumbling blocks for a range of complaints, an evolving brand with contiguous political history↑ that never quite understands either itself or the fearsome opponents it imagines.
Still, though, Congressman Jordan is correct, this is about more than impeaching a president. It is also about not canceling the Republic.
Also, note the catch-all: Jordan accuses, "canceling all the people you guys disagree with". Loeffler accuses that "cancel culture" that "wants to shut out anyone who disagrees with them". And the thing is, the bit about attacking every view one disagrees with, or however it is formulated from occasion to occasion, is the stuff of cheap bulletin-board fare. Perhaps it is significant that the cancel culture complaint, having achieved Congressional advocacy, has not gotten any stronger, better, more coherent, or less useless.
____________________
Notes:
@barrydeutsch. "Is there anything that isn't cancelling nowadays?" Twitter. 12 January 2021. Twitter.com. 13 January 2021. https://bit.ly/2XBREmw
@NPRinskeep. "'Tomorrow, they're going to impeach a president. A president who is leaving office in eight days,' says Jim Jordan. 'This is about more than impeaching the president… This is about canceling a president, and canceling all the people you guys disagree with.'" Twitter. 12 January 2021. Twitter.com. 13 January 2021. https://bit.ly/3nCCFDu
"Tomorrow, they're going to impeach a president. A president who is leaving office in eight days," says Jim Jordan. "This is about more than impeaching the president... This is about canceling a president, and canceling all the people you guys disagree with."
Cartoonist Barry Deutsch↱ responds, wondering, "Is there anything that isn't cancelling nowadays?"
It was all of August↑ when departing U.S. Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) lamented celebrity endorsement of her opponent, complaining about "out of control cancel culture" that "wants to shut out anyone who disagrees with them".
And this is the thing about the cancel culture complaint in particular. While there exist in the world examples of overzealous censorship, shaming, and cancellation, basic questions of function have always been effective stumbling blocks for a range of complaints, an evolving brand with contiguous political history↑ that never quite understands either itself or the fearsome opponents it imagines.
Still, though, Congressman Jordan is correct, this is about more than impeaching a president. It is also about not canceling the Republic.
Also, note the catch-all: Jordan accuses, "canceling all the people you guys disagree with". Loeffler accuses that "cancel culture" that "wants to shut out anyone who disagrees with them". And the thing is, the bit about attacking every view one disagrees with, or however it is formulated from occasion to occasion, is the stuff of cheap bulletin-board fare. Perhaps it is significant that the cancel culture complaint, having achieved Congressional advocacy, has not gotten any stronger, better, more coherent, or less useless.
____________________
Notes:
@barrydeutsch. "Is there anything that isn't cancelling nowadays?" Twitter. 12 January 2021. Twitter.com. 13 January 2021. https://bit.ly/2XBREmw
@NPRinskeep. "'Tomorrow, they're going to impeach a president. A president who is leaving office in eight days,' says Jim Jordan. 'This is about more than impeaching the president… This is about canceling a president, and canceling all the people you guys disagree with.'" Twitter. 12 January 2021. Twitter.com. 13 January 2021. https://bit.ly/3nCCFDu
Justin Thomas (Golfer) loses Ralph Lauren endorsement deal for using a homophobic slur.!!!
Was this cancel culture.???
Was this cancel culture.???
When, "Existentially insulting the boss, in public", is so easily confused for "cancel culture" ...
... well, okay, you did say you were "clueluss", but still, that's kind of been the problem with all those complaints about "cancel culture".
Yeah... kinda looks to me like actions have consequences.!!!
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL01)↱ tweeted, "Impeachment is the zenith of cancel culture", and once again we are presented with an example of why the complaint against "cancel culture" is itself dubious.
____________________
Notes:
@RepMattGaetz. "Impeachment is the zenith of cancel culture." Twitter. 25 January 2021. Twitter.com. 25 January 2021. https://bit.ly/2Yc6Qa2
____________________
Notes:
@RepMattGaetz. "Impeachment is the zenith of cancel culture." Twitter. 25 January 2021. Twitter.com. 25 January 2021. https://bit.ly/2Yc6Qa2
I get my info about "cancel culture" from "The View" tv show... an Megan McCain... she hates it... Whoopi Goldberg... she dont like it cause it was done to her... but for Joy Behar -- much like Whoopi... it seems to depend on who its happenin to as to whether or not ther for it... but Sunny Haustin... she perty much thanks its just people experiencin the consequences of ther actions.!!!
Here are some more thoughts on "cancel culture", copied from a post I wrote in the Moderators' forum:
-------------
There is currently, in some quarters, a view that people have a right not to be offended by anybody else. If such a right exists, then it ought to come with ways that the right can be protected. The obvious way to protect against being offended by somebody else's words is to make rules that say that people aren't allowed to say those words in the first place. Alternatively, people who say the words and offend can be censured or punished - or, in the modern parlance - "cancelled", such that they are no longer welcome to speak at all.
