Lobster Boy (was: This Jordan Peterson Guy)

[Tactical Genius]

These are excellent points. The parts of the country where the BNP were strongest tend to be places where UKIP got a strong vote. There has always been that strain running through british politics either being a part of the conservative parties or breaking away and forming their own (NF, BNP,UKIP)

[elguapo4]

The Conservatives always had a certain element who were sneaking regarders for UKIP, and Labour ultimately took their own electorate for granted without ever addressing the endemic social issues that led to their rise, similar to the growth of Sinn Fein in Ireland - when youth and regional unemployment are addressed, the appeal of ethnonationalism diminishes.

Sinn Fein have many faults, but they're nothing like UKIP.

[Diable Rouge]

Not in terms of immigration, but surprisingly similar in rewriting history, using media to promote propaganda, promising simplistic populist solutions to the crises affecting working-class voters and regarding any criticism of their policies as an assault not only on said voters, but on national identity itself.

[Lang Spoon]

All of those things were true of Classic Fianna F?il.

[Bruno]

I share DR's view that engagement is generally better than dismissals or de-platforming, though it's reductive to suggest the latter "brought about" Trump or Brexit. It would also be pointless to criticize Penguin or any publisher for shying away from JP's book for whatever reason. Publishers decide not to publish things every day.

I suspect the problem with de-platforming is it's counterproductive as an avowed political strategy. If Penguin employees don't want to be associated with JP, there's nothing wrong with that, but to me it seems like a mistake to connect their discontent to a larger "shame him into retirement" strategy, which will be grist for his mill. My sense is that most average people are focused more on that strategy than on objections to JP’s views, which they think you would prefer they never saw.

This will probably again be read as sympathetic to JP. I don't think it's about him as much as his ordinary readers (in their millions) and neutral observers, many of whom I would characterize as casual, curious, and unburdened by the knowledge or suspicion that he’s a fascist-friendly bigot. I think publicly wishing for his de-platforming makes it at least as likely that such people will conclude you’re the problem rather than him.

If you could succeed in shaming them all into backwoods retirement, that would be great, but you won’t. As SB and EIM suggest, de-platforming could succeed in marginalizing certain individuals, but I wouldn't expect it to shrink the overall enemy, such as (say) the number of Trump voters. So my hypothesis is that it carries the drawback of making a lot of not-so-political people hate you, which might have electoral effects at the margins. Hence, engagement is better. Maybe.

[Nefertiti2]

Can someone send me a DM to explain how I implement "ignore poster"?

[San Bernardhinault]

"Deplatforming" is a bollocks term. If "not getting published" or "not getting invited to speak" is deplatforming, then I'm deplatformed every day by all kinds of organisations. Why is there no outrage that I'm not invited to spout my brand specious crap every day in all kinds of arenas?

[San Bernardhinault]

Sorry. I shouldn't have engaged.

Can we go back to the discussion of Irish political parties that I don't understand?

[Bruno]

Nef I'd be delighted if you finally started ignoring me. I dislike engaging with you, too.

"Deplatforming" is a bollocks term. If "not getting published" or "not getting invited to speak" is deplatforming, then I'm deplatformed every day by all kinds of organisations. Why is there no outrage that I'm not invited to spout my brand specious crap every day in all kinds of arenas?

Well, it's not my choice of term. It's used in the knock knock joke EIM quoted: "Who says no platforming doesn't work?"

I also just made the same point about not publishing. I was referring to "an avowed political strategy," which does exist.

[Patrick Thistle]

Can someone send me a DM to explain how I implement "ignore poster"?

This might help, Nef
https://www.onetouchfootball.com/for...on#post2154545

[Patrick Thistle]

"Deplatforming" is a bollocks term. If "not getting published" or "not getting invited to speak" is deplatforming, then I'm deplatformed every day by all kinds of organisations. Why is there no outrage that I'm not invited to spout my brand specious crap every day in all kinds of arenas?

Precisely this.

[Bruno]

Not sure how I could be construed as disagreeing with SB's point there, having just made the same point. What part of "publishers decide not to publish things every day" was unclear?

[ChrisJ]

There's certainly a superficial logic to "deplatforming doesn't work," in that there's no real agreed definition of deplatforming or who should be deplatformed. And also that it's a fucking ugly word whether used as a noun, a verb or a gerund. (And I love gerunds.)

The difficulty is that while we can get widespread agreement that there are certain views that deserve no airtime - holocaust denial, "scientific" racism, etc - there is a whole slew of other things that progressive/left analysis identifies as dangerous, but can be publicly defended in "common sense" terms as nothing of the sort. Peterson probably falls in that category for a lot of people because they simply have no idea how hurtful his language is to trans people, and how damaging his worldview would be if we all swallowed his caveman bollocks. But while people like Peterson almost certainly aren't fascists, they certainly enable fascists, so where on that slippery slope, do we put up the safety barrier?

