This discussion may have outlived its productive life, so I may have to extricate myself from it.
@JNP: I actually don't know anything about the Alex Jones thing, but if you're doing something that harms people, then it's actionable in court. If it's not actionable, then there's nothing there. Without knowing the specifics, that's all I can say. It sounds like he pissed off a lot of people and they want to hurt him somehow, but the courts weren't having it.
@Amelius: I'm not sure where or how I've disrespected you in this thread, but if I did, it was certainly not intentional. The guy in the video I linked to is an extremely mild center-right commentator, but if clicking on it exposed you to something unpleasant, then I'm super sorry about that and will be more careful about posting such things in the future.
I did click on the articles you posted, but did not fully read them. The title of the first one actually advocated violence against people you disagree with, so that's a non-starter for me. The second one I read for a little bit, but the author was basically trying to justify his own deplatforming of someone who it sounds like had bested him in previous exchanges. It seemed self-serving and self-righteous so I lost interest very quickly. I just went off your summary. If there's something specific in there that you think I need to see, please point me to it and I'll have another look.
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Comic Talk and General Discussion *
Is Censorship Counterproductive? /TLDR
It took a while (after he as already taken off the air) but he’s finally getting taken to court for it. This is a guy that tells people about the government using chemicals to turn people (and frogs) gay! I knew someone at my old job that believed the shootings were fake. Heck, you can’t always suggest that if something is harming people it’d go to court. What the courts decide is and isn’t harmful doesn’t hold water a lot either. I know Tantz would have several stories about that too!
It absolutely is a public lynching. Not literally, obviously, but yes, if you're taking extralegal means to go after someone because you don't think the authorities are punishing them fast enough or severely enough, that makes YOU the bad guy. Again, I don't know anything about the Alex Jones story specifically, but it doesn't matter. Even if it turns out he did do something wrong, that doesn't retroactively make the lynching right.
Ah, fair enough, though I wish you'd made clear that was a nonstarter in your first response, I'll avoid those then.
I wish I could find the better article for it that doesn't delve right into punching and gets to the meat of the danger of debating, "He who fights monsters" and all that.
(As to the disrespect thing, it wasn't here, but the comment section of a comic where you said things you didn't think I'd see, but that's neither here nor there. Thank you for your apology about the video though, you probably weren't even aware of what was happening in the comment section, and you can't be blamed for youtube's algorithm rabbit hole.)
Anyway, I'll pull some better quotes from the articles.
From the first article:
What liberals are not getting is that defending a Nazi's right to "free speech" is playing right into their game. Nazis and all other groups of fascists always hide behind the right to free speech until they grab power. It's a strategy that's been used time and time again.
In 1928, when the Nazis entered the Reichstag for the first time, their future Minister of Propaganda proudly declared, "We do not come as friend nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies: As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come." He continued to write that democracy was "stupid" for even allowing them to enter the Parliament.
Seven years later, when the Nazis had completely taken over the government, he wrote, "we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without any consideration the means which were granted to us in the times of opposition."
Back then, it was a mistake to even allow Nazis to participate in democracy when they explicitly stated their intentions. And right now, men like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos have also made their intentions very clear. We need to believe them.
Liberals often like to argue that even though Nazis are despicable, we should debate them to prove how awful they are. Sadly, liberals' debate skills will not defeat fascism. In fact, it only further legitimizes it by making Nazism seem like a legitimate opposing viewpoint rather than the destructive force it truly is.
Quote from another article that it links to:
Fascism is a cancer that turns democracy against itself unto death. There is no reasoning with it. It was specifically engineered to attack the weaknesses of democracy and use them to bring down the entire system, arrogating a right to free speech for itself just long enough to take power and wrench it away from everyone else. Simply allowing Nazis onto a stage, as the BBC did when it let British National Party leader Nick Griffin sit and debate with political luminaries on its Question Time program, is to give them an invaluable moral victory. Like creationists who debate evolutionary biologists, the former benefit mightily from the prestige of the latter.
In using this tactic, Nazis abuse the democratic forum to illegitimately lend credence to something that is otherwise indefensible, the equality of the stage giving the unforgivable appearance of “two sides” to a position that is anathema to public decency. This is not because Nazis love democracy or free speech, but because they know how to use this strategy to unravel them.
