patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

foreign enemy propaganda should typically be proscribed

You are arguing for a minister of truth. Yup, in your mind this level-headed administer of soft censorship only on important propaganda matters will be totes reasonable? What happens when Trump chooses Bannon as the minister of truth? What happens if the dems choose Ariana Huffington? Who gets to decide what propaganda is and how/what foreign means? Do you really want a partisan admin appointing beaurocrats to administer this truth?

So yet again, the ultimate question is who gets to be the minister of truth? You wont answer because you cant. There is no good answer.

Choose: minister of truth or 1st amendment. There is no 3rd option.

Goran_K says

Collectivist are okay with trouncing on people as long as they are "outside of the group", while Constitutionalism favors the individual right over the group think. Collectivism lead to the formation of the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, it's an extremely dangerous ideology, and it's sad to see people here cling to it.

The way you use the world collectivist here is to mean tribalism. This is not what "collectivism" means. Tribalism is not an ideology, it is human pattern of thinking that underlies many ideologies.

By the way your opinions here display a strong tribalism with the American political right, as you combat ideas the "outside of the group" - the left - and almost all your thinking is strongly aligned with that of your group/tribe. Your reverence for your leader is also a tribal attribute.

CBOEtrader says

You are arguing for a minister of truth. Yup, in your mind this level-headed administer of soft censorship only on important propaganda matters will be totes reasonable? What happens when Trump chooses Bannon as the minister of truth? What happens if the dems choose Ariana Huffington?

You are assuming there are no objective and reasonable criteria that can be used, and that therefore this will always be left to the individual judgement of whoever is in power. This is typically not the case.

As a simple example other countries have strong libel laws or laws against hate speech. Some European countries have laws forbidding denying the Holocaust. Big deal.

You want to call this "minister of truth"? Whatever.
You want to equate this to some sort of "Baghdad Bob"?... hummm just a little bit disingenuous.

Heraclitusstudent says

The way you use the world collectivist here is to mean tribalism. This is not what "collectivism" means. Tribalism is not an ideology, it is human pattern of thinking that underlies many ideology.

By the way your opinions here display a strong tribalism with the American political right, as you combat ideas the "outside of the group" - the left - and almost all your thinking is strongly aligned with that of your group/tribe. Your reverence for your leader is also a tribal attribute.

Wrong, very wrong. I meant what I said. People can be in tribes and still believe in individual rights (e.g - I'm a member of the NRA, but I believe non-NRA members have the right to own firearms). Collectivism is DIFFERENT. It is the base ideology for socialism/communism/nazism/leftism/democrats, at its basic "group over the self" which is why I describe the Constitution and individual rights. Seriously, read the Federalist papers some day, it lays out in very simple terms collectivism vs individual rights. If you support the censorship of Alex Jones (which you clearly do), you have lost all moral right to claim free speech, and the 1st amendment, as a platform or even ethos because you have grasped collectivism, which is a very dangerous ideology that killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century.

By the way, I don't care about your opinion on my political stance, and your accusation that I support the "political right" (which is wrong), keep it non-personal, or your shit is going to get nuked, plain and simple. Last warning.

Heraclitusstudent says

Goran_K says

Collectivist are okay with trouncing on people as long as they are "outside of the group", while Constitutionalism favors the individual right over the group think. Collectivism lead to the formation of the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, it's an extremely dangerous ideology, and it's sad to see people here cling to it.

The way you use the world collectivist here is to mean tribalism. This is not what "collectivism" means. Tribalism is not an ideology, it is human pattern of thinking that underlies many ideology.

By the way your opinions here display a strong tribalism with the American political right, as you combat ideas the "outside of the group" - the left - and almost all your thinking is strongly aligned with that of your group/tribe. Your reverence for your leader is also a tribal attribute.

You are missing his point. Everyone is tribal by nature, just like everyone is violent by nature.

Libertarian values of individualism over collectivism is the only viable solution.