There's no question that allowing racists on mainstream media gave racism a respectability and legitimacy it had lost. Don't know how many posters here are old enough to remember the row about the NF getting a Party Political Broadcast in 1974 when they qualified for one by standing in enough seats. IIRC, BBC made it clear that they didn't want to put it on but had no choice under the legislation. Most people - even in Shropshire - were disapproving. It was a Big Deal and really controversial. Roll forward 40 years and the same perspective was routinely getting weekly slots on QT and daily slots on 5-Live phone-ins. Coincidentally, we're closer to fascism than we have been for a long time.

However even if you try to roll back the media isn't all mainstream anymore. If you keep people off the BBC (or Penguin), they'll find the shit they like on FB, Talksport and the Mail. So surely you need to confront - not engage - these people at all turns? And doesn't that have to include taking the fight to big publishers? Getting people like Hopkins binned off Twitter is a genuine result.

I'm still trying to work out a rational expression of my gut instinct here, but I think maybe, to follow the "loads of people don't get platformed" line, the onus should be on those wanting the platform to demonstrate that what they have to say is in any way useful (to include interesting) and will not cause harm. It's a test we happily apply to pharmaceuticals.

[Patrick Thistle]

I think that's a very good perspective, Chris.

I'd add that a problem when people get airtime on the BBC is that the BBC doesn't do active questioning or critique any more, as can be seen on the BBC thread. BBC employees rarely challenge a viewpoint themselves. They like to see themselves as the host of the conversation rather than having the conversation so they won't be accused of bias. And they are quite happy for people to lie to camera and won't challenge them.

[Bruno]

I agree, that's a good post by ChrisJ.

By "deserve no airtime" I assume you mean morally, which I would agree with. We can wish that offensive harmful views would go away, and I strongly feel that entities with the discretion not to platform them should not platform them and should feel free to explain why. Let the offenders try starting their own thing if they need a platform, but don't let them violate hate speech laws etc., which probably need to be stronger.

But that's different from adopting deplatforming as a political strategy.

However even if you try to roll back the media isn't all mainstream anymore. If you keep people off the BBC (or Penguin), they'll find the shit they like on FB, Talksport and the Mail. So surely you need to confront - not engage - these people at all turns? And doesn't that have to include taking the fight to big publishers? Getting people like Hopkins binned off Twitter is a genuine result.

I think it's early to be talking about results, and I think confronting people in person can't just be shouting down. I think there have been some instances of overreach, but the main problem is there are too many offensive people to deplatform, and we can't just plow ahead in disregard of how the general public perceives how political/ethical debates are carried on. I'm not against what you're saying morally. It seems like the right thing to do in the "battle of ideas." I think it will also probably lead to civil war at some point.

My reaction to any cesspool of offensive views is "I think I'll stay away from that." I'm not on Twitter because it strikes me as a cesspool, and not being on Twitter strikes me as the best way to deal with what one doesn't like about it. There didn't use to be Twitter, and it was fine not having it. Fuck Twitter. Fuck any platform you don't like. Social media is mostly terrible. Vote with your feet, or start your own platform. No I'm not going to confront these people "at all turns." I'm not going to lobby Fox News to stop being Fox News. There's no ultimate victory in that direction.

"Engage" to me means "where possible." The other person has to be willing to. I wouldn't recommend "engaging" with Trump, for example, because it would be pointless. My hunch is that engagement is pragmatically better than deplatforming, but that doesn't mean "engage with celebrity charlatans." It means engage with the people who are duped by charlatans. Where possible. I see more possibilities in that direction than realistic chances of silencing or ostracizing them.

[Bruno]

Just an afterthought that confronting people through social media is most of the problem. It's too flawed a way to communicate. You referred to a coincidence that more fascists et al have airtime now than forty years ago. The non-coincidence is that social media lowered the bar and accelerated polarization. I doubt victory over the hordes will ever be achieved through the same platform that let them in. In the aggregate, online engagement appears designed to fail. Its ability to poison conversations even among well-meaning intelligent people is considerable.

I don't know how to put the genie back, but "get off social media" strikes me as a better message and plan than "try to run people out of social media," when you're talking about platforms that practically anyone can access.

[San Bernardhinault]

I agree, that's a good post by ChrisJ.

By "deserve no airtime" I assume you mean morally, which I would agree with. We can wish that offensive harmful views would go away, and I strongly feel that entities with the discretion not to platform them should not platform them and should feel free to explain why.

As an aside, but I think important, I don’t think anyone should have any need to explain why someone’s not given a platform. NFL’s TV channel doesn’t need to explain why I’m not given an hour to spout my opinions on map projections. The Morning Star doesn’t need to explain why I’m not given the editorial page to tell everyone what I think about different kinds of bread product. MIT doesn’t need to explain why I haven’t been invited to give a lecture series on why I like wearing mountain bike shoes on a road bike....

[Bruno]

Sure. No obligation to, but also they shouldn't avoid taking a stand on something consequential for fear of offending or losing customers.

[My Name Is Ian]

The thing is that the right always try to conflate two kind of different forms of deplatforming - being denied a voice in an age when social media access is increasingly becoming considered a pretty fundamental right, and the privilege of being able to air your shitty opinions to millions of people through well-entrenched media outlets.