The idea of "cancel culture" is fundamentally opposed to the idea of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, if it matters at all, matters most when people are saying things you disagree with, or you'd rather not hear.
I believe that the way to counter evil speech is not to try to ban it or to "cancel" the people saying it. That only drives it underground, and risks giving it legitimacy, because those using it can then argue that "my speech was so dangerous to their vested interests that they banned it". The way to counter evil speech is with more speech. You show why it is evil. You show how it leads to bad outcomes. You show how it harms people. You make an argument as to why it is wrong, and about what is right.
A couple of days ago, I watched a documentary on censorship and "cancel culture" in stand-up comedy. Many prominent comedians in that doco talked about how often people told them "you can't/shouldn't talk about that" in their comedy routines, because "that" would offend some group or other. One example was something like a person complaining about a joke made about a person with only one arm. The (two-armed) complainant said something like "you shouldn't have that joke in your show. There could be a one-armed person in the audience, and they might be offended". Note: the comedian in question had never received a complaint about that joke from any one-armed person. The many incorrect assumptions, on the part of the complainant, include: (a) one-armed people can't take a joke about having one arm; (b) a joke like that would necessarily have the effect of hurting one-armed people in some way; (c) two-armed people who are offended by one-armed people jokes have no choice but to attend a comedy show in which such jokes are made.
And what about all the one-armed people who would have found that one-arm joke hilariously funny? And what of the other 249 people in that comedy club that night along with the complainant, who all laughed at the one-arm joke? Is it right that the complainant should get to deprive both the one-armed people who'd like the joke and the two-armed people who'd like the joke from hearing the joke, just because they - the complainant - doesn't approve of it? Wouldn't it be easier for the complainant simply to take his money elsewhere and not attend that comedian's shows any more?
I would like to make a distinction between actual and perceived harm. If you can show that particular words cause actual harm to a group of people, then I think a case can certainly be made for refusing to provide a platform for those words (which is not the same as banning them, by the way). But if all you can do is to show that somebody is worried that somebody else might be offended by the words, or if all you can show is that some individual says they would rather not have to listen to those words, then I think a case can often be made for telling the complainant to stop listening. If some words offend you, fine. Vote with your wallet. Vote with your vote. Don't, by your own actions, promote those words. Argue against them by all means, as loudly as you want. But don't try to forbid other people from doing the same thing.
-------------
There is currently, in some quarters, a view that people have a right not to be offended by anybody else. If such a right exists, then it ought to come with ways that the right can be protected. The obvious way to protect against being offended by somebody else's words is to make rules that say that people aren't allowed to say those words in the first place. Alternatively, people who say the words and offend can be censured or punished - or, in the modern parlance - "cancelled", such that they are no longer welcome to speak at all.
The idea of "cancel culture" is fundamentally opposed to the idea of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, if it matters at all, matters most when people are saying things you disagree with, or you'd rather not hear.
I believe that the way to counter evil speech is not to try to ban it or to "cancel" the people saying it. That only drives it underground, and risks giving it legitimacy, because those using it can then argue that "my speech was so dangerous to their vested interests that they banned it". The way to counter evil speech is with more speech. You show why it is evil. You show how it leads to bad outcomes. You show how it harms people. You make an argument as to why it is wrong, and about what is right.
A couple of days ago, I watched a documentary on censorship and "cancel culture" in stand-up comedy. Many prominent comedians in that doco talked about how often people told them "you can't/shouldn't talk about that" in their comedy routines, because "that" would offend some group or other. One example was something like a person complaining about a joke made about a person with only one arm. The (two-armed) complainant said something like "you shouldn't have that joke in your show. There could be a one-armed person in the audience, and they might be offended". Note: the comedian in question had never received a complaint about that joke from any one-armed person. The many incorrect assumptions, on the part of the complainant, include: (a) one-armed people can't take a joke about having one arm; (b) a joke like that would necessarily have the effect of hurting one-armed people in some way; (c) two-armed people who are offended by one-armed people jokes have no choice but to attend a comedy show in which such jokes are made.
And what about all the one-armed people who would have found that one-arm joke hilariously funny? And what of the other 249 people in that comedy club that night along with the complainant, who all laughed at the one-arm joke? Is it right that the complainant should get to deprive both the one-armed people who'd like the joke and the two-armed people who'd like the joke from hearing the joke, just because they - the complainant - doesn't approve of it? Wouldn't it be easier for the complainant simply to take his money elsewhere and not attend that comedian's shows any more?
