Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My God someone has been reading too much Breitbart.

"Deplatform"? "Adverse economic impacts"?

So you're saying that when someone bad-mouths religion so it gets in the way of Franklin Graham monetizing his hate, they ought to shut the fuck up, and if they don't the state ought to stop them or the right-thinking good guys ought to deplatform them, is that what you're saying?

I picked up “deplatform” from Harris, not Brietbart. But how you know that’s a term Brietbart uses (assuming that’s true) is an interesting question. Are you that into masochism? What’s your “self safe word”?

I’m not asking the state or anyone else to stop anyone. I want absolute free speech without regulation by state, or by boycott. I want all ideas to be available and subject to scrutiny without “private prior restraint via threat of economic loss.”

I want something as close as possible to Twain’s “Privilege of the Grave” before one is dead: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-the-grave/amp

I can’t enforce this, as it’d violate free speech. But we can and should marginalize through mockery people who try to economically cripple those who say thing they don’t like by adopting the cultural rule, “He who fights ideas or words by seeking through economic force to silence their speakers is an enemy of the spirit of free speech, and authoritarian in his leanings. He is simple and low and lacks confidence in the strength of his own positions. A smart and secure man lets the marketplace of ideas regulate itself on the strength or weakness of the ideas offered to it.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You're talking about a buffalo omelet. Fundamentally, the buffalo approach of hot sauce and blue cheese works on an enormous universe of food, even if most of the world only does it with chicken. It is one of the few things upstate NY has figured out that the rest of the world hasn't. It is also about the only spicy thing you'll find north of yonkers. Have some salt potatoes on the side.

I’ve lived this long and not had one. And I’ve been to Saratoga and Syracuse. I’ve been cheated by whatever it was I ate there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You're lying. You're not expressing a preference as to how civilized people should behave. You said:

"Response is always fine. If you don't like a joke, your exercise of free speech allows you to say so. But when you cry to the refs for a deplatforming of the comic, or pundit, you're beyond your free speech rights."

And I'm trying to figure out what exactly these "free speech rights" are that you claim have been exceeded -- do they come from the Constitution, from God? -- and why someone who claims to be so concerned about protecting free speech is sitting here lecturing us about what people should and should not be allowed to say. You may not like boycotts or calls for someone to be fired, but they are just as much "free speech" as anything else. I would express surprise that you are unable to grasp this, but I understand it is if hard to stay focused when you're trying to keep all those cocks in the air.

You are somewhat beyond free speech rights in seeking to destroy someone financially. You can be sued for that. Are you suggesting I am advocating that crim prosecution be an available sanction against Twitter mobs and boycott nuts? I think I’ve made clear I’m 100% opposed to that.

You should be allowed to say anything you like. As a society, we should judge as odious all attempts to silence speakers via economic means. It’s legal, of course, and it must remain so, but just as Trump’s gaming of the system in endless ways should not be celebrated, shutting speakers up by taking their jobs or pushing advertisers via boycott is “hacking” or end-running around free speech, which contemplates a self-regulating market of ideas. That gaming deserves to be viewed as what it is - a dumb thug’s response.

Trump is the king of crushing critics via lawsuit. I see no difference between those loathsome “spend the little guy into the ground” tactics and organized mob panics of low people seeking a famous person’s head for some comment they find offensive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Refs are any actor who can deplatform a speaker or create adverse economic impacts on speaker adequate to shut the speaker up.

So an editor or a publisher. In other words, you're offended by letters to the editor.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So an editor or a publisher. In other words, you're offended by letters to the editor.

Too silly for response. Reload.

ETA: A publisher can be a ref, yes. But it’d be an unethical one. One who allowed dollars to overrule all else. By which I guess I would mean most editors who would fire a reporter or pundit to satisfy the boycotters or social media mobs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I see no difference between those loathsome “spend the little guy into the ground” tactics and organized mob panics of low people seeking a famous person’s head for some comment they find offensive.

Really? You can't see any difference there? Do these two look the same to you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Too silly for response. Reload.

ETA: A publisher can be a ref, yes. But it’d be an unethical one. One who allowed dollars to overrule all else. By which I guess I would mean most editors who would fire a reporter or pundit to satisfy the boycotters or social media mobs.

I don't understand who your refs are, if not publishers, or the editors they hire. You're not talking about government actors, and the only other people who can respond to a boycott are publishers. I agree it's all silly, but the basic problem is that you haven't figured out who you are analogizing to referees.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Really? You can't see any difference there? Do these two look the same to you?

Thousands of idiots crying for a head are probably more powerful than Trump.

When the advertisers get freaked out by the whacko mob, fame provides almost no shield for the target. That person is now in exactly the same shoes as the reporter being sued by Trump. (In fact, the reporter might be in a better position, as he might have a paper protecting him. The famous person is in the Jesus position, with the board playing Pontius Pilate if too many advertisers bail.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't understand who your refs are, if not publishers, or the editors they hire. You're not talking about government actors, and the only other people who can respond to a boycott are publishers. I agree it's all silly, but the basic problem is that you haven't figured out who you are analogizing to referees.