I don't expect everyone on social media to have the same opinions as me, but hate speech laws are hate speech laws, and terms & conditions are terms & conditions, so if people get hoiked off Twitter or Facebook for those reasons, I seldom have much sympathy.

My issue over this is the preferential treatment that "bigger names" than you or I. Trump should have been banned off Twitter years ago, but he's big box office for them and they need those eyeballs. That flagrant inconsistency does drive me up the wall.

But no-one has a "right" to spout anything on major media platforms. The Suzanne Moore thread is a case in point on the absolute sense of entitlement of people who've been in the media when their grossness is called out.

[Snake Plissken]

“Free speech” != “Force others to listen”

I have my own thoughts on social media but they’re long and only of interest to me. However, deplatforming hate mongers from social media demonstrably works., not least because it stops TV and radio from getting them onto their shows for the clicks.

[Bruno]

The thing is that the right always try to conflate two kind of different forms of deplatforming - being denied a voice in an age when social media access is increasingly becoming considered a pretty fundamental right, and the privilege of being able to air your shitty opinions to millions of people through well-entrenched media outlets.

I don't expect everyone on social media to have the same opinions as me, but hate speech laws are hate speech laws, and terms & conditions are terms & conditions, so if people get hoiked off Twitter or Facebook for those reasons, I seldom have much sympathy.

My issue over this is the preferential treatment that "bigger names" than you or I. Trump should have been banned off Twitter years ago, but he's big box office for them and they need those eyeballs. That flagrant inconsistency does drive me up the wall.

But no-one has a "right" to spout anything on major media platforms. The Suzanne Moore thread is a case in point on the absolute sense of entitlement of people who've been in the media when their grossness is called out.

Agree with all that. The Twitter-Trump nexus is a sad turn of events. Conducting presidential business through a private-sector media company in short text bursts is bad in itself and beneath what should be the dignity of the office. Inventing the reason that it's in the national interest to hold the line open for a president violating the terms is worse, and Trump illustrates just how bad the outcome of that decision can be. Twitter should be burned to the ground for it, they know exactly what they're doing, boycott Twitter.

It sounds like Suzanne Moore is demagoguing. In the old days, if you didn't like a columnist you wrote an angry letter and/or canceled your subscription. You couldn't summon the angelic hosts to your aid through social media. The latter is what is creating the pretext to claim (falsely) that an effort is being made not just to disagree but to silence across the board. That's not anyone's fault necessarily (it could depend on the language of the complaints); it's an outcome of how social media is designed to work, and it seems entropic and destabilizing to me.

[San Bernardhinault]

I realise that I didn't really finish making my point earlier: There's a good reason that people shouldn't have to, or be expected to, explain decisions not to provide a platform: It puts the onus on those people and organisations, it creates work, it means that there is effort associated with those choices where it might therefore become easier to provide the platform. Also, it itself gives voice to the opinions that you decided not to give voice to. If you explain why you don't want Suzanne Moore publishing a column in your newspaper, you are firstly explaining her position, and secondly creating a forum where she can reply. The NFL Network should not be required to do any work in denying my position on map projections. They'd - reasonably - just ignore me completely. Penguin should do that with Peterson, the Guardian should do that with Moore.

[Bruno]

To put it another way, the demagogic message is less that you're succeeding or might succeed at silencing them, rather that you want to. Which, to be fair, we do on an emotional level; we'd ultimately prefer all outlets denying them a forum. But when thousands of people exercising their basic right to social media express that wish in unison directly to the offender, it's easy to paint it (falsely) as a mob trying to silence you. It's easy to paint it as threatening rather than just principled disagreement (and it would only take one death threat--not to mention that death threats can easily be fabricated and broadcast).

A thousand tweets in your inbox probably feels a lot different from a thousand letters in the mail room; the viral thing makes people way more nervous. I would think hitherto reasonable people could resort to bad arguments in response to this fear. But I have no idea how to address this problem other than limiting social media use.

[Bruno]

I realise that I didn't really finish making my point earlier: There's a good reason that people shouldn't have to, or be expected to, explain decisions not to provide a platform: It puts the onus on those people and organisations, it creates work, it means that there is effort associated with those choices where it might therefore become easier to provide the platform. Also, it itself gives voice to the opinions that you decided not to give voice to. If you explain why you don't want Suzanne Moore publishing a column in your newspaper, you are firstly explaining her position, and secondly creating a forum where she can reply. The NFL Network should not be required to do any work in denying my position on map projections. They'd - reasonably - just ignore me completely. Penguin should do that with Peterson, the Guardian should do that with Moore.

Well, "explaining her position" could just be saying "she's a bigot" or whatever it is she's guilty of (I don't know the story). I was just saying it's up to the company. I assume the potential ramifications of ignoring someone would vary by case.

[ursus arctos]

My understanding of the situation is that Penguin has entered into a contract with Peterson for a new version of his "rules" and that this has engendered dissatisfaction among its staff, who are now being told by right wing pundits to shut up or resign. Some more excitable types are advocating that anyone expressing dissent should be immediately dismissed.

Peterson is very much not the victim in such a context.