The unimportant news thread

[amw]

I think our own amw has mentioned knowing people who know them. *But there are various degrees of Antifa, the most noxious and violent seem to be on the West Coast, specifically this Portland group and another that seems to be connected to Berkeley.

I follow Portland antifascists on twitter yes. They are anarchists and adhere to the three "antis" of anti monarchism, anti fascism and anti communism. (Anti monarchism obviously a weird concern for american antifa groups & has likely been imported from British antifascists.) They're not particularly violent in and of themselves, but they get into a lot of street fights with the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group in Portland of a similar size. (I.e. both have 30-60 regular "members" although neither is truly organised, and antifa recruits local liberals and socialists for left wing demonstrations whereas the proud boys bring in III%ers and Aryan Brotherhood from the eastern part of the state for right wing demonstrations.)

The guy in Tacoma was trying to destroy ice vehicles, not the detention center itself. Like all US anarchists, a fairly typical example of adventurism with no broader plan of execution. I'm against that kind of thing if that wasn't clear. Armed resistance against ICE is a good idea but needs to be carried out by well organised cadres with the ability to break people out of detention and protect them from the US government à la the partisans in nazi occupied Eastern Europe. There aren't currently any parties or organisations in the US capable of doing that.

There are some "good" antifa groups but this kind of adventurism is almost always a result of infiltration by the FBI or local police forces, who once they've become embedded in these orgs will try to encourage the members to engage in violent acts so that they can then be arrested and the group broken up. So that's likely to happen soon with tacoma antifa as well.

[SimonNZ]

I can't think of anyone on the right that wants to "shut down" the opposition. They are rather more open to debate. 

Laughing. Out. Loud.

I can think of one.

[Jo498]

The research by Haidt and others seems to point into the direction that broadly speaking the "left" has more trouble understanding the position of "right" than vice versa. But this seems to be mostly true of moderate positions on these sides, not towards extremists. Many extremists of any stripe want to shut down the opposition.
And as far as openness to debate is concerned: It is obviously rather easy to be open to debate if one a) does not care much either way and/or b) is not in any way personally involved (i.e. if I am filthy rich or in a secure government job with great benefits I might have the luxury to not care how healthcare is organized because it does not concern me very much).

I don't know about the US where some extremes are more extreme and free speech is more free (or sometimes it is not) than in most European countries. But in Europe there seems to me a clear tendency to paint positions that either used to be mainstream until fairly recently or that were at least perfectly admissible to enter into reasonable debate with as extremist (sometimes as right, sometimes as left) and try to exclude them from even being articulated.
Look at how some people on the center left have to retcon their position towards something like gay marriage. 25 years ago this was a fringe issue and it was perfectly reasonable to hold the opinion that while there might be some kind of recognized partnership among gay people, marriage in the usual sense was only between a man and woman. Or demanding fairly strong assimilation of immigrants. Nowadays even considering such things often makes one a despicable bigot. And on the other side: marginal tax rates that were accepted by mainstream conservatives in many countries until the mid/late 1980s are now considered far left pipedreams that would immediately kill entrepreneurship and the whole economy. And so on.

[SimonNZ]

Which Haidt research is that?

[drogulus]

I mean, maybe you have a different definition of the word? Moderators here can censor others on GMG, it's just not as big of a deal as other platforms because it's small and no one makes a living by posting.

Problem is that everyone uses the big social media platforms- youtube, facebook, twitter, etc. and it's a big part how individuals can make money and spread their thoughts. So being banned just for expressing opinions really is a big deal if it's lopsided on whatever ideology it is.

Two things here:
1) "Vile" is a completely subjective term. You can't just censor someone because what they say is "vile." Anything can be "vile." Often, simple facts and logic are thought of as "vile." Truth is being drowned out because the far left is obsessed with "shutting them down."

I can't think of anyone on the right that wants to "shut down" the opposition. They are rather more open to debate. 



2) As for the real examples of people online who I've followed which happen to be anywhere between moderate liberal to moderate conservative stance, none of the instances of them being banned or demonitized or whatever is justified.

Who are the Nazis?
And it's more like the people they fight are all kinds... of people who simply disagree with them. Like Andy Ngo, the gay asian journalist that they ganged up on and put in the hospital.



It's probably suspected because they share a lot of similar values, just that they may be more extreme. And that's where the line is drawn.

Just like a lot of people who see normal conservatives as Nazis... both are wrong, people just need to make a distinction between moderate and extremists.

     Censorship is when the government imposes bans. GMG doesn't censor me even if it bans me.

     As for the lopsidedness of private bans, behavior is asymmetrical, no one is banned for advocating a smaller government or the gold standard.

     I agree that "vile" is subjective, widely shared though and people are unlikely to give up on something they agree on.

     Perhaps you haven't noticed that what was once called normal conservatism has now been taken over by Trumpist vileness.

