• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

McInnes, Molyneux, and 4chan: Investigating pathways to the alt-right

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Amused said:
In the 1920s, the Klan had a huge presence in the country. In the 1930s, the American Nazi Party was huge.

Neither was ever outlawed, nor their speech ever banned. And yet both were forced into obscurity.

No one here has advocated banning anyone's speech. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Social pressure is the best remedy to racists and bigots.

You know this. But you, and they, keep trying to equate it ot censorship because you can't stand the sunlight.

View attachment 4508
Click to expand...

Exactly. The intent here is to expose not censor. But of course those who would prefer that their views not be exposed do tend to pretend that exposure is the same as censorship.
And while we're discussing American history, it's worth noting that the only political group that has ever actually outlawed and censored speech in American history is the Mccarthyist Right.
 
Last edited:
You have the right to say anything you want, but don’t pretend speech isn’t regulated in any way in the US, that’s untrue. Speech I disagree with is one thing; speech that encourages violent dangerous behavior is quite another. So-called "libertarians" (typically right-leaning) miss the point when they propose that liberty means that we should protect hate speech, because what they're missing is that by tolerating hate speech, you're also tolerate speech that is essentially anti-freedom, anti-libertarian. The more a society tolerates hate speech, the more it actually engenders the destruction of freedom.

Most European democracies have laws against holocaust denial; there has been no mission creep on these laws and people have not taken them as an excuse to pass further speech-limiting laws. Even in the case of anti-speech laws that we can all agree are pretty awful, like anti-blasphemy laws in Ireland or Canada, we have not seen similar mission creep - those laws are just bad all on their own. They don't lead to further infringement. The lesson from recent history is simply not what you want to make it out to be. You talk about Putin - did his crackdown on journalism, protest, etc. stem from a gradual worsening of laws that infringed on free speech, or are they just things he did because he was an autocratic dictator and nobody would stop him?

If you look at the history of sedition laws, they come from a place in which authoritarianism has already been accepted to some degree. Restrictions against extremist speech don't usually lead to a rise in authoritarianism; rather, it's the reverse that usually occurs. Authoritarianism motivates those in power to restrict criticism, which leads to things like sedition laws or 'anti-terrorism' laws. Sure, things can go too far, but the imperative is to challenge ideas that foster authoritarianism more broadly.

What is the societal value of allowing or defending the spread of false information ? I don't mean morally reprehensible ideas or sacrilegious ideas or ideas I don't like, nor fiction or parody clearly or implicitly labelled as such, but the spread of information that is factually, demonstrably incorrect and has been conclusively proven to be incorrect. Slander and libel is spreading damaging lies about people. Holocaust denial is spreading damaging lies about history. What is gained there ? Why should that be protected ? Language is broad, nuanced and complex. Your ideas can be distasteful or contrary but your rhetoric should be able to stretch to expressing yourself without straying into hate speech. If you cannot express your views without speaking hate, then it’s not your ideas that are objected to it’s the hate and violence you want to spread.

In civilized nations with hate speech laws, usually the hate speaker gets a first pass on what they’ve said. The national dialogue now shifts to the veracity of the remarks. If it appears that it is inaccurate and designed to promote hate and violence, it will be nationally reported exactly why it is grossly inaccurate and that person is warned to not be repeating it. Every nation has the right to value free speech slightly differently.
 
UglyCasanova said:
But that’s not the end of it. It’s not simply an exposure, it’s a means to the next step. There’s absolutely been a push to censor and legislate "hate speech" both in the real life public context and the online one as well. A push on how to rid ourselves of unwanted speech and ideas. It’s an unnerving direction for society to be taking.
Click to expand...
So you're okay with "hate speech" such as what white nationalists spew and then hide behind "free speech"?

This isn't simply about some opinion that you or I disagree with.

This kind of hate speech can lead to real physical, emotional, financial, etc consequences for people on the receiving end. Look what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s as a result of Nazi rhetoric. You think that kind of speech should be tolerated because "free speech!!"? I definitely disagree.
 
Last edited:
Imagine the odds of comrades UC and Green shitting out their carried water in yet another thread. It's Friday, hoping there is some extra vodka in the paycheck today....
 
DrDoug said:
Once again, it's not censorship if they can't post what they want on a web site that doesn't allow it.
Click to expand...

Once again, you stupid fuck, it is absolutely censorship. It meets the very definition of it. Have this read to you:

From Wiki:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[1][2][3] Censorship can be conducted by a government[4] private institutions, and corporations.

Governments[4] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[5] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

There shouldn't be any argument that private companies are allowed to establish and enforce publishing guidelines. They are. Quit being such ignorant fucks and saying it's not censorship because that's exactly what it is. By definition.
 
IJTSSG said:
Once again, you stupid fuck, it is absolutely censorship. It meets the very definition of it. Have this read to you:

From Wiki:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[1][2][3] Censorship can be conducted by a government[4] private institutions, and corporations.

Governments[4] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[5] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

There shouldn't be any argument that private companies are allowed to establish and enforce publishing guidelines. They are. Quit being such ignorant fucks and saying it's not censorship because that's exactly what it is. By definition.
Click to expand...

Private censorship is legal, moral and necessary. Everyone censors.

Government censorship is unconstitutional.

Private companies have the right and duty to censor content that violates their terms of service, and more importantly, hurts their business.

It may be private censorship, but it is NOT a violation of someone's freedom of speech.