Jonathan Haidt talks about personality types and how they lean politically. Libertarians share some traits from both conservatives and leftists. Yet while both conservatives and leftists are very tribal, libertarians shun group identities. They often dont do the whole super sports fan thing, dont organize into groups as well, etc. Personally, I cant agree w a crowd until I research something in totality. For ex, when Trump ran for president I thought he was a joke. The constant barrage of "racism" and the resulting hate mob against him inspired me to research each and every claim. My conclusion is that the hate mob was indeed being manipulated by lying media, over and over and over again.

I think a lot of libertarians did the same, which is why Trump is popular w the libertarian crowd. Just my theory

Heraclitusstudent says

As a simple example other countries have strong libel laws or laws against hate speech. Some European countries have laws forbidding denying the Holocaust.

Yes and the results have been tyrannical. If this is what you are suggesting I would fight this to the end. It would be the end of free speech in the US just like these laws are in the UK.

Goran_K says

Collectivism is the base ideology for socialism/communism/democrats

If we cant agree on this then we are speaking different languages.

CBOEtrader says

Collectivism is the base ideology for socialism/communism/democrats

Seriously.

It's an extremely simple concept.

Collectivism = Group over self.

Socialism = Check.
Communism = Check.
Nazism (which is a form of national socialism) = Check.
Democrat Party = "Health care is a right!", "Minimum wage!", "Social Security", Check.

Notice all of the ideologies above eventually lead to WIDE SPREAD national oppression of certain groups that lead to millions of people suffering. Socialism/Communism had its purges, Nazism had the holocaust, Democrats had slavery. etc.

If people are going to be willfully ignorant and how dangerous the current Democrat party is, then the debate with words is over, and eventually if a civil war sparks off, the debate will have to be won with arms.

CBOEtrader says

You are missing his point. Everyone is tribal by nature, just like everyone is violent by nature.

Libertarian values of individualism over collectivism is the only viable solution.

When you talk of Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, these were systems that had private enterprises as a form of organization. They were not collectivists. Collectivism is a form of organization that removes private ownership, and Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan SIMPLY DID NOT DO THAT.

You are right that Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, insisted on the importance of the group, and their superiority as a group, which is tribalism, not collectivism. Words matter.

@Aphroman, @Heraclitusstudent, knock it off with the ad hom attacks.

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

Just like you can't go into a McDonalds swinging your dick around, you can't swing your dick around here either. Make sense guys? Let's debate ideas, not engage in ad homs to satisfy your egos and I will do the same. Thanks!

As far as your ideology of Libertarianism: the idea that people should be pure individuals and totally free is pure hypocrisy as far as I can tell. People always do some things in common. And when you live in a city, almost everything is in common: sewers, roads, transportation, laws, cops, justice, insurance, education, etc, etc... Your freedom ends, where the freedom of the next guy starts, which is in front of your nose.
When there is a plague, people get together and organize better sewers.
When there are barbarians at your gate, people get together and fight them.
When there is a flood, people who are unaffected help the others.
The way humans organize their lives is always in a top down system, that then has to leave sufficient scope for bottom up individual initiatives.
This has been the pattern for all of human civilizations.
The only exception was probably people living on a wild frontier. Some Americans apparently still think they are on one.

Goran_K says

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

The censorship rules of a private forum.

Heraclitusstudent says

Goran_K says

This isn't censorship, this is simply the rules of the board as requested by the owner @Patrick.

The censorship rules of a private forum.

Aphroman says

Free Speech is being censored at Patnet

Is this the goal @Patrick?

Guess what, Patrick said he'd give you guys server space and you both can form your own FREE SPEECH forums of your own. Go take him up on his offer..

But then you'll have nothing to bitch about when you're in charge.

Heraclitusstudent says

Nazi Germany

Heraclitusstudent says

were not collectivists

Literally every academic disagrees w you. I dont know how to argue that up actually means up and down actually means down.

