Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
The only reason I shared it, was to perhaps offer the perspective of someone who truly advocates for free speech, by quoting someone that did so in hopes that people who may feel like they have the moral authority to decide what speech is outside of that right to think on it.
Did that upset you?
What upsets me is the equating of restriction of access to the services of a private business and infringement on free speech. That Chomsky quote was specifically about freedom of speech in the legal or government sense - let's not forget that he kicks it off by invoking Goebbels and Stalin. Saying that supporting Twitter or Instagram restricting access to their platforms for someone who uses them to traffic in hate speech and incitements to violence is akin to being anti-free speech in the way to which Chomsky is referring to it is specious.
I don't think anyone except someone on the most extreme fringes would say that Kanye West, Donald Trump, whomever, doesn't have the right to spew hatred and bile for the Jews, or whomever else, with every breath that comes out of their lungs. But a platform on social media isn't an inalienable right. It's a private service ruled by terms and conditions stated by the businesses that offer it. It'd be like, if I owned a bar at which I'd hung a sign on which was written, "No white supremacists," saying that I either refrain from kicking out someone who's standing on the table spouting white replacement theory at the top of their lungs, or I'm against free speech.
Chomsky is absolutely right that advocating for freedom from persecution by the government for speech requires understanding that it doesn't just apply to speech we like. But Twitter, Instagram, the national news, whatever...they aren't the government, and deplatforming hate speech through the restriction of their services, if decided on by the outlets in question, has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
So, again...posting that quote in the context of the conversation that was going on? Bullshit.
The only reason I shared it, was to perhaps offer the perspective of someone who truly advocates for free speech, by quoting someone that did so in hopes that people who may feel like they have the moral authority to decide what speech is outside of that right to think on it.
Did that upset you?
Maybe free speech but it doesn’t mean speech free of consequences. 🤷🏻♀️ Say stupid and dangerous shit, you deserve consequences.
I really can’t believe I’m quoting this but “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” There was no point to Kanye’s “free speech” other to incite hate and yeah, fuck that.
Last Edit: Oct 10, 2022 22:06:24 GMT -5 by EAP - Back to Top
rude.
3post1jack1
Which Ditch Bridge Troll Wannabe God-King of the Cone
Ok, my bad. Then what was the point of posting that quote in this context?
The point of me posting that quote, was to point out that one either supports free speech, or they don’t and want certain speech censored.
I support free speech, but also support the right of businesses or organizations to restrict speech at their locations or on their platforms.
The question of speech restrictions on social media is a hairy one, as these platforms have for better or worse become a "public square". We as a people are having that discussion right now. But under current rules Twitter is totally free to ban whomever they want for whatever reason they decide. And you and me can decide if that is an injustice or not. But the alternative is the government telling Twitter who they can and cannot ban, and that in my opinion is a very bad idea.
In addition, Kanye is free to say whatever he wants on whatever platform will allow him, whether that be social media or news or his own records. But we are also free to say that his speech is stupid and dumb and he seems unwell. And if he engages in enough speech that makes us react that way then maybe he loses cultural cache. Maybe he becomes less cool. Maybe he sells less shoes and clothes and records and tickets. Maybe then he he is vulnerable enough that some good people can get into his circle and encourage him to seek help.
But that's probably not how this ends. It's probably going to end badly. And that really sucks because there was a time that Kanye meant a whole lot to me and a lot of other people.
I'm a huge free speech guy. I think some people spend way too much time finding reasons to publicly shame people for stupid shit. I think this is its own mental illness that offers little reward and only amplifies suffering. But I don't think the ravings of a legit sick person like Kanye is the free speech hill to die on.
Also plenty of mental ill people don’t go on hate speech tirades, so I don’t know that I’d like for us to completely blame it on that.
I have bi-polar. I’ve somehow managed to not get banned from any social media site or make everyone on Inforoo think too badly of me. Probably has something to do with not actually believing in anti-Semitic conspiracies. Who knows for sure.
