Sasha Baron Cohen Gets Serious

[Patooka]

Wow, half a battalion of our under-represented conservatives rallying against it - seems to have struck a nerve. Especially since their objections consist entirely of characterizations without one single word actually contesting the contents of the video. I'll have to watch it again!

He wants tech companies to regulate speech he doesn’t like; as is done in China, Iran, and North Korea.

No, he is saying tech companies are allowing their product to be used by hate groups, could very easily stop their product being used by hate groups and chooses not to. Kinda like if a restaurant knows its venue is a gathering place for known terrorists, but won't do anything about it because they like the business it brings. Don't get your panties in a twist when it is pointed out.

 

[ronburgundy]

And if you find satire about group stereotypes funny and non-offensive,

There's no reason to suppose that "funny" must also mean "non-offensive".

Finding something offensive means to actually experience emotional offense which is anti-thetical to the positive reaction of finding it funny. You are confusing this inherently negative experience of being offended with with merely recognizing that others are offended which can be negative, neutral, or positive depending on how you feel about those who are offended. But that is a red herring tangent anyway. The point is that satire and hate speech are not the same.

it doesn't mean you should have no problem with hate-speech.
In fact, your twisted logic behind callng him a hypocrite is based is based on the same presumption of the left-wing anti-comedy snowflakes, namely that satirical jokes that reference cartoonish stereotypes are the same as hate speech seeking to cause real harm to particular groups and thus should be treated as such.

That's exactly the point. Baron-Cohen's own work would get him banned, depending on how he chose to use his characters on social media.

How you choose to use speech determines whether it is an act of hateful bigotry or act of satire. The fact that you can't tell the difference doesn't mean that Baron-Cohen or the rest of us cannot, or that social media platforms couldn't. Whether social media is currently doing a good job at making that distinction is also separate from whether they could or should.

Misgendering somebody (like calling a trans woman--a biological male--"he") will get you permabanned from Twitter. Misgendering somebody, even on purpose, is not hate speech by any reasonable standard, but it's treated as if it is.

First of all, deliberate misgendering by right wing bigots happens thousands if not millions of times per day on Twitter without any consequence. Their policy refers to repeated harassment of specific individuals using such misgendering. That kind of thing is very much hateful speech done solely to cause emotional harm to a people with a medical condition of gender dysphoria. There's no comparison between that and Baron-Cohen's creation of fictional characters.
Second, "hate" in itself isn't what he's objecting to. Hating Nazis and hating Jews are not remotely similar in the mind of anyone but Nazis who want defend themselves from criticism. There is nothing hypocritical about calling on others to reject some forms of hate but not others.
Third, did he even mention Twitter's policy on misgendering as or is this another of your false equivalences?

 

[Metaphor]

First of all, deliberate misgendering by right wing bigots happens thousands if not millions of times per day on Twitter without any consequence. Their policy refers to repeated harassment of specific individuals using such misgendering. That kind of thing is very much hateful speech done solely to cause emotional harm to a people with a medical condition of gender dysphoria. There's no comparison between that and Baron-Cohen's creation of fictional characters.
Second, "hate" in itself isn't what he's objecting to. Hating Nazis and hating Jews are not remotely similar in the mind of anyone but Nazis who want defend themselves from criticism. There is nothing hypocritical about calling on others to reject some forms of hate but not others.
Third, did he even mention Twitter's policy on misgendering as or is this another of your false equivalences?

We're talking about social media, which I understand Twitter to be. The fact that you trust Twitter to censor you doesn't mean I do.

I reckon social media guardians are about as useful as the establishment media at understanding what hate speech is. For fuck's sake, you can't even quote the word "nigger" in the context of condemning it.

In any case, I'm not interested in social media bosses being my censor. I have a brain and I can think for myself. You can advocate for it--I'm hardly going to try to stop you.

 

[ZiprHead]

White nationalists are openly operating on Facebook. The company won't act

Guardian analysis finds VDare and Red Ice TV among several outlets that are still on the platform despite Facebook’s promised ban

 

[Elixir]

He wants tech companies to regulate speech he doesn’t like; as is done in China, Iran, and North Korea.

If a significant majority of people's representatives don't like it either and consider it the macro-equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater, then it should be regulated. If Trump can convince a significant majority of elected representatives that his efforts to silence all criticism of him and his actions should be codified into law, then that is what should happen.
That's democracy. Get used to it.

