FSTDT Forums

Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Kanzenkankaku on May 03, 2017, 02:50:21 am

Title: No-Platforming
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on May 03, 2017, 02:50:21 am
This was briefly touched upon in the Swiss Islamists fleeing to Turkey thread. Someone else said this would make for an interesting topic, so here we are.

I see it as not really being favorable, but understand that no group in particular is obligated to give platforms to anybody. And I especially don't like (as stated previously) when people use threats and violence to remove speakers that were already booked. I understand that a few people here probably disagree, since it's a controversial issue.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Svata on May 03, 2017, 02:54:32 am
Obligatory
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: SomeApe on May 04, 2017, 01:19:13 pm
Sorry for joining the party late, had work to do and this took longer to write than I thought...

I copy this to here for completion's sake:

Denying platform for Islamic fundamentalists? Well done.
Yup! At least one had some control over it, now they go to Erdogan's New Fundie Paradise where they can do whatever they want.

It's true that the social climate has a lot of islamophobia and unfortunately it makes it easy for them to play the victim here. Complaining about conservative values is obviously and hilariously hypocritical coming from religious fundies. This shit poisons the social climate even further: using progressive language in their propaganda discredits it and confuses the message it tries to convey separating the echo chambers from each other more.
Oh, no, they didn't complain about conservative values! They complained that their own conservative values are used as a reason to suspect them of terrorism.

Oops, sorry. The point is still accurate on using islamophobia as a weapon, though.

No need to apologise :) It's probably my bad translation that confused you.
I'm still not sure if your "Well done" was meant sarcastically or literally. I first thought you meant it sarcastically, hence my answer, but I'm not sure.
Don't get me wrong, of course it's good to stop fundies but lately I've been doubting the benefit of the "no-platform-policy". Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires.
But maybe we should start another thread to discuss "no platform" if you're interested.

Yeah, text doesn't convey sarcasm - or lack of it - very well. In this case my approval is genuine.

If you are interested in discussion about denying platform, go ahead and start a thread. It might provide a bit of entertainment for certain people here who like to use Reverse Paragon as their chewtoy because FREE SPEECH. Personally, I generally support non-governmental actors refusing to offer platform for people who they think are spreading hate and preach for violence. I also tentatively support legal action against worst expressions of hate speech as long as the legal term is strictly defined and doesn't limit fact based criticism.

So, thanks to Kanzenkankaku for making the thread and here's my 2 cents:
I first heard of NoPlatforming among AntiFa. "Kein Fussbreit den Faschisten!" - "Not a foot's length to the fascists!" Here, I totally agree with NP. In some cases it's a no-brainer: If it's an illegal group we're talking about, then of course you give them NP. Because doing so would break the law and would get you into trouble. And those groups also can't go around, whining that they don't get their Free Speech because their group is illegal for a damn reason. So, I'm absolutely with the Left here and wouldn't rent my congress space (if I had one, that is) to Neonazis so they can make their rock concert there. (Recent event)

So, here's another recent event from the land where the chocolate and cheese flows:
Some weeks ago, a swiss artist with a degree in literature wanted to organize a debate in a theatre in Zurich. The title of the debate was "Die neue Avantgarde"-"The new avantgarde" It should have been about political jargon, like: what do different people mean when they say words like populism, liberal, or- yes, avantgarde. Invited were two speakers from either side of the political spectrum. Problem: on the right side: Marc Jongen, chief strategist and philosopher of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). The AfD is a far-right party in Germany. (They may be far-right but you can't call every member a nazi, it's just not black-or-white like that.)

The different reactions from the Left ranged from "Hell no, we don't talk to Nazis, we punch their faces!" over "The left position is too weak. The debate should only be held when the speakers on the left gets changed" to "The debate should be held, but without Jongen". Some people were ok with it, some people said: "We can only lose this debate, so let's not have it" which, in my opinion, is the most idiotic reaction of them all. To make things even worse, it was an artist that often works at the same theatre who took the lead on the opposition by writing an open letter against the project shortly after it was announced. So, now, the theatre reacted by scheduling a "pre-event" a week before the actual event. It should have been a discussion, free for everyone, to discuss how the setup of the debate could be changed to make it acceptable for everyone or if it even should be held at all. Sadly, not just the debate itself but even this discussion had to be cancelled, due to threats from the ultra-left. As you can imagine, this was suberb PR for the Right and especially for the AfD. Oh, did I mention that the AfD is a german party which is not even eligible in Switzerland? So what the fuck was there to lose? The audience of this theatre is mostly Left, I don't think Jongen would have had it easy AT ALL!
Conclusion: The Left fought against themselves, while the Right laughed their asses off without having to do anything. Good job! (And this time, dear SCarpelan, it's meant sarcastically :) )
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Lana Reverse on May 04, 2017, 04:33:09 pm
Obligatory

