I think this is exactly what they’re talking about. In no way did the grandparent endorse or glorify Wallace; his implication was that Wallace would have been less popular had he and therefore his opponents been heard. But in this environment, merely suggesting a person should be heard is taken as a strident endorsement.
Another more extreme example would be the Nazis. They went through early political suppression and existed in an environment where organized political street violence was already common. Who knows what the counterfactual was, but censoring and punching Nazis did not stop their rise. The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans is a good book on this. It certainly seems that extremism is fostered by such environments.
> censoring and punching Nazis did not stop their rise.
Precisely. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU board from 1991-2008, argues that censorship helped the Nazis [1]
> "In the Weimar Republic there were laws very similar to the anti hate speech laws that still exist in Germany today. And they were very strictly enforced, there was an umbrella of Jewish organizations in the Weimar Republic, the head of which did a study. They said that these laws are by and large being strictly enforced, the prosecutions are being capably handled, there were many convictions, including of Nazis, and the Nazis loved the propaganda. They got far more attention than they otherwise would have, became free speech martyrs, actually had posters saying, 'In all of Germany why is this one man silenced?' They gained sympathy and attention that they otherwise never would have."
The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work. Countering speech with more speech is better. Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, may have put it best [1],
> Host: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?"
> Roger: "That's a classic argument you know, that's what they said about the nazis and the communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress them first. We're going to use their methods before they can use it."
> "Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it."
Regarding your claim that this is only "faintly" related to free speech, you should know that Jonathan Haidt is very near to that issue. He co-authored a book [2] with the current president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Greg Lukianoff. See also: Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives [3]
> The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work.
This is the core of your argument, and if true, it’s unassailable. However, I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have evidence that it is? I don’t mean well-crafted arguments by respected people, but actual evidence.
For my part, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary. Elsewhere in this thread, there’s a study that cites the positive benefits of deplatforming on Reddit. I’ve also observed that online forums invariably turn into cesspits if they aren’t moderated. The larger the forum, the more aggressive that moderation has to be, to the point of banning and shadowbanning. HN does it. (For that matter, downvoting is another form of deplatforming, in that it literally pushes other people’s opinions out of sight.)
So there’s two points of evidence that make me believe that deplatforming is effective: one is academic; and one is the personal observation, that I think we’ve all shared, that moderated fora work better than unmoderated fora. What evidence do you have? Please summarize rather than just posting links.
> That's a classic argument you know, that's what they said about the nazis and the communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us.
With the small difference being that those groups did not suppress speech by refusing to invite speakers to an event. Let's not put academia memberships and pogroms in the same category.
So, I like the voting system on social media because it surfaces good comments.
But I don't like when the vote ranks stifle good retorts, which is what has now happened here. Logged out users won't see this entire thread of replies because the comment to which you are replying is marked "dead".
Amezarak|3 years ago
Another more extreme example would be the Nazis. They went through early political suppression and existed in an environment where organized political street violence was already common. Who knows what the counterfactual was, but censoring and punching Nazis did not stop their rise. The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans is a good book on this. It certainly seems that extremism is fostered by such environments.
rhaksw|3 years ago
Precisely. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU board from 1991-2008, argues that censorship helped the Nazis [1]
> "In the Weimar Republic there were laws very similar to the anti hate speech laws that still exist in Germany today. And they were very strictly enforced, there was an umbrella of Jewish organizations in the Weimar Republic, the head of which did a study. They said that these laws are by and large being strictly enforced, the prosecutions are being capably handled, there were many convictions, including of Nazis, and the Nazis loved the propaganda. They got far more attention than they otherwise would have, became free speech martyrs, actually had posters saying, 'In all of Germany why is this one man silenced?' They gained sympathy and attention that they otherwise never would have."
[1] https://youtu.be/J1iZffRFs8s?t=2838
rhaksw|3 years ago
> Host: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?"
> Roger: "That's a classic argument you know, that's what they said about the nazis and the communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress them first. We're going to use their methods before they can use it."
> "Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it."
Regarding your claim that this is only "faintly" related to free speech, you should know that Jonathan Haidt is very near to that issue. He co-authored a book [2] with the current president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Greg Lukianoff. See also: Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives [3]
[1] https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Gen...
[3] https://vimeo.com/27861464
jdlshore|3 years ago
This is the core of your argument, and if true, it’s unassailable. However, I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have evidence that it is? I don’t mean well-crafted arguments by respected people, but actual evidence.
For my part, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary. Elsewhere in this thread, there’s a study that cites the positive benefits of deplatforming on Reddit. I’ve also observed that online forums invariably turn into cesspits if they aren’t moderated. The larger the forum, the more aggressive that moderation has to be, to the point of banning and shadowbanning. HN does it. (For that matter, downvoting is another form of deplatforming, in that it literally pushes other people’s opinions out of sight.)
So there’s two points of evidence that make me believe that deplatforming is effective: one is academic; and one is the personal observation, that I think we’ve all shared, that moderated fora work better than unmoderated fora. What evidence do you have? Please summarize rather than just posting links.
specialist|3 years ago
[deleted]
viraptor|3 years ago
With the small difference being that those groups did not suppress speech by refusing to invite speakers to an event. Let's not put academia memberships and pogroms in the same category.
nxmnxm99|3 years ago
[deleted]
rhaksw|3 years ago
But I don't like when the vote ranks stifle good retorts, which is what has now happened here. Logged out users won't see this entire thread of replies because the comment to which you are replying is marked "dead".
What's the solution?
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]