As to the second article, you said
The second one I read for a little bit, but the author was basically trying to justify his own deplatforming of someone who it sounds like had bested him in previous exchangesDude, what article did you read! XD She did not deplatform known white nationalist and misogynist Steve Bannon, she refused to speak at a conference alongside him, and in fact her exact quote is this:
To speak personally, my opposition to Bannon’s place at this conference has nothing to do with wishing to see him silenced — that would be infeasible as well as illiberal.
I’ve spent much of the past five years hearing out and attempting to debate people like Bannon, and in my experience it only emboldens and legitimizes them. As far as I am concerned, I am not interested in hearing those arguments again.
This is a woman who refused to speak on stage with a known misogynist who is not going to argue in good faith, faced backlash for declining the appearance, and then another conference rescinded their invitation to Bannon after the backlash.
She was never bested by Bannon because she refused to engage him in debate in the first place. If you've ever had to argue with someone who fundamentally has no respect or regard for your humanity, you should know it's pointless.
A good quote I heard is "If you wrestle a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it".
Here's another quote from her long discussion though:
Focusing the conversation on the ethics of disseminating speech rather than the actual content of that speech is hugely useful for the far right for three reasons. Firstly, it allows them to paint themselves as the wronged party — the martyrs and victims. Secondly, it stops people from talking about the actual wronged parties, the real lives at risk. And thirdly, of course, it’s an enormous diversion tactic, a shout of “Fire!” in the crowded theatre of politics. But Liberals don’t want to feel like bad people, so this impossible choice — betray the letter of your principles, or betray the spirit — leaves everyone feeling filthy.
Again, I know people passionate about free speech and censorship especially in light of recent events, and don't wish to categorize people who are concerned as downright siding with the bad guys, but a lot of the victims and targets of fascist violence certainly view it that way.
Well he is getting sued by some of the families that lost kids or had survivors. Does that make those families BAD GUYS? After he keeps calling them actors. He was public lynching victims.
I don’t consider removing his show a lynching. It’s more akin to “not soon enough”.
With some of the air of annoyance from earlier posts I also feel the need to simply say I’m enjoying my talk with you right now.:) I do not wish my text to be read as anger. I am not reading your text as such. And I don’t feel you’re doing that with mine either. Just sometimes when the same two people with differing opinions go back and forth like this it can seem like an argument.
In case there is any lingering tension from any reader I simply felt like adding said disclaimer :p
Edit: ack sometimes I wish the forum gave one of those (someone posted while you were typing) warnings!
@Ameilius: So, the key point I'm taking away from the excerpts (and it is a good point) is the problem of bad faith. Some people have no principles, and just want to win by any means necessary. This is people who vote not because they believe in the democratic process, but because they view it as an avenue to getting what they want. When their candidate wins, they're thrilled; when their candidate loses, they refuse to acknowledge the winner. It's like me making a wager with you, and I'm more than happy to take your money when I win, but I have no intention of paying you when I lose. I just thought it was an easy way to get paid. This is a universal problem, and it is real, and it goes both ways.
I don't really have much to say about it; that's just something I thought was generally assumed in these interactions. Both parties in a debate are trying to get something from each other, whether it's fascists vs. progressives, or anarchists vs. socialists, or what have you. If the exchange is not worth it, then you don't engage. That's fine. If fascists are a fringe group, it's probably not worth engaging with them. If they are as rampant as some seem to believe, then I think you have to confront them sooner or later. That's just my opinion.
@JNP: I didn't detect any annoyance, and I'm find with people suing him if they feel wronged. Everything I see and hear about Alex Jones suggests to me that he's bad news and loose a few screws, so I don't blame anyone for letting him get under their skin. I guess the main problem is, I think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, because banning him doesn't undo the damage he's done, and proactively banning someone because you think they might do something… I'm not even going there! Someone can go all over social media and post that I'm a child molester. I can't undo that. It's just the world we live in.
