Adult Content Warning

This community may contain adult content that is not suitable for minors. By closing this dialog box or continuing to navigate this site, you certify that you are 18 years of age and consent to view adult content.

Intellectual Dark Web Dark Money

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Dcc001, Dec 16, 2018.

  1. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    335
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    Kampf has two great points:

    1. Why, in the last five years or so, has context ceased to mattter? To reuse my Michael Richards example, he screamed something appauling like, “Get these niggers out of here!” in a club. By this logic, I myself am just as guilty, because I had the audacity to not censore myself when I was quoting someone. Sure, the word is hateful, but NO word is so powerful that it can’t ever be spoken. Particularly when the context is to discuss how terrible the word is. You don’t eliminate racism by turning words into bogey men. In a broader sense, there is an overarching theme that everything is as bad as everything else and context is irrelevant. Which is one of the things the IDW speaks out against, and draws heat for. It’s ridiculous.

    2. If someone disagrees with you, they are not just incorrect or in oposition to your opinion. It’s because they’re clearly a [alt right, bigot, racist, etc]. Certainly, some people are. But speaking against any particular idea in our culture right now means you’re on “the other side,” and is stripping all discourse. If I agree with Sam Harris on a point, then clearly I think Islam is evil. Jesus, people even call JOE ROGAN alt right. It’s become a blanket term if someone speaks against a particular opinion.

    That’s what I do like about the IDW - even if I don’t agree with the individual members on most things. At least they have the balls to have nuanced discussions on difficult topics, and to tell the rabble rousers to fuck off. In particular Peterson and Shapiro. Watching Q&A with them from an opposing point is rarely anything other than a blood bath, because not enough people are carefully weighing their own opinions.
     
  2. Clutch

    Clutch
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    397
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,260
    In the broadest definition, alternative right would mean any right wing person who dislikes the current establishment GOP. That's going to include a pretty diverse set of inconsistent ideologies including neo-nazis, libertarians, Trump-style populists, and people who support traditional family values but aren't evangelical christians. You even saw the occasional classical liberal who was disenchanted with the identity politics that was dominating the left towards the end of the Obama era. It blew up in 2016 because Donald Trump's campaign appealed to many of those people for various reasons. Anymore, I really only ever see the term being used by people accusing others of being "alt-right" as a means to imply that they are racist or bigots without actually having to provide any evidence of racism or bigotry. It's a dog whistle.
     
  3. Jimmy James

    Jimmy James
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    156
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,726
    Location:
    Washington. The state.
    It couldn't be that one platform had had enough dealing with the backlash of dealing with Alex Jones' looney tunes bullshit and banned him, and when the other platforms weighed the perception of still hosting that nutbag against the platform that didn't and saw it as a net positive, they banned him too. Couldn't be that, right?

    Anyway, Patreon doesn't look great for banning someone based on what they said on a completely different platform. If Patreon thinks this guy could get enough attention to damage Patreon's reputation, then Patreon owes it to the people that work for them and to the investors in the company to protect itself. If banning someone that uses racial epithets from your platform, regardless of context, is what Patreon feels it needs to do, then they should do it.

    In this day and age, most people aren't all that interested in going beyond a tweet or Reddit title. Nuance and context is lost. I'm sure Patreon understands this. Otherwise, why even be in that gray area of, "Well, we know this person said this slur, but how they used it matters." That's not the real world. Patreon would instantly become known as the brand that allows white people to say the n-word and get paid for doing it.

    There are no words in the English language with the same power to harm white people like there are for people of color or LGTBQ folks. I say this out of personal experience. Being called white trash by a bunch of Asians hurt infinitely less than being called a gook by a white guy. It's not even close. You will never convince me otherwise and it is a foolish endeavor to try.

    It sounds to me that you're upset that people are making value judgements on a person's character based on the opinions they have. If someone cries about white genocide, I feel pretty safe categorizing that person as a white supremacist. If a person is anti-abortion, I feel pretty safe categorizing that person as anti-women's rights.
     
  4. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    335
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    No. It isn’t anything besides a premeditated, coordinated banning that was planned in advance. You can’t be naive enough to think that Apple, within an hour of YouTube, thought, “Hey, let’s ban that asshole, too!” And what Jones - as crazy as he is - proves is that there exists communication between the online giants, and that they have at least some kind of rudimentary agenda to push.