     I think you share more values with antifa than you let on. The difference is that antifa wants to fight fascists now, while most of us are hoping it won't come to that.

     

[Ken B]

     Censorship is when the government imposes bans. GMG doesn't censor me even if it bans me.

     As for the lopsidedness of private bans, behavior is asymmetrical, no one is banned for advocating a smaller government or the gold standard.

     I agree that "vile" is subjective, widely shared though and people are unlikely to give up on something they agree on.

     Perhaps you haven't noticed that what was once called normal conservatism has now been taken over by Trumpist vileness.

     I think you share more values with antifa than you let on. The difference is that antifa wants to fight fascists now, while most of us are hoping it won't come to that.

   

Not quite so simple.

What if a monopoly that exists as a monopoly only due to government action or enforcement restricts you? For example, an established church forbids Islam. Or a regulated monopoly like ATT used to be bans socialists? Or a broadcaster who "owns" the rights to a part of the fully regulated spectrum? These seem like censorship to me. Not to you?

Plus, "access" is the key concept. It's not the same as speech but it shows the principle that my civil rights can trump the property rights of businesses. There is the notion of a common carrier, and they may not discriminate at will. Lunch counters cannot ban Turks or Muslims or gays or blacks . But being Muslim is a matter of belief and speech. So there is some blur.

Google is a near monopoly in large part because of patents which are enforced by the government, and regulation of connectivity which is enforced by the government. So again, some blur.

[greg]

Laughing. Out. Loud.

I can think of one.

Okay, one? I wouldn't doubt they exist.

But clearly it's the overwhelmingly the left that has the "shut it down" mentality. There is no debate here, anyone not living on another planet can see that from so many real examples.

[JBS]

Okay, one? I wouldn't doubt they exist.

But clearly it's the overwhelmingly the left that has the "shut it down" mentality. There is no debate here, anyone not living on another planet can see that from so many real examples.

No, the right has many with the same mentality.  Especially rife among those who want everyone to believe that Mexicans are all criminals, Democrats are all Communists, etc.

[greg]

the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group in Portland of a similar size.

Now hold up here.

Are they really? I know only a little about them, have seen a video about them once and they definitely accept non-white dudes into their club. The same can't be said for a true white supremacist group, like the KKK.

Have you acquired more info than me about them? From non-biased sources?

That's a rather serious accusation, you will have to convince me or change the definition entirely.

[greg]

No, the right has many with the same mentality.  Especially rife among those who want everyone to believe that Mexicans are all criminals, Democrats are all Communists, etc.

Never heard about anyone dumb enough to think they are all criminals, only ones that recognize there are criminal gangs and such among them. If you gave me a name, I will gladly point and laugh at them.

Also, not once have i heard of any protest coming from the right to shut down anything. Any examples i don't know of?

[drogulus]

Not quite so simple.

What if a monopoly that exists as a monopoly only due to government action or enforcement restricts you? For example, an established church forbids Islam. Or a regulated monopoly like ATT used to be bans socialists? Or a broadcaster who "owns" the rights to a part of the fully regulated spectrum? These seem like censorship to me. Not to you?

Plus, "access" is the key concept. It's not the same as speech but it shows the principle that my civil rights can trump the property rights of businesses. There is the notion of a common carrier, and they may not discriminate at will. Lunch counters cannot ban Turks or Muslims or gays or blacks . But being Muslim is a matter of belief and speech. So there is some blur.

Google is a near monopoly in large part because of patents which are enforced by the government, and regulation of connectivity which is enforced by the government. So again, some blur.

     A government can extend the power of private corporations to manage our lives, or it can act to restrict these powers for the public good. Only a government can guarantee a liberty. It has no separate meaning. It's why it matters what the Constitution and the laws are.

     Private entities can have censorship power if the government wants them to have it.

     I note that none of the invitees to the Trump free speech orgy were victims of private bans, so none of the privately banned were invited. That would draw attention to why they were banned. Hint: it was not because they were conservatives.

[drogulus]

     The people who burned the flag recently were members of the "Revolutionary Communist Party". I remember the huge Vietnam war protests where a similar group climbed a stature in Central Park for the purpose of waving a North Vietnamese flag. I knew, most people knew what they were doing, calling down oppressive measures on everyone to get people on their side. The provocation and overreaction is the point.

     This didn't really work then. Even antifa as a movement is not in favor of revolutionary suicide. They want to brawl with Proud Boys and anyone who wants to brawl with them. They want to meet violence with violence. If they commit crimes they should be arrested and tried, just like anyone else.

     

     

[SimonNZ]

Okay, one? I wouldn't doubt they exist.

You're choosing mot to recognize the one I'm referring to?

But it's.not just him, it's also his supporters and enablers who hear his anti press rhetoric and don't push back but normalize it.

There's nothing like this on the left.