I would like to make a distinction between actual and perceived harm. If you can show that particular words cause actual harm to a group of people, then I think a case can certainly be made for refusing to provide a platform for those words (which is not the same as banning them, by the way). But if all you can do is to show that somebody is worried that somebody else might be offended by the words, or if all you can show is that some individual says they would rather not have to listen to those words, then I think a case can often be made for telling the complainant to stop listening. If some words offend you, fine. Vote with your wallet. Vote with your vote. Don't, by your own actions, promote those words. Argue against them by all means, as loudly as you want. But don't try to forbid other people from doing the same thing.
Last edited:
I cant quite put my fanger on it... but you'r whole post comes acrosss as a mish-mash of gobblie-goop.!!!
Well, think about it some more and see if you can put your fanger on it. Then maybe we can have a useful discussion.
Here's an idea if you don't like my post: Don't hit the "Like" button!
Are you getting my drift, yet?
Bells
Staff member
Okay..
But what happens when they don't stop using the 'evil speech' and keep repeating it?
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Are you talking of individuals on this platform (Sciforums dot com) or do you mean the same ideas and '''evil speech'' being repeated on and on by different people on this platform?
Are you talking of things beyond this platform?
Bells
Staff member
Both.
We've seen 4 years of a President of the United States spouting utter rubbish, showing support for supremacism, dangerous conspiracy theories and downplaying advice in the face of a pandemic (referring to it as just a type of flu).. He was allowed to continue to do this for 4 years. He was 'cancelled' after he incited a deadly riot. But prior to that, nothing whatsoever.
And we have seen the end result of this.
We have also seen the end and continuing result of 'evil speech' being allowed to continue throughout history.
On this site, we have rules by which we can and do "cancel" or shut down threads for hate speech, racism, white supremacism, etc.. Often times, before they are given the education speeches from all and sundry about how and why their comments are wrong, etc.
So I am curious as to what happens when the individual/groups/etc does not stop and instead keep repeating it?
It's fair to say that those espousing or spouting 'evil speech' do not care about its effects on others or that it is deemed 'evil' by others or that it is even dangerous.
The US, as one example, is currently facing a dire prospect of rising white supremacy and worse still, the rise of main-stream white supremacist ideology. In short, it's no longer underground, but is out in the open. For the last 4 years, they were not afraid or ashamed to hide it. They wore it loud and proud and they spread it.
Educating them with more speech, telling them why it is wrong and how and why it is harmful will not work. These people do not care and are proud of their repulsive ideology. They do not care that others think they are wrong or that what they are saying is bad and 'evil'. On the contrary, they adopt it because others are hurt and offended by it.
So what do we do with those millions of people?
Do we try to silence them to stop the spread? Or do we not do so because to do so would be to 'cancel' them?
Hence my question:
what happens when they don't stop using the 'evil speech' and keep repeating it?
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
There's the Dark Web and I think there is the nut job web. Unlike the Dark Web, you don't need a certain type of browser to be on the nut job web, you're on it now.
So, those running ''platforms'' anywhere on the nut job web should decide for themselves if they like what their doing voluntarily.
Some see the problem and start to think, hey, where is all this going to end, and how the hell did it start. What happened to letting everyone have free speech in all subjects from Science to whatever pulls in the punters.
Yes, you can explain things to people again and again but don't let them overrun the platform to the extent you shut the door after the damage is done.
New mods please, this lot are only just waking up to what's going on.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
when society(usa) is designed to be socially recognized as 1 of only 2 warring sides, what is it that is being cancelled ?
where is the middle ground that is supposedly operating with moral integrity & secular moral equality to be "cancellable" ?
it doesn't exist because its only recognition is to be the opposing warring side which is immoral.
self fulfilling prophecy
them versus us
arguably on a moral base point
cancel culture started as a popular social activity in the usa when people started to cancel gay wedding cakes
it quickly spread to government agency's cancelling same sex wedding licensing duties
the "cancelling" was being done by business owners & staff claiming religious freedom as a right to cancel customers.
now the worm has turned
now business people who want to promote racism & apartheid wish to re-write history & lie & say the liberals created cancel culture as a way to interfere with main stream financial process & money control.
it is interesting that in the most capitalistic country in the world where you can buy people guns bombs or what ever you like(a presidency?)
customer choice & social media image control of business image
have always been running cancel culture
take a knee cancel culture demanding they be fired ? = cancel culture !
now it appears that false use of the term for bully power games of the ordinary person is being used to try & validate anarchists & right wing extremists who wish to destroy democracy & claim it as the war against cancel culture.
