I think that's a bit telling - people are, by and large, being deplatformed for hate speech.
"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition, so it can be anything, and now the term is being used dishonestly and arbitrarily. The YouTuber "Black Pigeon Speaks" had his channel completely deleted yesterday, apparently for "Hate Speech." This was despite his considerable popularity, his strict adherence to the known YouTube rules, and his lack of community strikes. Just how arbitrary is this? His channel is now back, just as arbitrarily. (He is an expatriate living in Japan, who likes to rescue animals, and who tests center-left on the Political Compass test.)
Also witness how Phillip Defranco, who is as middle of the road as they come, was caught up in the recent New York Times hit piece.)
it does not have laws obligating institutions (such as universities or social media companies) give these people a platform for hate speech.
There is judicial precedent. A mining company that built and owns all the roads and sidewalks in town can't prohibit someone from driving and walking down them to disseminate pamphlets and to canvas.
Right, but the regular mass shootings by Ben Shapiro fans isn't a concern.
Ben Shapiro has long been a consistent and vehement critic of the Alt-Right, and they have taken concerted action against him. (This, according to the SPLC!) The vast majority of his fans aren't mass shooters, just as the vast majority of __insert group here__ aren't violent.
It's precisely this kind of reductive and indiscriminate characterization of groups which you are supposedly against, but which you have just engaged in. I support your right to say it, and will exercise my right to point out you're wrong.
I didn't call him Alt-Right, I just pointed out there have been at least three mass shootings in the past two years by Ben Shapiro fans.
Edit: In many countries, hate speech does in fact have a definition. Just because it's not in the US legal code doesn't mean it's undefined - that's why your right wing media personalities can have trouble coming into Canada.
>I just pointed out there have been at least three mass shootings in the past two years by Ben Shapiro fans.
you know this is a joke amongst the actual extreme-right. the Christchurch guy even said Candace Owens radicalized him. they say it because they don't like ben shapiro and they want to tarnish his name it seams to be working.
The "Christchurch guy" is a murderous, sadistic psychopath. He will say anything that has people giving him attention.
(Note that this also implies that politics plays basically no causal role in what he did - and yet, this basic fact about the Christchurch event makes me extremely nervous about alt-right or hate content nonetheless. In fact, it makes me more nervous, not less! Because if it turns out that criminal psychopaths can easily exploit this sort of content as an excuse or pretext for their murderous acts, that's definitely something we want to know. Do note that, plausibly, "rational debate" and the like - the usual arguments for maximum free speech! - do not apply to psychopaths in general; these individuals entirely lack affective empathy or a moral sense, and even their theory-of-mind abilities (without which no "debate" can plausibly exist!) might be severely degraded, at least when it comes to 'deep' reasoning about others' affects/emotions, goals, perspectives etc.)
Note that this also implies that politics plays basically no causal role in what he did
Some politics is sociopathic. Some is perhaps better characterized as nihilist. Accelerationism, which is what is advocated by the Christchurch shooter, is both sociopathic and nihilistic.
Do note that, plausibly, "rational debate" and the like - the usual arguments for maximum free speech! - do not apply to psychopaths in general; these individuals entirely lack affective empathy or a moral sense, and even their theory-of-mind abilities
If you go and look at the documented video of both Far Left and Far Right extremists committing acts of violence, intimidation, and vandalism, you will see precisely what you have described above. "These individuals entirely lack affective empathy or a moral sense." This is actually why you want to accord them Free Speech. If civic discourse is operating correctly, such people inevitably reveal themselves for what they really are. The problem with 2019 and recent years, is that civic discourse and the news media are broken, and much of the complete picture may be hidden from view from within a particular information bubble.
You realize that hate crimes have gone up the past few years? The far right are committing crimes, and Ben Shapiro's rhetoric (along with other far right commentators) is not helping.
You're tying to equivocate throwing a milkshake at a politician with actual violence.
> You realize that hate crimes have gone up the past few years?
Um. You do realize that politifact article ends with "reported incidents are going up, total incidents are going down", right?
Here:
> Analyses of the National Crime Victimization Survey indicated that the majority of crime victimizations were not reported to the police from 2009 to 2014. Reported victimizations have picked up, and unreported incidents have went down since 2015, after a significant drop in both categories in 2014.
And their "Share The Facts" summary: "Only for reported crimes"
Finally, throwing milkshakes, just like throwing rotten fruit, is violence - mild violence, but still a very different thing than speech.
> Finally, throwing milkshakes, just like throwing rotten fruit, is violence - mild violence, but still a very different thing than speech.
It's not limited to milkshakes. Lets apply some symmetry, say that the hateful rhetoric from the left has fanned Islamic attacks [1], or is what caused two black teens pouring gasoline on a white 13-year old, saying "This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy." as they set him on fire [2].
Does "seems to have come up" mean he amended his statement after recovering from the fire damage to his lungs? I wasn't able to find any information on this.
You have a link to that far left death toll? Because I'm not aware of.. basically any, in America.
I went searching and looked into where this idea of mine came from. My statement is a little out of date, stemming from 2017 so I'll retract it partially. If you look at this Washington Post article, and scroll down to the bar chart, for 2016 amd 2017 you'll see 11 killings by the right wing extremists and 16 killings by the left wing extremists.
However, you'll note that the number isn't zero. It's just that the mainstream media is very left biased, and engages in the kind of "not technically censorship" suppression of information typical of the West, as called out by Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent. Note how effective that style of soft suppression was in preventing your awareness of those killings.
I'm still not aware of the killings, the article had no details. Maybe they included those couple cops killed in NYC a few years back? Maybe they didn't? All we have is a bar chart. And it's not like anger at police is a liberal-exclusive position.
It did remind me of the congressional baseball game shooter, who as far as I remember, didn't kill anyone (though not for lack of trying). That was stacked against several more successful mass murder attempts from right wingers.
The real problem isn't right wingers or left wingers. The real problem are extremists who are willing to resort to violence and to destroy civic discourse. One extreme fringe has a higher body count, which is still in the same league as being hit by lightning. The other extreme fringe has a lesser body count, while the press is covering for their excesses, as the numbering climbs towards 4 digits.
What we should be concerned about, is how the dishonesty and bias distorts the information available to the public, and destroys civic discourse.
I think that's a bit telling - people are, by and large, being deplatformed for hate speech.
"Hate speech" doesn't have a legal definition, so it can be anything, and now the term is being used dishonestly and arbitrarily. The YouTuber "Black Pigeon Speaks" had his channel completely deleted yesterday, apparently for "Hate Speech." This was despite his considerable popularity, his strict adherence to the known YouTube rules, and his lack of community strikes. Just how arbitrary is this? His channel is now back, just as arbitrarily. (He is an expatriate living in Japan, who likes to rescue animals, and who tests center-left on the Political Compass test.)
Also witness how Phillip Defranco, who is as middle of the road as they come, was caught up in the recent New York Times hit piece.)
it does not have laws obligating institutions (such as universities or social media companies) give these people a platform for hate speech.
There is judicial precedent. A mining company that built and owns all the roads and sidewalks in town can't prohibit someone from driving and walking down them to disseminate pamphlets and to canvas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Right, but the regular mass shootings by Ben Shapiro fans isn't a concern.
Ben Shapiro has long been a consistent and vehement critic of the Alt-Right, and they have taken concerted action against him. (This, according to the SPLC!) The vast majority of his fans aren't mass shooters, just as the vast majority of __insert group here__ aren't violent.
It's precisely this kind of reductive and indiscriminate characterization of groups which you are supposedly against, but which you have just engaged in. I support your right to say it, and will exercise my right to point out you're wrong.