The refs are editors, advertisers, employers... They are anyone the mob can apply to to punish the speaker economically. I use “playing to the refs” because it describes the type of person who tries to shut down a speaker. He’s the kid who doesn’t want to engage. He wants to have the opponent taken out on fouls so he doesn’t have to compete.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't understand who your refs are, if not publishers, or the editors they hire. You're not talking about government actors, and the only other people who can respond to a boycott are publishers. I agree it's all silly, but the basic problem is that you haven't figured out who you are analogizing to referees.

Here's the thing, Sebby's attacks on me here are an attempt to deplatform me, they are "beyond his free speech rights", so you need to ban him from this site. You're the mod, you're the ref.

I am continually astounded. I think Sebby's said the dumbest thing ever, and then, viola, another post, and the bar is lowered again. How Sebby managed to use the phrases "deplatform" and "beyond free speech rights" without everyone thinking it was ironic tells us how low he has gone.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's the thing, Sebby's attacks on me here are an attempt to deplatform me, they are "beyond his free speech rights", so you need to ban him from this site. You're the mod, you're the ref.

I am continually astounded. I think Sebby's said the dumbest thing ever, and then, viola, another post, and the bar is lowered again. How Sebby managed to use the phrases "deplatform" and "beyond free speech rights" without everyone thinking it was ironic tells us how low he has gone.

Deal with my response to you where I cite Twain.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Really? You can't see any difference there? Do these two look the same to you?

There are many ways to take on an idea you don’t like, but two tend to be most used.

1. Attack idea on its merits.

2. Attack and silence the source.

Both are fine tactics. But 2 is a thug’s move, and it avoid possibly useful discourse. 1 should be encouraged over 2. 2 should be considered low behavior.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You are somewhat beyond free speech rights in seeking to destroy someone financially. You can be sued for that. Are you suggesting I am advocating that crim prosecution be an available sanction against Twitter mobs and boycott nuts? I think I’ve made clear I’m 100% opposed to that.

You should be allowed to say anything you like. As a society, we should judge as odious all attempts to silence speakers via economic means. It’s legal, of course, and it must remain so, but just as Trump’s gaming of the system in endless ways should not be celebrated, shutting speakers up by taking their jobs or pushing advertisers via boycott is “hacking” or end-running around free speech, which contemplates a self-regulating market of ideas. That gaming deserves to be viewed as what it is - a dumb thug’s response.

Trump is the king of crushing critics via lawsuit. I see no difference between those loathsome “spend the little guy into the ground” tactics and organized mob panics of low people seeking a famous person’s head for some comment they find offensive.

I'm somewhat beyond free speech rights but should be able to say anything I like? Using economic means against speech you don't like is legal (of course) and must remain so but is also beyond free speech rights? I mean, I get it. If you argue every side of a position, then you're likely to be right at least some of the time. So you just keep on keeping on, defending free speech absolutely. Except when you don't like that speech.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are many ways to take on an idea you don’t like, but two tend to be most used.

1. Attack idea on its merits.

2. Attack and silence the source.

Both are fine tactics. But 2 is a thug’s move, and it avoid possibly useful discourse. 1 should be encouraged over 2. 2 should be considered low behavior.

You agree Flower can dislike Maher because of his stance on vaccines?

Having a TV show is not a right. In fact it is about attracting people in numbers to watch. I think you'd agree Flower can decide not to watch Maher because he preaches non-vax?

What if Flower decides Maher is convincing too many parents not to vax. So he writes HBO and says- "You decide who you put on TV. Okay. I watch shows on HBO where you show ladies' naked breasts. BUT I can see ladies' naked breasts on other stations so I will cancel my HBO if you don't take Maher off. This decision is because he convinces parents not to vax and my kids go to school with the non-vaxed offspring."

How is that low? If flower is speaking for a small minority Maher won't be touched, but if lots of people feel the same he will.

Low behavior might be asking the FCC to fine HBO for showing Maher, but Flower can vote with his $$$$. I just don't see what you're saying here.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The refs are editors, advertisers, employers... They are anyone the mob can apply to to punish the speaker economically. I use “playing to the refs” because it describes the type of person who tries to shut down a speaker. He’s the kid who doesn’t want to engage. He wants to have the opponent taken out on fouls so he doesn’t have to compete.

I need some examples from you.

Is there nothing that can be said for which people can say, "If you advertise on this person's show, I want nothing to do with your product"?

Are you just limiting it to jokes? Are there awful, terrible jokes that could qualify?

Is it just the responsibility of the people who call in to object to something they find offensive--meaning, are the referees ever the target of what you have deemed to be unfair? If ABC finds Roseanne's bullshit offensive without the threat of boycott, do they get special dispensation from your "angry mob" issue because it's their network?

People who have a public platform should have the luxury of saying whatever they want without worrying about consequences if they offend huge swaths of people? How do you think they earn their money if not by appealing to as many people as possible such that they justify their existence to whoever the fuck employs them or advertises on their shows?

TM