The only reason I shared it, was to perhaps offer the perspective of someone who truly advocates for free speech, by quoting someone that did so in hopes that people who may feel like they have the moral authority to decide what speech is outside of that right to think on it.
Did that upset you?
Maybe free speech but it doesn’t mean speech free of consequences. 🤷🏻♀️ Say stupid and dangerous shit, you deserve consequences.
I really can’t believe I’m quoting this but “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” There was no point to Kanye’s “free speech” other to incite hate and yeah, fuck that.
Not saying anything when you have nothing nice to say, is a great rule of thumb that I personally live by. But, Im also not interested in forcing anyone to live by that policy though I will and have often suggested it. And I'm also not for any organization dictating what is, and what isn't inflammatory speech. I think we're all well read enough around here to know that what isnt considered dangerous speech today, could easily morph into dangerous speech tomorrow.
Though of course, any private forum, even if it is camouflaged as a public one, has the right to censor.
The point of me posting that quote, was to point out that one either supports free speech, or they don’t and want certain speech censored.
I support free speech, but also support the right of businesses or organizations to restrict speech at their locations or on their platforms.
The question of speech restrictions on social media is a hairy one, as these platforms have for better or worse become a "public square". We as a people are having that discussion right now. But under current rules Twitter is totally free to ban whomever they want for whatever reason they decide. And you and me can decide if that is an injustice or not. But the alternative is the government telling Twitter who they can and cannot ban, and that in my opinion is a very bad idea.
In addition, Kanye is free to say whatever he wants on whatever platform will allow him, whether that be social media or news or his own records. But we are also free to say that his speech is stupid and dumb and he seems unwell. And if he engages in enough speech that makes us react that way then maybe he loses cultural cache. Maybe he becomes less cool. Maybe he sells less shoes and clothes and records and tickets. Maybe then he he is vulnerable enough that some good people can get into his circle and encourage him to seek help.
But that's probably not how this ends. It's probably going to end badly. And that really sucks because there was a time that Kanye meant a whole lot to me and a lot of other people.
I'm a huge free speech guy. I think some people spend way too much time finding reasons to publicly shame people for stupid shit. I think this is its own mental illness that offers little reward and only amplifies suffering. But I don't think the ravings of a legit sick person like Kanye is the free speech hill to die on.
I wasn't really commenting on twitter having the right to censor on their platform. Obviously they do, and more obviously they will. And of course, having consequences for your free speech is part of what free speech is all about. If a business makes a post about how they won't service the LBGTQ Community, they will lose sales, and also gain weird, creepy supporters in the process.
I don't think Im dying on any hill by quoting Chomsky when people are literally discussing the paradox of tolerance. Allowing people you may not like, to say things you're not interested in hearing. Just because Chomsky has some bad ideas, doesnt discount the fact that free speech is a good one. Im not interested in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
We have had some posters through the years that just had to be censored. And I mean through banning. They had very different views from "most" of the forum. We allowed them to their right to speak. But the fall out that ensued got dangerous. One case in point was a poster that stepped so far out of line they used google maps to track down a member's home and even went after their medical data online. WTF
My point is some don't know how to stop. Or where the line is. So I showed them the line, out the door.
I support free speech, but also support the right of businesses or organizations to restrict speech at their locations or on their platforms.
The question of speech restrictions on social media is a hairy one, as these platforms have for better or worse become a "public square". We as a people are having that discussion right now. But under current rules Twitter is totally free to ban whomever they want for whatever reason they decide. And you and me can decide if that is an injustice or not. But the alternative is the government telling Twitter who they can and cannot ban, and that in my opinion is a very bad idea.
In addition, Kanye is free to say whatever he wants on whatever platform will allow him, whether that be social media or news or his own records. But we are also free to say that his speech is stupid and dumb and he seems unwell. And if he engages in enough speech that makes us react that way then maybe he loses cultural cache. Maybe he becomes less cool. Maybe he sells less shoes and clothes and records and tickets. Maybe then he he is vulnerable enough that some good people can get into his circle and encourage him to seek help.