Nazi germany and Soviet Russia and socialist Venezuela failed for the same collectivist reasons. A collectivist society always tends towards more and more centralized power eventually ending in a tyrant rule. Collectivist society will necessarily oppress individuals, ban free speech from wrongthinkers, and eventually murder these troublesome dissidents.

Libertarian individualism is the solution.

Aphroman says

Nobody is engaging in ad homs

Relax

Facts shouldn’t trigger people

I'm starting to like the aphroman.

Heraclitusstudent says

the idea that people should be pure individuals

noone said the ever. You are arguing w the straw man in your head.

I said libertarian personality types tend away from groups. I'm not sure how professor haidt measured this, so yes I am repeating it blindly but it seems to make sense.

Legally speaking, ibertarian values are enshrined in the constitution. We choose to believe that rights are inherent to the individual, we allow govt to rule us on the agreement that the constitutional republic will be upheld. Therefore a mob isnt supposed to be able to vote away the rights of an indivual.

A constitutional republic is the best protection against collectivist tyrants. It would be a travesty to embrace UK/canada anti-hate speech laws.

I'm not typically active in politics, but destruction of our first amendment would be worth fighting for.

Heraclitusstudent says

As far as your ideology of Libertarianism: the idea that people should be pure individuals and totally free is pure hypocrisy as far as I can tell. People always do some things in common. And when you live in a city, almost everything is in common: sewers, roads, transportation, laws, cops, justice, insurance, education, etc, etc... Your freedom ends, where the freedom of the next guy starts, which is in front of your nose.
When there is a plague, people get together and organize better sewers.
When there are barbarians at your gate, people get together and fight them.
When there is a flood, people who are unaffected help the others.
The way humans organize their lives is always in a top down system, that then has to leave sufficient scope for bottom up individual initiatives.
This has been the pattern for all of human civilizations.
The only exception was probably people living on a wild frontier. Some Americans apparently still think they are on one.

That's a misunderstanding of libertarianism, completely. Libertarianism is about personal autonomy, not anarchy. So yes libertarians do believe in a police force and, yes, a military, because part of personal autonomy is being in a safe environment where its even possible. So anything to preserve the ability of society to provide personal autonomy is okay when given to the state.

Now, libertarians don't believe in "gun control" or "healthcare for all" because those are not necessary to preserve personal autonomy. If someone is being violent, or breaking the law, you punish the person, not society as a whole which is how collectivist handle the problem of public safety. Collectivist push the cost of negative externalities to the public which is a terrible way to address an issue in society (as history has shown).

Like I said, people should read more, and talk less. Read the Federalist papers, understand the difference between collectivism vs individualism. Read more about Paul Goodman to learn the libertarian ethos. Because right now, the way some are describing things, the way people in this thread are trying to present an opposing idea shows that they really haven't put enough research into the topic to seriously discuss it IMO.

Heraclitusstudent says

The censorship rules of a private forum.

Which is fine, it's patrick's right to do so. But at least he's not doing it to silence dissenting viewpoints from his own, he's applying the rules evenly across the board which shows that he's being philosophically consistent. Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.

CBOEtrader says

Literally every academic disagrees w you. I dont know how to argue that up actually means up and down actually means down.

Nazi germany and Soviet Russia and socialist Venezuela failed for the same collectivist reasons.

This is patently false.

Germany and Japan failed because they were both crushed militarily after attacking Russia (in the case of Germany) and the US.

Venezuela and the Soviet Union on the other hand failed economically, because of the economic organization you decry.

On what planet is that the same? I don't know.

Goran_K says

Libertarianism is about personal autonomy, not anarchy. So yes libertarians do believe in a police force and, yes, a military, because part of personal autonomy is being in a safe environment where its even possible. So anything to preserve the ability of society to provide personal autonomy is okay when given to the state.

Exactly, and when some private cartel extort you economically you expect the government to help you and preserve your autonomy, just like you expect it to help you physically when you are attacked by a gang.
It's called regulation.
That's libertarians roll on the floor convulsing.

