GarbageShootAlt

It's good practice to link the pamphlet or at least name it

If people chose a ‘red’ government, and they are chosen through continued fair elections with no disingenuous means or force, all the power to them.

What would that look like? Specifically, let us imagine a world where it is true that Cuba or the DPRK or wherever does indeed hold free and fair elections on a regular basis, but that everything else about the world was exactly as you, I assume, admit it is (such as the vicious sanctioning and libel by western powers). From where you are sitting, what would the difference be? What sort of information would you be aware of, would you receive from where you are in the world and the media you consume, that was in any way different?

I have some memory of you being reasonable when actually presented with arguments. I would strongly encourage you to try to actual talk to these people that you speak about in such strong pejoratives, perhaps by asking them non-presumptuous questions. I think you will find that they have more to say than you give them credit for.

The people running beehaw are extremely dishonest about this issue, citing "hate speech" as a reason for defederation with platforms that aggressively ban and remove hate speech, including the only instance I know of that actually displays pronouns with the username (Hexbear.net , which they preemptively banned).

The other person was calling them a supporter of fascism, no sense whining about them being "combative" when that's a serious accusation

No I never implied that at all

Emphasis mine

It originally was used to describe Leftists supporting authoritarianism while claiming to be leftist.

Get out of here with that bad faith nonsense

The users from certain other instances are talking about it nonstop and trying to make it a wedge issue, so it's not surprising

Unfortunately I also saw the videos and pictures of tanks grinding bodies into pulp and washing them down drains shortly after this… That one certainly made me think.

No you didn't, because no such video exists. No such video exists because that story -- of pulping bodies and "washing them down drains" -- is ridiculous, impractical nonsense made up by someone who wasn't even there (I forget if it was student leader Chai Ling or one of the reporters sitting in their Beijing Hotel room who is responsible for that specific gem, but both lied about witnessing things they weren't there for).

Why do you need to lie about what you have seen in order to defend your thesis? Aren't these real and serious events that deserve to be treated with gravity? I don't feel particularly inclined to speak so flippantly about the people who actually did die on June 4th -- incidentally the day before the Tank Man video, which is of him obstructing tanks leaving the square.

I appreciate you magnanimity :)

It's also an article by Foreign Policy because I didn't want to get into a spat about sourcing. Mostly it applies to businesses, not people, and unsubstantiated words like "draconian" are doing a lot of heavy lifting. FP likes to obfuscate that fact, but you can see even in what you quoted that they tip their hand on the rhetorical contortions they are doing when they list:

These are often enforced by multiple agencies pursuant to joint punishment agreements covering such sectors as taxation, the environment, transportation, e-commerce, food safety, and foreign economic cooperation, as well as failing to carry out court judgments.

hmm, what do these things all have in common? They all apply overwhelmingly or virtually-exclusively to businesses! E-commerce can, without further elaboration, apply to peer-to-peer interactions like on ebay, and "court judgement" is a similarly vague term, but you don't get some normal private citizen on charges related to "food safety," "foreign economic cooperation," or -- based on it not being titled "traffic law" or whatever -- "transportation", and the overwhelming majority of both tax payment and tax fraud is done by the rich.

There is a social credit system for businesses, and their should be. Reddit memes about "-20 billion social credit score" for posting a meme with lego tanks has no place in reality.

Please read what someone writes a little more carefully before trying to do gotchas. I said:

Of course, my answer is that some speech is worth protecting and some is not and questions of natural rights have nothing to do with that,

i.e. natural rights are not relevant to useful questions about moderation. I only use the term to call the concept irrelevant. Then I said:

so the chauvinistic redditors posting social credit score memes that were tired years ago and thoroughly debunked don’t need a platform

My complaint is letting people post low-effort* memes and misinformation isn't worthwhile, and if your concept of "Free Speech" conflicts with that, then that concept should be replaced by something better because you're just caping for garbage.

*please don't get debate club about this term, it's a waste of time. Shit that is just a jpeg copied and reproduced endlessly so you can get updoots to the left because winnie the pooh is evil is low-effort. If someone does their own bespoke photoshop of the bear copulating with a tank, it is not low-effort, though you should ban that person for other reasons (obscenity, etc.)

this is an illustration of why enforcing ideology is not a good idea

This reminds me of people saying the government shouldn't "legislate morality," i.e. be involved in or have a stance on moral issues. In both cases, it seems to me to be oblivious to the status-quo that ideology/morality are already enforced in those respective domains and there is no end in sight for that.

The admin who kindly gave me some of his time indeed already shared the basic ideological tenets of the administration policy. The deplatforming of rudeness, of crassness, and of, uh, "lumping one type of people into a group indiscriminately" are all ideological concerns unless you want to look at it merely as market concerns, as though that changes the fact.

It's also common practice to at least nominally ban the spreading of misinformation, though our host gave no indication of doing that, and this again is also a highly ideological tenet. If misinformation drives engagement -- and we know it can -- why ban it? Presumably because it is also a social ill, or because you want to have a positive reputation, etc.

But these are things that are obfuscated in the "Discourse," thanks in part to the wonderful legacy of classical liberal authors who wanted to find a way to make their ideology look like non-ideology (see Locke using faux a priori arguments to protect the property rights of monopolists).

If you want a comparison, I'll use the Republican whipping-dog because you are probably familiar with it. Repubs talk a big game about "Small government." "The government that governs best governs least." "The most terrifying sentence in the English language is: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" And yet, though they are not alone in this, they are perhaps the most enthusiastic supporters of increasing the power and funding of police and the military! That doesn't seem like "small government" to me! But that's because when they talk about "government" in this context, that's not what they mean, they mean a very narrow subset of laws mostly connected to austerity and corporate deregulation that they want to promote. This kind of double-talk is a rhetorically powerful tool for derailing critical thinking by essentially baiting the listener into conflating cases that are very different.

The blanket denouncement of "enforcing ideology" reminds me of that. Sure, there are bad ways to do it, and you provided an example, but that does not mean it cannot be done well and it obfuscates that it is already being done! The question is not about whether or not to enforce ideology, but what ideological lines to enforce and how. The status quo is not neutral just because we have been habituated to it!

Edit: Total aside, but I don't believe in natural rights (I think human welfare is better advanced by other frameworks), I was just speaking in terms of the ideology of the Constitution, which does support that idea.

Ha, fair question! They have plenty of people they dislike, but what I was trying to refer to was their opposition to what they call "tankies" and I call "People who believe that the US lies about its enemies, particularly its big geopolitical rivals." Specifically, while they are conversationally annoying about it, what really bugs me is their campaign to defederate and get others to defederate from spaces they deem "tankie-friendly". I think that really undermines the platform as a whole to pillarize things that way (i.e. closing things off into silos).

"Sectarianism" arguably isn't the right word for that (it has intra-ideology connotations), but I didn't think it was worth splitting hairs over.