    It’s not letting me quote multiple times. I think the notion that white people ought to be subjected to different censorship rules and that, conversely, racism against whites isn’t really possible is fucking ridiculous and one of my biggest problems with SJWs. If we have a rule, for example on platforms, it must be applied universally. “Black people are dumber than whites,” is a statement worthy of punishment right now. “White people are dumber than blacks,” therefore, is exactly the same and should be subject to the same censorship.

    Sure, we all make judgments on people’s character. My problem is the ridiculous leaps that are being made with no evidence right now. If I say “You shouldn’t be able to censor word usage based off the speaker’s race,” and you then call me an alt right racist, then it’s getting close to the heart of the problem I have with the way people are communicating right now.
     
  5. Binary

    Binary
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    185
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,820
    Look, I'm willing to entertain a lot of discussion, but you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back this up, so just stating it bluntly as, "no, it's completely impossible" is ridiculous.

    All online platforms have watch lists, people that are in the radar to ban but they haven't pulled the trigger on. Those lists are populated almost entirely by crazy people like Jones, they are watched very closely, and they are always on the very edge of being removed.

    It is entirely within the realm of possibility that one platform took another's action as an excuse to ban a problematic user, and to avoid the kind of social backlash that occurs when one platform takes a stand and another doesn't.
     
  6. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    335
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    We can agree to disagree. With the tens of millions of users, all the major platforms banning the same guy on the same day just doesn’t strike me as happenstance.

    And you’re right; I have no proof, so speaking in absolutes was unwise. I just can’t get to a place where they all shrugged their shoulders and took the plunge independently of each other.

    Also, to stress another point - Alex Jones is a crazy bag of shit. I don’t like the thought of defending him; it’s that censorship is a slippery slope and targets the low hanging fruit first.
     
  7. kindalas

    kindalas
    Expand Collapse
    Experienced Idiot

    Reputation:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    222
    Location:
    Ottawa Canada
    Stop calling what happened to Alex Jones censorship.

    He is still free to stand on his soap box and shout to anyone who wants to listen.
     
  8. Nettdata

    Nettdata
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1,686
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,068
    Agreed... as I've said around here before when being accused of censorship via banning, sorry, I'm not censoring anything. You are more than free to say whatever the hell you want, but there is nothing saying that you have to be provided the platform to do that with... you're still more than welcome to go build out your own platform, nothing is stopping you from doing that.

    Just because YouTube and Twitter are huge, doesn't mean that you have a right to use them as you see fit... they are private companies and you have to follow their TOS (assuming their terms are legal).
     
  9. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    335
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    What is the accepted term for removing video and printed content without the author’s consent?

    Again, I dislike anything that even hints of defending that shitbag. We are presently in a state with online media that it’s trending towards monopolies, due to expense and complexity with administration. There isn’t a meaningful competitor to YouTube, for example. So if there’s no real competition, but the company is also not state controlled, how should they be allowed to police their content? I don’t know that there’s a super great answer to that question just yet.
     
  10. Nettdata

    Nettdata
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1,686
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,068
    Why do you think that the author's consent is required for such removal?

    They shut down his account and removed his content... "removal of service", sure, but it's not censorship.
     
  11. Gravy

    Gravy
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    244
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,622
    Location:
    The void.
    I’m backing up to this because I’m truly trying to understand what you want to happen and what your beliefs are.

    So let’s say there is a Jewish t-shirt maker. Neo Nazis come into her shop and say, “hey we want 150 t-shirts for our rally that say, ‘Jews are cockroaches.’”

    You think that there should be a law that says the t-shirt maker must do business with them?

    It’s hate speech but it’s not an explicit call to violence. It’s therefore necessary for the government to step in and enforce that she print those shirts for them.
     
  12. Nettdata

    Nettdata
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1,686
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,068
    In your case, no, the shop keeper has the right to refuse service.

    I think everyone gets confused when it comes to scale, and what appear to be de facto monopolies. At a certain point it's viewed that if you're not on platform X then there is no other option. As a result some people think that there should be some sort of guaranteed right of service regardless of (legal) content.
     
  13. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    335
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    I actually had to look up the definition of censorship now to see who was misusing the term. It’s defined as the omission of media (books, articles, news, video) deemed offensive, obscene or threatening. It doesn’t mention that the omissions be state sanctioned.