[greg]

     Perhaps you haven't noticed that what was once called normal conservatism has now been taken over by Trumpist vileness.

     I think you share more values with antifa than you let on. The difference is that antifa wants to fight fascists now, while most of us are hoping it won't come to that.

It's more likely that things have shifted much more left that perspective has changed. There was a graph out there showing this but i won't be able to find it probably.
If anything, moderate conservatives have shifted slightly left over the last 20 years or not moved much.

I share the values of anti-fascism. But most people do. They advocate violence against people saying stuff they disagree with. First thing that comes to mind when i think of fascism.

[greg]

You're choosing mot to recognize the one I'm referring to?

But it's.not just him, it's also his supporters and enablers who hear his anti press rhetoric and don't push back but normalize it.

There's nothing like this on the left.

You mean the president?

I can understand his frustration, though. Who likes that type of misrepresentation and lies? But it happens to every president.

Regardless, is he doing censorship? All the censoring is coming from big leftist tech companies and mobs of leftist extremists.

Any groups of rednecks joining together at a communist speaker's conference or whatever and chanting "Shut 'er down!" I think not. 😝

[SimonNZ]

You mean the president?

I can understand his frustration, though. Who likes that type of misrepresentation and lies? But it happens to every president.

Regardless, is he doing censorship? All the censoring is coming from big leftist tech companies and mobs of leftist extremists.

Any groups of rednecks joining together at a communist speaker's conference or whatever and chanting "Shut 'er down!" I think not. 😝

Misrepresentation and lies?

Your position is bizarre. Are you not aware that he calls the press "the enemy of the people", wants to jail his political oponents, has called for anchors and shows he doesn't like to be cancelled, jokes with his dictator press-killing buddies about adopting their methods...

...and that every one of his rallies includes a part where he asks his fanatics to turn to the press area and vent their hostility at them - it usually includes spitting, always screaming death threats.

What is it you think the left does? Calls out Fox for being the hysterical propagandists they so manifestly are?

As for the "leftist tech companies" - they're are big part of what got him the presidency.

[greg]

I would say being constantly compared to Hitler is misrepresentation.

Fox being hysterical propaganda... I don't know, they are also part of the media and that's kind of how they all are. But I am familiar with Tucker Carlson, i like him since he seems very rational.

Trump calls for stuff, but how much is actually succesful? You can't really compare yelling at journalists to actually successfully deplatforming them. Just because one is a president doesn't mean one has ultimate power.

[SimonNZ]

They're all unsuccessful until the moment they become successful.

But your Tucker Carlson comment suggests you're just trolling me so I won't bother going on.

[North Star]

I would say being constantly compared to Hitler is misrepresentation.

Fox being hysterical propaganda... I don't know, they are also part of the media and that's kind of how they all are. But I am familiar with Tucker Carlson, i like him since he seems very rational.

Trump calls for stuff, but how much is actually succesful? You can't really compare yelling at journalists to actually successfully deplatforming them. Just because one is a president doesn't mean one has ultimate power.

I guess you missed that the White House Press Secretary posted a manipulated video of a White House aide trying to take the microphone away from Jim Acosta because Trump didn't want to answer his questions, in order to justify the revoking of Acosta's press pass.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurenaratani/2018/11/08/altered-video-of-cnn-reporter-jim-acosta-heralds-a-future-filled-with-deep-fakes/#774b46543f6c

I would say being constantly compared to Hitler is misrepresentation.

Fox being hysterical propaganda... I don't know, they are also part of the media and that's kind of how they all are. But I am familiar with Tucker Carlson, i like him since he seems very rational.

Trump calls for stuff, but how much is actually succesful? You can't really compare yelling at journalists to actually successfully deplatforming them. Just because one is a president doesn't mean one has ultimate power.

It's a shame that this wasn't aired on Fox, apparently. Can't imagine why..
https://www.youtube.com/v/6_nFI2Zb7qE

[greg]

They're all unsuccessful until the moment they become successful.

Ok. Sure. And i wouldn't support his efforts to censor, either.

But it's still undeniably clear that the leftist have been much more aggressive at censoring and shutting down, so far.

I guess you missed that the White House Press Secretary posted a manipulated video of a White House aide trying to take the microphone away from Jim Acosta because Trump didn't want to answer his questions, in order to justify the revoking of Acosta's press pass.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurenaratani/2018/11/08/altered-video-of-cnn-reporter-jim-acosta-heralds-a-future-filled-with-deep-fakes/#774b46543f6c



It's a shame that this wasn't aired on Fox, apparently. Can't imagine why..
https://www.youtube.com/v/6_nFI2Zb7qE

Yeah, i know about that story. Remember that the press attacked first by slandering him, so that's why he is angry at them.

Doesn't mean much other than his personality sucks.

And this one case is not comparable to big tech censorship the last few years.

I'll watch the video when i get home.