The theorists are the dangerous aspects & those seeking to be their Himmler, the theory's are no more dangerous than a gun with no ammunition.
argumentatively one could argue fantasy's of a child are more dangerous by their ability to lead the child into a dangerous situation unknowingly.
accidents by people who think they wont have an accident while engaging in dangerous behavior etc ...
contrasted with propagating a group of violent people who seek to enact that violence to seek violent self validation
im not sure a theory can be AS dangerous as the generic collection of conspiracy theorists who are in fact anarchists looking to attack their own self defined enemy as being "society & organized social structure".
this could potentially be aligned with domestic violence to examine domestic abuse as the vehicle of the narcissistic & self destructive mental illnesses.
what is being cancelled ?
democracy !
how ?
by a lynch mob seeking to use murder & violence to over throw the common will of the peaceful democratic will.
what does that make them ?
terrorists & anarchists
where is the middle ground that is supposedly operating with moral integrity & secular moral equality to be "cancellable" ?
it doesn't exist because its only recognition is to be the opposing warring side which is immoral.
self fulfilling prophecy
them versus us
arguably on a moral base point
cancel culture started as a popular social activity in the usa when people started to cancel gay wedding cakes
it quickly spread to government agency's cancelling same sex wedding licensing duties
the "cancelling" was being done by business owners & staff claiming religious freedom as a right to cancel customers.
now the worm has turned
now business people who want to promote racism & apartheid wish to re-write history & lie & say the liberals created cancel culture as a way to interfere with main stream financial process & money control.
it is interesting that in the most capitalistic country in the world where you can buy people guns bombs or what ever you like(a presidency?)
customer choice & social media image control of business image
have always been running cancel culture
take a knee cancel culture demanding they be fired ? = cancel culture !
now it appears that false use of the term for bully power games of the ordinary person is being used to try & validate anarchists & right wing extremists who wish to destroy democracy & claim it as the war against cancel culture.
one could argue the anarchists who espoused conspiracy theory's to begin with were just waiting for someone to paint a target for them.
The theorists are the dangerous aspects & those seeking to be their Himmler, the theory's are no more dangerous than a gun with no ammunition.
argumentatively one could argue fantasy's of a child are more dangerous by their ability to lead the child into a dangerous situation unknowingly.
accidents by people who think they wont have an accident while engaging in dangerous behavior etc ...
contrasted with propagating a group of violent people who seek to enact that violence to seek violent self validation
im not sure a theory can be AS dangerous as the generic collection of conspiracy theorists who are in fact anarchists looking to attack their own self defined enemy as being "society & organized social structure".
this could potentially be aligned with domestic violence to examine domestic abuse as the vehicle of the narcissistic & self destructive mental illnesses.
what is being cancelled ?
democracy !
how ?
by a lynch mob seeking to use murder & violence to over throw the common will of the peaceful democratic will.
what does that make them ?
terrorists & anarchists
Last edited:
Oligarchy , government , which the USA is , is the Least Democratic . And is the most vulnerable to people like trump . Who wanted a dictatorship . That was his Ultimate goal .
I expected that question would be coming.
In the public arena, that's a big problem. You have only to look at the past four years of right-wing American media to see what the cumulative effects of lies told over and over again can be. The problem, in the public arena, I think lies in deciding who we can trust to be the gatekeepers, if we want to go down the route of saying "enough is enough - you don't get to say that anymore", as we might want to do after a lie has been repeatedly and convincingly exposed in the normal course of public discourse. The gatekeeper role, if there is to be one, necessarily comes with a lot of power. It follows that, if there is to be a general gatekeeper for the public good, then there should also be a very thorough set of checks and balances put in place to make sure the power is not abused.
In the private sector, things are a little different. Private companies and organisations can choose to platform (or not) speech, as they see fit, within the boundaries set by public regulation. The assumption is that, if one private organisation "de-platforms" certain kinds of speech (e.g. because it is "evil") then one can, in principle, set up one's own competing organisation to promote that speech, or simply find a different organisation that is willing to promote it.
There are also public goods that can override notions of "free speech". One cannot, for example, murder somebody and then claim that the murder was your way of "freely expressing" yourself. The criminal law, in general, overrides those kinds of "rights".
Trying to stop white supremacy by censoring it is unlikely to work. In some ways, it is good that it is out in the open. It means law enforcement authorities know who those people are, what they are are up to, and where they are. Attempts to shut it down completely just tend to drive it underground. A good analogy, in a different arena, might be to look at what happened with prohibition of alcohol.
Better than outright censorship is appropriate regulation. Almost certainly, the recent moves by Twitter and Facebook to shut down white supremacist groups - not to mention just ceasing the "suggesting" of such groups in the case of Facebook - will make it more difficult for such groups to attract more members and to communicate among themselves. Note, however, that those moves have definitely not made it impossible for those people to organise or to communicate. They have tended, instead, to look for alternative channels; worth mentioning, though, that those channels are nowhere near as useful to the supremacists as platforms for recruitment.
I am interested to hear what you, Bells, think is the "solution" to the problem you raise. Do you think these groups can be effectively "silenced"? If so, how?