    Not to get to splitting hairs, but if a platform deems content obscene or offensive and edits or removes it, then that’s censorship.

    Of course, I’ll stand corrected if if there’s another definition that is exclusive to the state or something.
     
  14. kindalas

    kindalas
    Expand Collapse
    Experienced Idiot

    Reputation:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    222
    Location:
    Ottawa Canada
    censorship
    noun
    cen·sor·ship | \ˈsen(t)-sər-ˌship \
    Definition of censorship


    1a: the institution, system, or practice of censoringThey oppose government censorship.

    b: the actions or practices of censorsespecially : censorial control exercised repressivelycensorship that has … permitted a very limited dispersion of facts— Philip Wylie

    2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor

    3: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor

    Examples of censorship in a Sentence
    Recent Examples on the Web

    Everything in the museum is rated G and PG, with the exception of a basement suite called The Blue Room, which tackles edgier topics like censorship, taboo, and free speech.— Suzanne Rowan Kelleher, Condé Nast Traveler, "The National Comedy Center Is an Unlikely Attraction That's Putting Western New York Back on the Map," 13 Sep. 2018

    First, there are concerns about promoting censorship and state control in China with Project Dragonfly.— Brian Flood, Fox News, "Google CEO to meet GOP lawmakers regarding alleged bias against conservatives," 28 Sep. 2018

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

    I think you are cherry picking your definitions to get your way.
     
  15. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    335
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    This is actually a great example, and one that I’ve thought about fairly recently. Not with your specific usage, but with the lawsuit that occurred as a result of the baker who refused to custom make a cake for a gay wedding, because homosexuality violated his religious beliefs. It also ties into the Hobby Lobby case where HL was allowed to claim religious exemption as a corporation.

    Here are my thoughts: First, no company can discriminate against a person or group based on any of the legal categories that are protected. Race, gender, religion, etc. Any law that allows a company to do so is, in my opinion, wrong. In Hobby Lobby’s case, I think the courts were incorrect and it should subsequently be illegal to have the company directives/charter explicitly act in a manner that favours or excludes defined minorities (women, gay people,etc). By that same measure, the company cannot exclude service to chest thumping white assholes (in their policies).

    The second part of my belief is that the individual has the right to refuse any action that they determine to be immoral, unsafe or in violation of their beliefs. In the case of the baker, I would argue that while his company cannot explicitly descriminate against gay people, as an individual he can. Given that it’s a one-man small business, this becomes semantics. He can’t write a policy for his company that descriminates but he himself can refuse work on religious principles.

    The third part of this is: can any individual or organization be compelled to grant service by the state? I would argue no. It would be incorrect for the police or the state to force the Jewish t-shirt maker to produce shirts for the KKK.

    Lastly, I think the market would naturally correct for quite a bit of bad behaviour. If that baker openly refused service to gay people, he will quickly find that a large group of people will walk down the street and buy a cake elsewhere. He’ll either be left with a smaller demographic to earn a living off of, or he’ll go out of business, or he’ll change his actions to reflect what the people are willing to pay for.
     
  16. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    335
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    Screen shot of what I get when I google “define censorship.”
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Gravy

    Gravy
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    244
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,622
    Location:
    The void.
    So it should be illegal for a restaurant to offer discounts to active duty military members or veterans?

    Again I’m trying to figure out where your limits are here. I’m not really understanding how all this is supposed to work.
     
  18. Nettdata

    Nettdata
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1,686
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,068
    Yeah, I hear where you're coming from. Moderation is a form of censorship, etc.

    So sure... some online services are censoring people that they don't want to support or assist or provide services to.

    I'm fine with that.

    It doesn't mean that it's not valid or somehow not allowed. There is no right for the user to have access to any particular private communications platform (unless it's part of the charter, like public local access television, etc).

    Everyone is absolutely entitled to agree or disagree with the decision, but that doesn't mean there should be legal action, in my opinion.

    I think it's up to the market to sort it out.

    And that is exactly what appears to be happening with this now... people are talking about it, and I think corrections will be made.
     
  19. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    335
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    No. Offering incentives (10% off with a CAA card, kids under 12 eat free, students save the tax, etc) is not in any way the same as refusing service.
     
  20. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    335
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,087
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    100%. I don’t profess to even begin to know what the right answer is. The digital world is uncharted territory. I hope that whoever the people are that actually attempt to sort this out are this willing to have an open and nuanced discussion.