But that's probably not how this ends. It's probably going to end badly. And that really sucks because there was a time that Kanye meant a whole lot to me and a lot of other people.
I'm a huge free speech guy. I think some people spend way too much time finding reasons to publicly shame people for stupid shit. I think this is its own mental illness that offers little reward and only amplifies suffering. But I don't think the ravings of a legit sick person like Kanye is the free speech hill to die on.
I wasn't really commenting on twitter having the right to censor on their platform. Obviously they do, and more obviously they will. And of course, having consequences for your free speech is part of what free speech is all about. If a business makes a post about how they won't service the LBGTQ Community, they will lose sales, and also gain weird, creepy supporters in the process.
I don't think Im dying on any hill by quoting Chomsky when people are literally discussing the paradox of tolerance. Allowing people you may not like, to say things you're not interested in hearing. Just because Chomsky has some bad ideas, doesnt discount the fact that free speech is a good one. Im not interested in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
OK, if we are talking about tolerance i'm with you on that as well. but what kanye tweeted was "death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE". he maybe confused "death con" with "defcon" but still the point of the tweet seems to be that "JEWISH PEOPLE" are dangerous and we should be wary of them.
there are views i can and should be tolerant of, even if it's something i feel strongly about. like if someone is anti-abortion for moral reasons, i get it. i think human life is great and worth protecting, so if someone believes life begins at conception so they find abortion abhorrent i am tolerant of that and will listen. but i also think the issue is fuzzy enough that we shouldn't allow the government to get between a woman and her doctor. it's an individual decision, and for that reason i'll probably always be pro-choice.
i also concede that there is a distinctive illiberal streak in some Extremely Online corners of social media against heterodox opinions that is bad, and in some ways that illiberal streak has creeped through into certain institutions over the past few years, but i also think there has been enough pushback against it that it's not something to worry about long term. in other words good speech against bad speech appears to be working.
but asserting that there is a jewish conspiracy and/or jewish people as a whole are dangerous is just a tired and hurtful stereotype going back centuries (millenia?). i don't need to entertain that or tolerate it.
Post by Christopher Shawn on Oct 11, 2022 8:53:23 GMT -5
We should be wary of anyone with a podium the size of Kanye's talking crazy. And no one needs to entertain it or tolerate it. No one has to tolerate or entertain it. That's what block buttons are for.
one thing i really don’t get about twitter is that it allows people to essentially say they want to g*nocide trans people but if i wish death on them that constitutes a ban. they really cherry pick the hateful content they allow to keep on the platform which has made me want to use it far less. Reddit is like that as well, they allow some incredibly hateful subs to remain but the second you advocate for violence or desire to fight back youre banned. I think this ye thing is an example of twitter doing the right thing but its not an infalliable system.
Last Edit: Oct 11, 2022 8:59:29 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
I support free speech, but also support the right of businesses or organizations to restrict speech at their locations or on their platforms.
The question of speech restrictions on social media is a hairy one, as these platforms have for better or worse become a "public square". We as a people are having that discussion right now. But under current rules Twitter is totally free to ban whomever they want for whatever reason they decide. And you and me can decide if that is an injustice or not. But the alternative is the government telling Twitter who they can and cannot ban, and that in my opinion is a very bad idea.
In addition, Kanye is free to say whatever he wants on whatever platform will allow him, whether that be social media or news or his own records. But we are also free to say that his speech is stupid and dumb and he seems unwell. And if he engages in enough speech that makes us react that way then maybe he loses cultural cache. Maybe he becomes less cool. Maybe he sells less shoes and clothes and records and tickets. Maybe then he he is vulnerable enough that some good people can get into his circle and encourage him to seek help.
But that's probably not how this ends. It's probably going to end badly. And that really sucks because there was a time that Kanye meant a whole lot to me and a lot of other people.
I'm a huge free speech guy. I think some people spend way too much time finding reasons to publicly shame people for stupid shit. I think this is its own mental illness that offers little reward and only amplifies suffering. But I don't think the ravings of a legit sick person like Kanye is the free speech hill to die on.