Gonna have to disagree with Randall there. The concept of free speech is not limited to the 1st Amendment.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Svata on May 04, 2017, 04:35:12 pm
Obligatory

Gonna have to disagree with Randall there. The concept of free speech is not limited to the 1st Amendment.


Well, that is the extent of your RIGHTS. Anything more is a privilege.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Sigmaleph on May 04, 2017, 08:02:05 pm
Obligatory

Gonna have to disagree with Randall there. The concept of free speech is not limited to the 1st Amendment.


Well, that is the extent of your RIGHTS. Anything more is a privilege.

Oh hey is it time for this dance again? it is, isn't it. Sigh.

Freedom of speech is an ethical principle that is not the same thing as the protections for speech in the First Amendment, and what the constitution allows the government to do has very little to do with what private individuals should do. It's not illegal to violate someone's freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you should do it either

And if you think speech should be protected only to the extent the law demands you don't actually believe in freedom of speech. Which, ok, that's also a coherent ethical position you can take. You don't have to think people should be able to express their opinions. But, like, please say so.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Eiki-mun on May 04, 2017, 08:31:48 pm
Obligatory

Gonna have to disagree with Randall there. The concept of free speech is not limited to the 1st Amendment.

Let's look at the claims made in the comic.

Claim 1: "The right of free speech doesn't mean other people have to listen to you."
Claim 2: "The right of free speech doesn't mean other people have to use their private property to host what you say."
Claim 3: "The right of free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without criticism or consequences."
Claim 4: "Your free speech rights aren't being violated if you're yelled at."
Claim 5: "Your free speech rights aren't being violated if you're boycotted, i.e. people refuse to listen to what you say."
Claim 6: "Your free speech rights aren't being violated if you have your show canceled or are banned from a privately-owned internet community."

Of these six claims, which do you disagree with and why? All of them sound just fine and dandy to me. Other people do not have to listen to you and respect what you say (claims 1, 3, 4, and 5) and other people do not have to use their private property as a platform for your speech (claims 2 and 6).
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Svata on May 04, 2017, 11:29:39 pm
Obligatory

Gonna have to disagree with Randall there. The concept of free speech is not limited to the 1st Amendment.


Well, that is the extent of your RIGHTS. Anything more is a privilege.

Oh hey is it time for this dance again? it is, isn't it. Sigh.

Freedom of speech is an ethical principle that is not the same thing as the protections for speech in the First Amendment, and what the constitution allows the government to do has very little to do with what private individuals should do. It's not illegal to violate someone's freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you should do it either

And if you think speech should be protected only to the extent the law demands you don't actually believe in freedom of speech. Which, ok, that's also a coherent ethical position you can take. You don't have to think people should be able to express their opinions. But, like, please say so.


Fair enough. They should be able to express whatever they want. That does not mean they should be shielded from the consequences of such. If someone decides that they don't want something being said on the platform they own, they should be able to deny you that platform.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Even Then on May 05, 2017, 12:05:46 am
What kind of speech constitutes "free speech" outside the legal? What rights and entitlements does all speech have, ethically? What reactions to a person saying a particular thing violate the ethical boundaries of societal free speech, and what constitutes "people not being allowed to express their opinions"?
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: dpareja on May 05, 2017, 01:49:53 am
The objection I've seen to that comic is that it came out shortly after that guy at Mozilla was fired for supporting a group other people there disliked, and the comic didn't address the notion of the broader principle, only the narrow right.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: TheContrarian on May 05, 2017, 03:21:32 pm
So, the claim is "no one is obligated to let you use their private property to publicly express your views".

This is of course true.

However "no platforming" generally happens at students' union facilities, which are collectively paid for by the student body as a whole.  So when one group of students invites a speaker to use a facility they have part-ownership of and another group decides to shut that whole thing down using peaceful protests involving a bike lock to the face, you all immediately take their side and ignore the gigantic amount of hypocrisy and entitlement involved in them essentially demanding exclusive control over the usage of said facilities.

If I were a conservative student these days i'd be demanding a reimbursement of any fees paid to the students' union, since there's a group of violent marxists who have denied me the usage of those facilities that i'm still paying for.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Eiki-mun on May 05, 2017, 03:41:20 pm
So, the claim is "no one is obligated to let you use their private property to publicly express your views".

This is of course true.

However "no platforming" generally happens at students' union facilities, which are collectively paid for by the student body as a whole.  So when one group of students invites a speaker to use a facility they have part-ownership of and another group decides to shut that whole thing down using peaceful protests involving a bike lock to the face, you all immediately take their side and ignore the gigantic amount of hypocrisy and entitlement involved in them essentially demanding exclusive control over the usage of said facilities.

If I were a conservative student these days i'd be demanding a reimbursement of any fees paid to the students' union, since there's a group of violent marxists who have denied me the usage of those facilities that i'm still paying for.

Actually, I agree with you. Student union facilities should be considered publicly owned, and no one should be barred from their use because of their political views. That's just common sense.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: SomeApe on May 05, 2017, 03:46:29 pm
So, the claim is "no one is obligated to let you use their private property to publicly express your views".

This is of course true.
Scratch publicly, then yeah.

However "no platforming" generally happens at students' union facilities,

Wrong. Not anymore. I showed two cases of NoPlatforming not related to students.

which are collectively paid for by the student body as a whole.  So when one group of students invites a speaker to use a facility they have part-ownership of and another group decides to shut that whole thing down using peaceful protests involving a bike lock to the face, you all immediately take their side and ignore the gigantic amount of hypocrisy and entitlement involved in them essentially demanding exclusive control over the usage of said facilities.

Doesn't address myself. Who else were you insulting?

If I were a conservative student these days i'd be demanding a reimbursement of any fees paid to the students' union, since there's a group of violent marxists who have denied me the usage of those facilities that i'm still paying for.

Wrong. Read what I wrote. If you did read it all, read it again!
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Sigmaleph on May 05, 2017, 11:15:55 pm
Quote
Fair enough. They should be able to express whatever they want. That does not mean they should be shielded from the consequences of such.

Certain consequences from speech effectively prevent people from expressing their views. People are not able to express whatever they want if doing so will lead to e.g. violence, or losing their livelihood.

Quote
If someone decides that they don't want something being said on the platform they own, they should be able to deny you that platform.

Absolutely. I don't think owning a platform means you owe it to anyone else, and to the extent that no-platforming is about 'A owns a platform, B wants to use it, A says no' I think it's not controversial.

But there is the other kind of no-platforming where A owns the platform and agrees to let B use it, but then C who really dislikes the things B has to say starts exerting pressure on A until they stop letting B talk.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Svata on May 06, 2017, 12:07:06 am
Yeah, that's less okay.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Even Then on May 06, 2017, 02:19:22 am
Are we talking "C issuing (threat of) tangible harm/consequences or actual harassment to A unless they forbid B from using their space" pressure or merely "C repeatedly and/or vehemently verbally requesting A to not let B use their space in a way that doesn't cross over into harassment" pressure? I've seen both get used as examples of "censorship" or "violation of free speech" (the latter by the same crowd that thinks SJWs are using game critique to force game developers to censor themselves). The latter, I think, wouldn't really violate free speech; it'd just be C using their free speech to inform A (and, on a wider scale, D, E, F etc.) of the way B uses their free speech and make a plea for them to exercise their free speech-related negative freedom, with little sanction on A's shoulders beyond displeasure from C should they refuse.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Sigmaleph on May 06, 2017, 11:19:05 am
Are we talking "C issuing (threat of) tangible harm/consequences or actual harassment to A unless they forbid B from using their space" pressure or merely "C repeatedly and/or vehemently verbally requesting A to not let B use their space in a way that doesn't cross over into harassment" pressure? I've seen both get used as examples of "censorship" or "violation of free speech" (the latter by the same crowd that thinks SJWs are using game critique to force game developers to censor themselves). The latter, I think, wouldn't really violate free speech; it'd just be C using their free speech to inform A (and, on a wider scale, D, E, F etc.) of the way B uses their free speech and make a plea for them to exercise their free speech-related negative freedom, with little sanction on A's shoulders beyond displeasure from C should they refuse.

I'm talking about both, sort of.

I mean, C obviously has the right to tell A what they think. And sometimes as a consequence of that A will choose to deny B a platform, as they have every right to. And you can't really say it's a bad thing that C can convince A to change their mind, that's what freedom of speech is for.

But say C starts threatening social consequences (maybe C doesn't want to buy A's stuff, because they are now uncomfortable with A because A associated with B). Again, fully within their rights, you can't force C to spend their money the way you like. And A has a lot of customers beyond C, so this only hurts them a little.

And then suppose C starts a campaign to let D, E, F... know that A is a disgusting promoter of B's filth and the money they give A is in part used for helping B reach wider audiences. Now A really has to seriously consider dropping B, regardless of their opinion on B, because they are going to lose a bunch of money otherwise.

This is, I think, a bad outcome. And yet it's  hard to draw a sharp line saying 'no, you're not allowed to do this' that would prevent this problem without being a worse violation of C's rights. In some sense C did nothing I'd blame them for, but I can prefer they acted in another way, y'know.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Even Then on May 06, 2017, 07:49:28 pm
While 3) does get somewhat closer to violating some spirit of free speech, I personally don't think it really gets to the point of being a violation of it because, as you said, it's an application of C's free speech andit just gives D, E and F the same circumstances that C has in 2) through informing them of the circumstances with B and A. In intent, C might be trying to stop B from having this specific platform, but I feel that the spirit of free speech doesn't really entitle B to a platform to begin with, so at least in that this isn't a violation in the realm of concrete actions separated from intent. However, money is something that is required to survive pretty much globally and A's choice to exercise their free speech one way or another, depending on how successful the letter writing campaign is, is now influenced by whether or not they want to eat tomorrow, which taints the actual freedom of that choice... but any notable financial coercion would, in addition to C, be equally, if not more, on the shoulders of D, E, and F... but they're also free to express their free speech by not supporting a platform and the notion that they have to support A or be free speech hating authoritarian leftists is also a violation of the spirit of free speech...

...shit's complicated and concepts like this are wide. I don't even know if I have a coherent definition of the social concept of free speech as opposed to just vague feelings about it. But I guess that's also liberating, to be able to confidently say "I don't know" and own one's feelings of uncertainty as one's own as opposed to trying to force oneself to think on either side just to not feel the insecurity of mental emptiness?
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on May 06, 2017, 08:39:14 pm
Isn't exerting pressure by protesting, boycotting etc also speech?

It's a no brainer thar if Milo Yiannopolous can come to a university and assert that Trans people are evil and adults screwing middle  schoolers is awesome then yelling at him that he's human smegma is fair play.

I agree let him speak on student union facilities but let his critics in on that free and public ground to tell him what a repulsive shithead he is. If it's publicly owned let the public in, not just his fanboys.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Søren on May 07, 2017, 01:20:15 am
I say give everyone a platform.

If only for the memes for when spastic people that care too much stab each other
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Sigmaleph on May 07, 2017, 09:25:25 am
Isn't exerting pressure by protesting, boycotting etc also speech?

Well yes, that's the point. Everyone freely exerts their rights and as a result some people are not able to exert their rights, because of predictable consequences that harm them if they do. I don't have a good answer to this, just noting it's a thing.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Askold on May 07, 2017, 09:32:28 am
Well, if you have elections, even if those are fair, you will often end up in a situation where the minority of the people can't have their views represented in the government because the views of the majority have more weight behind them.

This does not mean that the rights of some citizens have been taken away.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: pyro on May 07, 2017, 04:10:48 pm
murca: This is why Our Country isn't a democracy. In a democracy, the majority take rights away from the minority, the overcrowded cities opress the rural folks, and the ignorant ignore the experts.

pyro: If votes are such a crapshoot, then why does the government use it so much?

murca: Well... Every alternative is worse!

pyro: Indeed.
Title: Re: No-Platforming
Post by: Kanzenkankaku on May 28, 2017, 07:12:07 am
This is kind of related to this, but more internet focused than on-campus (so if people want maybe I can make a new topic or ask a mod to split this to a new topic) but I've been watching some videos (and reading some tweets) lately about Laci Green opening discussions with anti-feminist channels on youtube. I watched the original vid too.

I found the response disappointing, particularly from Steve "Delete all their channels instead" Shives, Kevin Logan, and Kat Blaque admonishing her like what she did is some kind of betrayal to the feminist cause.