Heraclitusstudent says

Germany and Japan failed because they were both crushed militarily after attacking Russia (in the case of Germany) and the US.

Venezuela and the Soviet Union on the other hand failed economically, because of the economic organization you decry.

On what planet is that the same? I don't know.

Germany and Japan were crushed militarily, but it was collectivism that caused them to engage in conflict in the first place. Hitler dehumanized non-aryans and used pro aryan collectivist propaganda to launch his invasion of non-aryan lands. Japan used a similar strategy. Non-Germans (especially Jews) and Non-Japanese (especially Chinese and Koreans) suffered immensely in occupied lands, citizen or not.

There's a reason why that hasn't worked in the U.S, because the constitution is a great barrier to dehumanizing certain groups of citizens in the country. The Democrats were successful for a time of imposing slavery upon blacks, but luckily the Republicans were able to kick Democrat ass and restore freedoms to slaves that were wrongly taken by Democrats in the South.

Goran_K says

Which is fine, it's patrick's right to do so. But at least he's not doing it to silence dissenting viewpoints from his own, he's applying the rules evenly across the board which shows that he's being philosophically consistent.

Ah... here we go.
So you don't believe in an absolute right to free speech. Is that right?

Heraclitusstudent says

So you don't believe in an absolute right to free speech. Is that right?

Of course not. A 50 year old man can't go to a 7 year old and start talking sexually, they should be thrown into prison, but that's not what I'm debating.

I've said it's fine to have rules (you even quoted me), but if you're using "rules" to simply silence opposing viewpoints and being philosophically inconsistent based on personal beliefs, then you're not a free speech proponent, no matter how you try to wriggle and twist words to claim you are.

Goran_K says

Germany and Japan were crushed militarily, but it was collectivism that caused them to engage in conflict in the first place. Hitler dehumanized non-aryans and used pro aryan collectivist propaganda to launch his invasion of non-aryan lands. Japan used a similar strategy.

Nope it wasn't collectivism. Collectivism is an economic organization. Strong nationalistic and racial tribalism led them to conflict. Tribalism is characterized by:
1 - in-group / out-group thinking (the nation vs enemies, the Aryan race vs Jews, etc...)
2 - reverence of the leader (prophet, fuhrer, emperor, etc...)
3 - strong common, dogmatic narratives for the group, often underlined by specific terminology ("bourgeois mentality", "collectivism")
4 - common goal (vital space, dominance, paradise, etc...)
5... etc....

Tribalism can be political (communism), it can be nationalistic (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are excellent examples of that), or it can be religious (cults and Islam are excellent examples).
Almost any human groups: family, company, military, church, etc... have tribal components to various degrees.

This is a moral panic.

When a group is under stress, needs to find itself more legitimacy, or is scared of a sea-change, they exaggerate a problem to create a moral panic.

From Elvis' Pelvis, to Hippies, to SATANIC METAL, to Child Daycare Abuse.

This is no different. Oh, and by the way, it's "Always different this time... Rock Promoters/Satanists/Communists are REALLY taking advantage of FREE SPEECH this time. We have to censor it in order to save the First Amendment!"

Be careful, backing the censorship by Big Tech on behalf of Legacy Media is going to make you look like a dopey flipped out Satanic Panic Mom from 1989 looks today.

Don't be a Tipper Gore!

Heraclitusstudent says

Strong nationalistic and racial tribalism

Just weasel words to try and disassociate the end product from collectivism. Smarter people won't be fooled though.

Aphroman says

Sandy Hook was a hoax!

The parents of the “dead” children are just crisis actors coming to take your guns!

Fact Check Infowars style: true

Did you hear Prince's "Darling Nikki"?

This isn't the same as Elvis' Pelvis Shaking!

It's really gonna make our kids into filthy whores and pimps!