I totally agree there. You can’t proactively ban someone. Heck, I don’t even know if it’d been good to ban him after the 1st time he said it. By the second or third time though and when it began to become a thing it’s time to pull the plug. Damage is done yes. But this went on for a very long time and the good ol US gave plenty more shootings for him to keep the traction going with. In most cases I don’t like censorship. But as with anything there are limits. We just don’t all agree on the line.
I prefer the line to be really far out there myself.
We might all be missing something here when it comes to whatcan be done specifically about this.
First the concept of a public versus a private forum has to be defined. Second, should this involve government as in some countries' banning of Holocaust denial or China's rigid internet police or should it be left in the hands of the various internet hosting sites.
So we don't let Alex Jones on Twitter or YouTube. All well and good, but his ideas still have a home on the internet with infowars.com so he is not being censored. Twitter is not a public forum, whereas the internet is.
You can have responsible public discourse and debate without allowing the fringe a voice. Censorship. That is until the censors come center stage and kill everyone who disagrees with them. Committee of Public Safety anyone? We're only doing this to protect everyone from hate speech and anything else we can label as not being correct in our eyes. Tyranny is tyranny no matter the noble reasons it is promulgated. Something else Edmund Burke, Cicero and even Plato spoke about.
An open public forum, but private entities are free to limit speech how they will. If the government wants to set up a public forum site so everyone can vent – fine. If a private individual wants to do that – good. Newspapers and broadsheets everywhere like in the days when the ideas of public discourse were first debated. Want to spout off? Start a newspaper or create a website or self publish a book. Walk the streets with signs, but don't burn down businesses or smash up cars.
But never say that I don't have to right to put my opinion out there too. But hold me responsible for what I do say if it leads to the harm of anyone. I can say things but I can't destroy another's property or cause physical harm.
One has to define terms for things like these so everyone understands them rather than spout vague platitudes or the sametired example of impending evil. It's not always the Nazis, sometimes it's the Bolsheviks or the Khmer Rouge. It comes from both sides at the middle.
One person's hate monger is another's advocate for right and justice.
Just something to think about.
El Cid wrote:
But who gets to decide what that ideal is? The "Experts?" Experts are people; people have biases. Specialized knowledge often just means you're better at supporting positions you actually hold for ideological reasons or self-serving professional reasons rather than purely intellectual ones. Experts are not saints, and they don't get to dictate on pure authority. That is totalitarian thinking.
Now, this may be a minor point in this debate, but given that I've been taking an active part in the cognitive science research/debate about biases, I'd like to follow up:
ElCid, why do you take the fact that biases exist as an argument against expert opinion? I see two options, neither of which seems to support your point: Either everyone is biased, i.e. there's kind of a common baseline of biases, but experts just rise to a higher degree above this baseline by way of being better informed, and so, their opinion would still be preferrable, all things considered; or you think that biases beat every kind of knowledge (acquirement/transfer) whatsoever - a rather nihilistic outlook which should defeat your even taking part in any kind of debate, I suppose.
Please help me understand your argument here.
In any case, experts should of course not "dictate" opinions or solutions; but they should plausibly be considered a more valuable source of information than non-experts, and solutions should be based on legit info.
The word "bias" often carries the connotation of a predisposition not based on evidence. An evidence based belief system that is tested and critically examined before adoption I would not call a bias.
I'd argue that is what makes an expert. Bill Nye is not a scientist but he is very well studied in science and very knowledgeable. That's still an expert despite a lack of academic credentials. However a lot of media go "expert" shopping for various stories to bolster their point of view. I had a discussion about how Trump could be compared to Andrew Jackson. My opponent quoted an article that used an obscure academic from a Tennessee college whereas I referenced the views of the authors of several recent and highly regarded biographies and studies of Jackson and his era. She had a bias and found an "expert" to support. I had an evidence based viewpoint.
There's a difference and I believe that is what El CID is referring to.
Well, in his same post, ElCid rightly pointed out a phenomenon known as post-hoc justification, where you basically simply use your accumulated knowledge to justify a view you had already made up your mind about. And ElCid is right to point this out: The accumulation of knowledge by itself does not make you an informed person, but rather also your willingness to let your mind be changed in the face of it.