I wasn't really commenting on twitter having the right to censor on their platform. Obviously they do, and more obviously they will. And of course, having consequences for your free speech is part of what free speech is all about. If a business makes a post about how they won't service the LBGTQ Community, they will lose sales, and also gain weird, creepy supporters in the process.
I don't think Im dying on any hill by quoting Chomsky when people are literally discussing the paradox of tolerance. Allowing people you may not like, to say things you're not interested in hearing. Just because Chomsky has some bad ideas, doesnt discount the fact that free speech is a good one. Im not interested in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I mean, literally no one - OK, maybe some people, but again, I think they're outside the mainstream consensus - is disputing this. I think the sticking point here is whether platforms like Twitter have a legal or ethical responsibility to allow unfettered free speech (keeping in mind that even the First Amendment isn't without its moderation - the whole "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" being the prime example) on their privately held and operated platforms, and whether thinking that they don't makes one anti-free speech.
It's like...if I were walking through Times Square and heard a guy ranting at the top of his lungs about how the Jews are secret lizard people and should be exterminated on sight, am I going to call the police on him? No, because I believe in free speech. But I'm also not going to build him a stage, set up a PA, check his sound levels, crank that shit to 11, and wrangle hundreds of people to be his audience, either. That's the difference between tolerating and platforming. Being in favor of free speech means being in favor of someone's right to say something, not their right to have it amplified, and certainly not anyone's obligation to promote, promulgate, or entertain it.
And the irony, here, is that we're talking about people - like Kanye, like Trump - who have literally millions of dollars, and dozens of media outlets hanging on their every word. They have massive, global platforms for their speech even without social media. Pity the poor, anonymous racist or anti-Semite, whose only option if they lose social media is to post something through *literally the dozens of other ways there are to communicate information in the modern world*. Fuck, man, there are sites out there carrying stuff THAT'S TOO VILE FOR 4CHAN. We live in an age of more communication and expression options than have ever existed in human history. Losing one of them because it's a privately held business that considers your behavior detrimental to its operation is not the grand tragedy or iron-gloved totalitarian smackdown as which it's being portrayed.
We should be wary of anyone with a podium the size of Kanye's talking crazy. And no one needs to entertain it or tolerate it. No one has to tolerate or entertain it. That's what block buttons are for.
Block buttons only work to allow people who already disagree with the speech and don’t want to hear it to ignore it. Regulating speech isn’t about allowing people who don’t want to be exposed to certain speech to not be exposed to it. The problem with what he’s said is not that I don’t like to hear it. The problem is that he’s capable of reaching a receptive audience that may want to act on his words by hurting Jewish people. Me hitting a block button does nothing to protect the people who are the potential targets of his words.
I believe in freedom of speech, but there are limits to it. One of those limits is when speech has the potential to cause physical harm. There are laws against inciting a riot because riots are dangerous. There are laws against calling for violence against other people because part of the role of the government is supposed to be to protect its people.
We should be wary of anyone with a podium the size of Kanye's talking crazy. And no one needs to entertain it or tolerate it. No one has to tolerate or entertain it. That's what block buttons are for.
Block buttons only work to allow people who already disagree with the speech and don’t want to hear it to ignore it. Regulating speech isn’t about allowing people who don’t want to be exposed to certain speech to not be exposed to it. The problem with what he’s said is not that I don’t like to hear it. The problem is that he’s capable of reaching a receptive audience that may want to act on his words by hurting Jewish people. Me hitting a block button does nothing to protect the people who are the potential targets of his words.
I believe in freedom of speech, but there are limits to it. One of those limits is when speech has the potential to cause physical harm. There are laws against inciting a riot because riots are dangerous. There are laws against calling for violence against other people because part of the role of the government is supposed to be to protect its people.
There aren't limits to free speech. But there is dangerous speech. There is hate speech. And there are very literal calls to violence. A charismatic man, with a strong enough will can convince a lot of people to behave very dangerously.