Again, free_speech.png
 
IJTSSG said:
Once again, you stupid fuck, it is absolutely censorship. It meets the very definition of it. Have this read to you:

From Wiki:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[1][2][3] Censorship can be conducted by a government[4] private institutions, and corporations.

Governments[4] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[5] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

There shouldn't be any argument that private companies are allowed to establish and enforce publishing guidelines. They are. Quit being such ignorant fucks and saying it's not censorship because that's exactly what it is. By definition.
Click to expand...


So what's your point? Gotcha.....you got none.
 
IJTSSG said:
Once again, you stupid fuck, it is absolutely censorship. It meets the very definition of it. Have this read to you:

From Wiki:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[1][2][3] Censorship can be conducted by a government[4] private institutions, and corporations.

Governments[4] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[5] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

There shouldn't be any argument that private companies are allowed to establish and enforce publishing guidelines. They are. Quit being such ignorant fucks and saying it's not censorship because that's exactly what it is. By definition.
Click to expand...
Nope try again. Government shall not impose..................
 
thilanliyan said:
So you're okay with "hate speech" such as what white nationalists spew and then hide behind "free speech"?

This isn't simply about some opinion that you or I disagree with.

This kind of hate speech can lead to real physical, emotional, financial, etc consequences for people on the receiving end. Look what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s as a result of Nazi rhetoric. You think that kind of speech should be tolerated because "free speech!!"? I definitely disagree.
Click to expand...


It’s not a matter of if I’m ok with it. I certainly disagree with it. But I stand by the liberal position that I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it. The progressive position of labeling things “hate speech” and advocating for suppression of it is not something I agree with it at all. You are thinking I’m in agreement with the “hate speech” but I’m not.
 
Amused said:
Private censorship is legal, moral and necessary. Everyone censors.

Moral and necessary are a matter of opinion but thanks for repeating my post.

Government censorship is unconstitutional. No shit

Private companies have the right and duty to censor content that violates their terms of service, and more importantly, hurts their business.

They have a right to do so. Never said they didn't. As a matter of fact I specifically said they did.

It may be private censorship, but it is NOT a violation of someone's freedom of speech. Never said it was. Not once.

Again, View attachment 4514
Click to expand...
 
These conversations always end up around the same things, which is that conservatives think they are being oppressed because they aren't able to say whatever shitty things they want without consequences. Freedom of speech is SOLELY that the government may not stop you from speaking, not that other people can't shun you, not that other people can't refuse to do business with you, not that other people can't say mean things to you, etc.

The highest level of freedom someone can attain in my opinion is simultaneously freedom of action AND acceptance of consequences for that action. If you want to be a white nationalist, knock yourself out. Also though, accept the consequences that brings with it. True freedom is freedom AND responsibility. What conservatives consistently argue for is indulgence.
 
IJTSSG said:
Somebody explain it to this fucktard.
Click to expand...

And yet the right-wing mantra is their free speech is being violated by censorship.

You're leaving out part of the complaint to create this strawman you're beating the shit out of. Meanwhile, the point is way the fuck over here -------> The freedom of speech complaints. In point of fact virtually ANY complaint or debate about private censorship included complaints about their freedom of speech being violated.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ale...pbhAhVoHDQIHW37DHsQ_AUIECgD&biw=1625&bih=1067

Picking cherries to build a strawman doesn't make you a winner. It just means you have a tasty strawman.
 
UglyCasanova said:
It’s not a matter of if I’m ok with it. I certainly disagree with it. But I stand by the liberal position that I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it. The progressive position of labeling things “hate speech” and advocating for suppression of it is not something I agree with it at all. You are thinking I’m in agreement with the “hate speech” but I’m not.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned there can be real tangible consequences to this kind of speech, not just hurt feelings...take the New Zealand attack for instance. How do you ensure those consequences are not borne out while also allowing for that kind of speech? The problem is that people become crazified and start believing some of that crap, and then decide they have to get into action. Hate speech absolutely has no place in this day and age and should limited by every means possible. And just to clarify, I don't think someone insulting me or my family is hate speech...but there is definitely a line for what can be considered hate speech IMO.

As for those "liberal" platforms...they are private organizations and are free to limit who is able to use it (at least currently, although maybe that will change if any of them are deemed a utility or something).
 
Last edited:
UglyCasanova said:
It’s not a matter of if I’m ok with it. I certainly disagree with it. But I stand by the liberal position that I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it. The progressive position of labeling things “hate speech” and advocating for suppression of it is not something I agree with it at all. You are thinking I’m in agreement with the “hate speech” but I’m not.
Click to expand...

Will you defend private property owner's right to not publish, or provide a platform for shit they don't like? Will you defend everyone else's right to protest the speech that advocates harm to other people they don't like? Will you defend everyone else's freedom of association rights and social shunning of people who spread lies and hate?

Or does your defense of liberty stop where your interests end?
 
Last edited:
UglyCasanova said:
It’s not a matter of if I’m ok with it. I certainly disagree with it. But I stand by the liberal position that I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it. The progressive position of labeling things “hate speech” and advocating for suppression of it is not something I agree with it at all. You are thinking I’m in agreement with the “hate speech” but I’m not.
Click to expand...

No, I'm thinking your're more concerned about private companies legally controlling the content on their own platforms - for business reasons - than you are about the spread of fascist ideology in America. It's a question of priorities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top