Additionally, your use of the term -
bravo1102 wrote:-, as far as I can see, does not represent the way the term "bias" has been commonly used in recent cognitive science, since it usually encompasses cognitive tendencies which cannot be willingly influenced (i.e. not by knowledge). It is, however, not excluded that they can be influenced by training, so if you learn something which contradicts a bias you have, you might be able to train yourself to change your cognition accordingly.
The word "bias" often carries the connotation of a predisposition not based on evidence. An evidence based belief system that is tested and critically examined before adoption I would not call a bias.
In any case, I think my previous comment's point is not touched by this: What we know about biases does not make for a reason not to prefer informed opinions to uninformed opinions.
Actually I don't see any real disagreement just a few nuances based on word usage. I read your post and was saying to myself "wasn't that what I said?"
Must be my typing this on a smart phone rather than a standard keyboard. It somehow clouds my phrasing along with all the interruptions.
And you are aware that CBT is based on overcoming bias (predetermined thought processes) through cognition? And it's an accepted and proven therapy with teams of literature supporting it?
My point should have been very clear, so I almost shouldn't even bother responding to this. Experts are people, too, so they are not always objective (like, say, a thermometer). They are vulnerable to groupthink and fads and all the rest. For example, the population of people who go into social sciences is not a representative sample of the population at large, and their preexisting social and political views do not represent those of the population at large. These are often people with a mission, and they will use their positions not just to promote objective science, but to prop up their own social views. This is how you get PhDs who will tell you with a straight face that there is "no biological difference between a man and a woman," which they absolutely know is not factually correct, but it's fashionable within their social circles. That's what I'm referring to.
There were some researchers who submitted an excerpt of Mein Kampf for publication to a prestigious academic journal, but simply replaced terms like "Jews" and "fatherland" with trendy jargon like "LGBTQ" and "toxic masculinity," and it was accepted. So, no, you can't just automatically defer to someone else because they're an expert on a subject. Experts are human; they are not saints. The decisions we make can be *informed* by facts, and we can look to trusted experts to help guide us through that, but at the end of the day, our decisions will be based on individual subjective factors, and no other person gets to override that just because they "know better" than we do.
El Cid wrote:
My point should have been very clear, so I almost shouldn't even bother responding to this.
You know, my "please help me understand…" was polite for: what you wrote does not establish what you claim it does (which, I think, was to contradict Oz's point).
El Cid
no, you can't just automatically defer to someone else because they're an expert on a subject. Experts are human; they are not saints. The decisions we make can be *informed* by facts, and we can look to trusted experts to help guide us through that, but at the end of the day, our decisions will be based on individual subjective factors, and no other person gets to override that just because they "know better" than we do.
No one said that you have to automatically defer to experts. The point is: Biases and bad peer reviews do not show that expert opinions aren't generally more valuable than ignorant's opinions. Which just means to say that not all opinions should be treated equally. (Which in turn does of course not mean that people should be kept from voicing them, but our discussion was more about engaging them or giving them equal space.)
bravo1102 wrote:
Actually I don't see any real disagreement just a few nuances based on word usage. I read your post and was saying to myself "wasn't that what I said?"
Must be my typing this on a smart phone rather than a standard keyboard. It somehow clouds my phrasing along with all the interruptions.
And you are aware that CBT is based on overcoming bias (predetermined thought processes) through cognition? And it's an accepted and proven therapy with teams of literature supporting it?
You said:
bravo1102 wrote:
An evidence based belief system that is tested and critically examined before adoption I would not call a bias.
My point was that some biases you just can't get rid of through "testing and critical examination" because they "often operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control" (http://www.ihi.org/communities/blogs/how-to-reduce-implicit-bias). This distinction between being able to willfully influence your biases (i.e. by conscious examination of your beliefs) versus a lack of intentional control seems import to me. CBT will typically encompass more than critical examination. But perhaps that's what you'd meant in the first place, and if so, my point is moot, of course.
Instead of being polite, you should have just said what you mean, so I'd understand you! ;p
I'm not going to revisit the context of that old statement, but as for what you're talking about right now. .. so, you don't believe we should automatically defer to experts - that's obligatory; you know you're required to say that in order to sound reasonable - but you also believe some people's opinions matter more than others. .. which sounds like you're either contradicting yourself, or saying nothing at all. Either way, I don't really care; it seems like a miniscule thing to get caught up on.