If you inoculate the population with education, it reduces the appeal and draw of bad ideas. And the passionate chap in this thread made the point that online censorship today isnt a realistic option because you'd be playing wackamole with all of the ways to communicate with your target audience. Especially if you have the pockets of someone that Kanye does.
The block button only allows you to sidestep the conversation. But I don't think any one of us should have the responsibility to dictate what conversations just cant be had. Because people, ultimately are fallible.
For instance...1950s America, discussing racial equality is dangerous. Not so much anymore because reason prevailed "to a point" through not only conversation, legislation but then ultimately violence because the ideas were so vehemently suppressed by a self righteous moral majority.
It's like...if I were walking through Times Square and heard a guy ranting at the top of his lungs about how the Jews are secret lizard people and should be exterminated on sight, am I going to call the police on him? No, because I believe in free speech. But I'm also not going to build him a stage, set up a PA, check his sound levels, crank that shit to 11, and wrangle hundreds of people to be his audience, either.
Block buttons only work to allow people who already disagree with the speech and don’t want to hear it to ignore it. Regulating speech isn’t about allowing people who don’t want to be exposed to certain speech to not be exposed to it. The problem with what he’s said is not that I don’t like to hear it. The problem is that he’s capable of reaching a receptive audience that may want to act on his words by hurting Jewish people. Me hitting a block button does nothing to protect the people who are the potential targets of his words.
I believe in freedom of speech, but there are limits to it. One of those limits is when speech has the potential to cause physical harm. There are laws against inciting a riot because riots are dangerous. There are laws against calling for violence against other people because part of the role of the government is supposed to be to protect its people.
There aren't limits to free speech. But there is dangerous speech. There is hate speech. And there are very literal calls to violence. A charismatic man, with a strong enough will can convince a lot of people to behave very dangerously.
If you inoculate the population with education, it reduces the appeal and draw of bad ideas. And the passionate chap in this thread made the point that online censorship today isnt a realistic option because you'd be playing wackamole with all of the ways to communicate with your target audience. Especially if you have the pockets of someone that Kanye does.
The block button only allows you to sidestep the conversation. But I don't think any one of us should have the responsibility to dictate what conversations just cant be had. Because people, ultimately are fallible.
For instance...1950s America, discussing racial equality is dangerous. Not so much anymore because reason prevailed "to a point" through not only conversation, legislation but then ultimately violence because the ideas were so vehemently suppressed by a self righteous moral majority.
I swear, it's like you're trying to play a tennis match by hitting expertly placed shots against an opponent who's standing on another court. Literally almost no one - in this thread, or anywhere - is trying to dictate what conversations can and can't be had.
What we're talking about is platforming, which is an entirely separate thing. I mean, for another example: Should someone be allowed to come into your home, and scream, in gruesome detail, about how he wants to murder and mutilate you and your entire family at the top of their lungs mere inches from your face for hours on end? Would you tolerate it? Would you support that person's right to do so? If not, why not? Are you trying to dictate what conversations can and can't be had? Don't you believe in free speech? Or, say that happened at your place of work. Or at a concert. Or in a restaurant. Say it happened at your favorite restaurant, every time you went there. Is the idea that, well, you just have to go to a different restaurant, now and forever?
And yeah, I guess I am passionate about this. I believe that allowing hateful rhetoric a megaphone because we all just hoped it'd be defeated in the marketplace of ideas has led to some really awful shit, some of which has directly and harmfully impacted people about whom I care very deeply. This isn't lofty philosophy - this stuff has real consequences. I will 100% go to the mat for your right to say whatever the hell you want without persecution from the government. But I, or Twitter, don't owe anyone a megaphone through which to amplify it.
There aren't limits to free speech. But there is dangerous speech. There is hate speech. And there are very literal calls to violence. A charismatic man, with a strong enough will can convince a lot of people to behave very dangerously.