We gotta ban it! Don't you see, idiot! It's different this time (tm)(R)!

Heraclitusstudent says

I steel manned your argument with my example of propaganda run by nazi Americans during a war against nazi.

Heraclitusstudent says

All I said is foreign enemy propaganda should typically be proscribed.

But we're not in a war. BTW, the same excuse was used with the Dixie Chicks, but at least then we had 100k's of boots on the ground in Iraq.

We don't have a quarter of a million troops deployed in the Ukraine.

There is no consensus that there is an "Enemy".

Indeed, just a few years ago, Obama told Medved to hang loose until after the Election, when he'd have more "Flexibility" and told Mitt Romney "The 80s called... want their foreign policy back." The same people who are "MUH RUSSIA" today were "Russia isn't a problem" just a few years ago.

Absent any major actual fighting between US and Russia, the best explanation is making Political Hay rather than anything Legit.

Historically, Saber Rattling is more of a problem.

Heraclitusstudent says

You want to equate this to some sort of "Baghdad Bob"?... hummm just a little bit disingenuous.

Today I heard that the Greens AND the Russians cost the Dems a victory in Ohio. Apparently everybody there is watching Sputnik and/or RT.

Also heard that the Russians are in control of Florida Elections.

Of course the point of the latter is to dismiss the result when Scott wins and the state stays mostly red.

Goran_K says

Which is fine, it's patrick's right to do so. But at least he's not doing it to silence dissenting viewpoints from his own, he's applying the rules evenly across the board which shows that he's being philosophically consistent. Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.

Free Speech is MORE than just the 1st Amendment.

It's a societal standard and deeply part of American Culture.

We're being told that Employees, on the clock, while actually in the process of performing their job, can make political statements on their boss' time.
But Content Aggregators should act as censors on Popular Channels with 2.5M+ subscribers, that have been around for years and years, really since the beginning of the internet, and are more popular than the NYT, MSNBC, and other Legacy Media Internet Channels. Apparently the customer is wrong?

If one can't see the hypocrisy in that stance, I don't know what else there is to say.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

But we're not in a war. BTW, the same excuse was used with the Dixie Chicks, but at least then we had 100k's of boots on the ground in Iraq.

We don't have a quarter of a million troops deployed in the Ukraine.

There is no consensus that there is an "Enemy".

Well how many troops do we have in Poland and what do Russians think of such NATO expansion?
Enemy is relative: it's the guy on the other side. At the very least in a geopolitical competition.
There is little doubt that Russia will do what it can to try to undermine the US: just look at their help to Syria (what is the goal outside opposing the US?).
Just listen RT or read zerohedge (often quoted by people here): these are not friendly to US institutions.

Heraclitusstudent says

Well how many troops do we have in Poland and what do Russians think of such NATO expansion?
Enemy is relative: it's the guy on the other side. At the very least in a geopolitical competition.
There is little doubt that Russia will do what it can to try to undermine the US: just look at their help to Syria (what is the goal outside opposing the US?).
Just listen RT or read zerohedge (often quoted by people here): these are not friendly to US institutions.

Yep, and we manipulate Russian Elections. Obama blatantly interfered in the Israeli Elections. Fuck, there was a Newsweek Cover bragging about it.

But then again, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Germany, UK, Morocco also influence US Elections.

And spent a pantload more money doing so.

Any Libertarian leaning group is going to be suspicious of War. Look at Justin Raimundo for example. That means any geopolitical competitor viewed as an enemy of the US might very well be subject to Libertarian apologetics about how it isn't a thing, and therefore subject to censorship. All the time, without end.

So Libertarians will be suspicious of the Iraq War
Then of the Cold War Reboot
Then of the South China Sea conflict.
Then of the Iceland Threat...

and each time they'll be colluding with the "Enemy", all their counter-factuals about why tensions should subside will be traitorous, they will always be subject to banning.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Today I heard that the Greens AND the Russians cost the Dems a victory in Ohio. Apparently everybody there is watching Sputnik and/or RT.

The dems are trying to claim Trump is there because "Russia", because it's easier than to admit it is because of themselves.
That by itself, doesn't mean Russia does not try to mess with the US.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Yep, and we manipulate Russian Elections. Fuck, there was a Newsweek Cover bragging about it.

Yes. And we're not quite as good at it.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

But then again, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Germany, UK, Morocco also influence US Elections.

I'm sure they are communicating about it. But are they running propaganda inside the US?

2003: The Iraq War is kinda bullshit
DELETE THEIR GEOCITIES and MYSPACE page!
2011: The Libya Invasion is kinda bullshit!
TRAITORS! Fake News! NYT, BBC, Foreign Policy, National Review says Great! Ban Traitors
2014: Y'know, we don't need to be fighting Russia!
Putin Sympathizer! TRAITORS! Pull their facebook page
2021: Maybe we don't need to invade those islands in the South China Sea!
IRRESPONSIBLE! JACK, Kick them off Twitter!
2025: The Empire of Iceland is a peaceful entity, that has never attack...
YOUTUBE, pull their Channel!

And so on...

Just remember, it's always different this time.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes. And we're not quite as good at it.

Sure we are. Yeltsin would probably not have been elected without getting access to billions of dollars from the US to bribe all and sundry, while we looked the other way when he forced government employees - who magically got paid just before the election for the first time in months - to vote for him.

Heraclitusstudent says

The dems are trying to claim Trump is there because "Russia", because it's easier than to admit it is because of themselves.

Yep.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sure they are communicating about it. But are they running propaganda inside the US?

Saudi Arabia endows a lot of Chairs in Middle East Studies, particularly at Columbia. Their largess on NGOs, Think Tanks, Academia, is legendary. They expect deference for that money. Until very recently - ironically when they began liberalizing - it was almost verboten to criticize them except in the most hush tones. It's a bit more okay now because Obama has a lot of defenders in the Press who were willing to cross Saudi Arabia to help save his "Legacy" of the Iran Deal.

Do you think DW doesn't push Merkel's line? Or that Al Jazeera isn't pushing the Qatari line?

Goran_K says

Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.

Libertarians believe in business being in a free market where all trades are voluntary - nothing is preventing people from making trades or forcing people to make trades. Social media is a business. Accepting or not accepting infowars is a free trade. It's a simple business transaction not free speech. Social media accepts content to provide advertisers a platform. Content providers get their content aired to generate revenue.

If you are a libertarian then to be ideologically consistent you have to support social media's right to trade or not trade with infowars. Free market trade is a bedrock principle of libertarianism. You can't have it both ways.

The first amendment has nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with individuals or private enterprise, only governments making laws. Why such a fucking simple concept is totally incomprehensible to so many people is a deep mystery.

bob2356 says

Goran_K says

Those who are cheering for censorship on Alex Jones are not being ideologically consistent, which is why they can't claim to support free speech or the 1st amendment.

Libertarians believe in business being in a free market where all trades are voluntary - nothing is preventing people from making trades or forcing people to make trades. Social media is a business. Accepting or not accepting infowars is a free trade. It's a simple business transaction not free speech. Social media accepts content to provide advertisers a platform. Content providers get their content aired to generate revenue.

If you are a libertarian then to be ideologically consistent you have to support social media's right to trade or not trade with infowars. Free market trade is a bedrock principle of libertarianism. You can't have it both ways.

The first amendment has nothing, nada, zip, zero ...

If there were 1000 facebooks, this wouldn't matter. Instead we have a 3-way oligopoly in social media: FB, Twitter, and Youtube.

If its a free trade decision, then these 3 CEO's shouldn't be colluding to make these market decisions together. That is blatant violation of anti-trust.

If these companies want to agree on social media community standards, they cant selectively enforce the rules on political groups. I do not know the specific legal angle, but this will be considered an infringement on the right of political expression.