The way I see it, when people try to censor others, they have to face one of two risks:
1. Allow certain artists to do whatever they want regardless of how much their "best" is not worth their "worst", despite the fact that these artists which you may not like are at least spreading publicity to sources that can really catch your interest (the same way Shadman's backgrounds partially put Zach "Psychicpebbles" Hadel on the map enough to get him an internship work for Spongebob, or even Jhonen Vasquez's/John Kricfalusi's original works a decade before they worked for Nickelodeon)
Or
2. Get the artists censored yet lose the positive side to your personal reputation to the point they WILL find ways to roast you, and it won't be pretty. O_o
Just look at what Andy Serkis did to Theresa May! https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=7s&v=Tjp5OmoDYQM
El Cid wrote:You're essentially saying that the only way other than assigning equal value to all kinds of differently-informed opinions is to let someone "dictate" your opinion – and for me to deny that is to contradict myself or say nothing at all? Wow. Is it really so outrageous to think that there should be a big difference between the credibility you assign to a typical climate scientist and a typical flat earther?
I'm not going to revisit the context of that old statement, but as for what you're talking about right now. .. so, you don't believe we should automatically defer to experts - that's obligatory; you know you're required to say that in order to sound reasonable - but you also believe some people's opinions matter more than others. .. which sounds like you're either contradicting yourself, or saying nothing at all. Either way, I don't really care; it seems like a miniscule thing to get caught up on.
You're supposed to judge an opinion by the quality of its contents, not by whose opinion it is. Climate scientists are fully capable of supporting nutty ideas. Germany's National Socialists were the darling of intellectuals, right up until they started eating their neighbors.
There is an interesting tension cropping up as society becomes, in general, more inclusive. Because, ironically, the more groups and people that are included in shared spaces, events and forums, the more calls there are to exclude other people and groups from those very same spaces, events and forums.
For example, in New Zealand this year the Auckland Pride Parade, a festival that celebrates and promotes it inclusiveness, banned NZ Police from marching in the parade in uniform.
A group within the "rainbow committee" that organized the event objected to police uniforms on the grounds that police actions against the community, both past and present, meant that police should not be welcomed. It was suggested that the sight of police uniforms could be a trigger for some participants of the parade. The official reason given was "for the safety of members of the LGBTQI+ community."
Opponents of the decision, and there were many within the LGBTQI+ community, could not understand how an event celebrating inclusion could then exclude people. The board responsible said no-one was banned, they just could not march in uniform. However, no restrictions were placed on firefighters or military personal marching in uniform. Meetings on the subject became fraught, and there were reported scuffles. Other Pride Parades across the country stated that police were welcome to march in uniform. The military pulled out of the event, and many sponsors pulled funding.
When one group is included, but sees another as opposing, disrespecting, or possibly endangering them, as was the case in this example, there is often a call to exclude that other group. The more inclusive we become, the more opponents are identified, the more triggers there are, the more lines-in-the-sand are drawn.
Where should the lines be drawn, and who can be considered for exclusion? Is free-speech more important than protecting people from abuse, threats and potentially triggering language? There are many exclusionary spaces and forums set up to protect people from harm, or just to provide a friendly, safe area, but how are those compatible with inclusion? Should inclusion even be the goal?
One problem with limiting speech on the basis that someone may be offended by it, is that bad actors can and will exercise veto power just by disingenuously claiming they're being “triggered,” when in fact they just don't believe their goals will be furthered by substantive discourse. This is cry-bullying: intimidate and silence your opponents not through the threat of force, but by pretending they've somehow victimized you simply by disagreeing with you.
For a functional adult, it would seem the proper course of action that if a topic or point of view makes you uncomfortable, you can choose not to participate in the discussion rather than declaring all speech that fails to cater to your point of view categorically off limits.
I’m an old-timer who navigated flamewars on Usenet newsgroups. Unfortunately they never handled it as well as El Cid. Hopefully we’ll learn how to bring light to the darkness like he does.
Sometimes I read YouTube comments just to see if people actually believe what sort of nonsense the vloggers came up with. With me personally, I try to always keep my comments positive at least on YouTube. :-)
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo