Author Topic: No-Platforming  (Read 945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kanzenkankaku

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Gender: Female
No-Platforming
« 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.

Offline Svata

  • Doesn't even fucking know anymore
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Gender: Male
  • No, seriously, fuck astrology.
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2017, 02:54:32 am »
Obligatory
"Politician" is the occupational equivalent of "Florida".

Offline SomeApe

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #2 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 :) )
just your regular ape

Offline Lana Reverse

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Gender: Female
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #3 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.
I also pissed in an old woman's sauce pan when I was a child. Have you?

Offline Svata

  • Doesn't even fucking know anymore
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Gender: Male
  • No, seriously, fuck astrology.
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #4 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.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 04:36:45 pm by Svata »
"Politician" is the occupational equivalent of "Florida".

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #5 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.
Σא

Offline Eiki-mun

  • der Löwe aus Mitternacht
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Gender: Male
  • On the fields of Breitenfeld.
    • Main Personal Blog
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #6 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).
There is no plague more evil and vile to watch spread than the plague that is the Von Habsburg dynasty.

Offline Svata

  • Doesn't even fucking know anymore
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Gender: Male
  • No, seriously, fuck astrology.
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #7 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.
"Politician" is the occupational equivalent of "Florida".

Even Then

  • Guest
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #8 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"?

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3808
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #9 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.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote
If you don't like what I'm saying, there's a good chance you're the reason I'm saying it.

Quote
Be weird, cause normal is boring.

Offline TheContrarian

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Inter faeces et urinam nascimur
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #10 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.


"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Offline Eiki-mun

  • der Löwe aus Mitternacht
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Gender: Male
  • On the fields of Breitenfeld.
    • Main Personal Blog
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #11 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.
There is no plague more evil and vile to watch spread than the plague that is the Von Habsburg dynasty.

Offline SomeApe

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #12 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!
just your regular ape

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #13 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.
Σא

Offline Svata

  • Doesn't even fucking know anymore
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Gender: Male
  • No, seriously, fuck astrology.
Re: No-Platforming
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2017, 12:07:06 am »
Yeah, that's less okay.
"Politician" is the occupational equivalent of "Florida".