If you inoculate the population with education, it reduces the appeal and draw of bad ideas. And the passionate chap in this thread made the point that online censorship today isnt a realistic option because you'd be playing wackamole with all of the ways to communicate with your target audience. Especially if you have the pockets of someone that Kanye does.
The block button only allows you to sidestep the conversation. But I don't think any one of us should have the responsibility to dictate what conversations just cant be had. Because people, ultimately are fallible.
For instance...1950s America, discussing racial equality is dangerous. Not so much anymore because reason prevailed "to a point" through not only conversation, legislation but then ultimately violence because the ideas were so vehemently suppressed by a self righteous moral majority.
I swear, it's like you're trying to play a tennis match by hitting expertly placed shots against an opponent who's standing on another court. Literally almost no one - in this thread, or anywhere - is trying to dictate what conversations can and can't be had.
What we're talking about is platforming, which is an entirely separate thing. I mean, for another example: Should someone be allowed to come into your home, and scream, in gruesome detail, about how he wants to murder and mutilate you and your entire family at the top of their lungs mere inches from your face for hours on end? Would you tolerate it? Would you support that person's right to do so? If not, why not? Are you trying to dictate what conversations can and can't be had? Don't you believe in free speech? Or, say that happened at your place of work. Or at a concert. Or in a restaurant. Say it happened at your favorite restaurant, every time you went there. Is the idea that, well, you just have to go to a different restaurant, now and forever?
And yeah, I guess I am passionate about this. I believe that allowing hateful rhetoric a megaphone because we all just hoped it'd be defeated in the marketplace of ideas has led to some really awful shit, some of which has directly and harmfully impacted people about whom I care very deeply. This isn't lofty philosophy - this stuff has real consequences. I will 100% go to the mat for your right to say whatever the hell you want without persecution from the government. But I, or Twitter, don't owe anyone a megaphone through which to amplify it.
I wasn't really commenting on twitter having the right to censor on their platform. Obviously they do, and more obviously they will.
Just to clarify, because I feel like an ass repeating that quote, Sky Daddy Twitter can control the narrative on their platform. They have the right to do it, and they consistently exercise that right. Should they? Yes, its their platform.
Christopher Shawn i am enjoying our discussion but i cannot parse what principles you are advocating for.
Im not advocating for anything in this discussion that I too am also enjoying other than there is either free speech, or no free speech at the end of the day.
If your private forum censors anything, then it is not participating in free speech, and that is their right to dictate that within their garden so to speak.
Exhausting. Then what was the point of any of this? You dropped the Chomsky quote into the middle of a conversation about Kanye West being deplatformed by Twitter and Instagram. You've written at further length about free speech - again, against which *literally no one in this thread* is arguing. What, exactly, are you trying to say? That freedom of speech means tolerating speech we don't like? OK! Grand! We're all in agreement! Peace in our time!
Exhausting. Then what was the point of any of this? You dropped the Chomsky quote into the middle of a conversation about Kanye West being deplatformed by Twitter and Instagram. You've written at further length about free speech - again, against which *literally no one in this thread* is arguing. What, exactly, are you trying to say? That freedom of speech means tolerating speech we don't like? OK! Grand! We're all in agreement! Peace in our time!
Exhausting. Then what was the point of any of this? You dropped the Chomsky quote into the middle of a conversation about Kanye West being deplatformed by Twitter and Instagram. You've written at further length about free speech - again, against which *literally no one in this thread* is arguing. What, exactly, are you trying to say? That freedom of speech means tolerating speech we don't like? OK! Grand! We're all in agreement! Peace in our time!
Exhausting. Then what was the point of any of this? You dropped the Chomsky quote into the middle of a conversation about Kanye West being deplatformed by Twitter and Instagram. You've written at further length about free speech - again, against which *literally no one in this thread* is arguing. What, exactly, are you trying to say? That freedom of speech means tolerating speech we don't like? OK! Grand! We're all in agreement! Peace in our time!
There’s like 5 examples of him not understanding the broader context of the quote. Which makes this all very funny.