Yikes. Elixir: it's rare for me to disagree with you, but can't disagree here more. What you are highlighting here is "Tyranny of the majority".

I don't think you really do disagree here, Harry. In fact you came right back into agreement with the next sentence:

The constitution and the bill of rights are meant to protect us for the tyranny that can come out of democratic decisions.

Exactly. IOW, the Founders made provisions for when executives and representatives make decisions that are contrary to their intent - for instance to suppress dissent and manufacture propaganda/falsehoods in order to perpetuate their own power. We will see within a year whether the constitution and the bill of rights are sufficiently resilient to reverse such corruption, or if it was all just another flash in the pan (250 yr) experiment. Certainly the Founders thought about it a lot and pondered long and hard about how to provide for recovery from a situation such as we have now.

From an historical perspective, it seems evident that the pendulum swings back and forth, and I believe it was designed to do so. The question at the moment relates to the extreme of the pendulum's arc; will it swing back, or has it passed 90 degrees, creating slack in the line that results in a free-fall?

My personal opinions about what the status quo should be are well enough known around here, but they don't have much effect on it. I just have to hope - like most of the rest of us - that the system holds up and if there's slack in the pendulum line, the free fall shock is not enough to break it.

 

[RVonse]

The internet is one of the most dangerous things modernity has come up with.

That is probably what they said when the printing press was first invented. "We can't let too many people know what is going on....it might be dangerous!" "And if too many people know what is really going on, the priest is going to lose his powers!"

It's funny that anyone ever thought the internet meant everyone would get smarter. It's the old falsehood about "more is better" rearing its ugly head again. It was bound from the start to make people more ignorant and even stupid. Social media's just the most popular part of the hugest pile of misinformation in the known universe.

Social media is just that. People socializing with each other. No one ever told me I was going to get a college education by using facebook. I simply go there to see what my friends are doing. And after I am done socializing, I am not expecting to get a diploma for my facebook research.

It has the potential to unite the world and share useful information, like those optimists about it hoped would happen. But, as quality books are chosen by libraries (which isn't a trampling of free speech), that can never happen without guidance.

Yes. We need that exact kind of careful guidance that Adolf gave us during his book burning campfires!

 

[RVonse]

I didn't realize that holding social media companies accountable for what they put on their platforms is anti free speech.

Yes it most definitely is. Censorship is anti free speech.

 

[Mumbles]

Wow. So the guy who made his career playing off racial and ethnic stereotypes is coming out against free speech?

First Question: Does not SBC's speech fall under "free speech"?

Second question: Does "free speech" include lies for political gain?

Third Question: Does "free speech" include threats - not just immediate ones, but also Nazi-esque ones that, in and of themselves, denounce the very principle of "free speech"?

 

[Trausti]

Wow. So the guy who made his career playing off racial and ethnic stereotypes is coming out against free speech?

First Question: Does not SBC's speech fall under "free speech"?

Second question: Does "free speech" include lies for political gain?

Third Question: Does "free speech" include threats - not just immediate ones, but also Nazi-esque ones that, in and of themselves, denounce the very principle of "free speech"?

Yes to all.

"To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? ... To whom would you delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read?"

–Christopher Hitchens

 

[Trausti]

 

[Elixir]

Wow. So the guy who made his career playing off racial and ethnic stereotypes is coming out against free speech?

First Question: Does not SBC's speech fall under "free speech"?

Second question: Does "free speech" include lies for political gain?

Third Question: Does "free speech" include threats - not just immediate ones, but also Nazi-esque ones that, in and of themselves, denounce the very principle of "free speech"?

Yes to all.

"To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? ... To whom would you delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read?"

–Christopher Hitchens

Obviously the "right" to decides falls to the one with the loudest voice, i.e. Kim Jong Un in NK or Donald Trump in the US. If their threats are sufficient to shut everyone else up, then that's just fine with you.

I have a feeling that if Obama had been badmouthing the wealthy in the US to the point where he was inciting violence against the rich (though not committing it himself of course) you'd be singing your tune out of the other side of your mouth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Free speech is a myth. It doesn't exist except as within a larger domain of human behavior we simply call speech.

Speech certainly exists, but not all speech and expression should be considered free speech. This is because speech is a human behavior and societies certainly regulate human behavior deeming some to be repugnant and unlawful while allowing other behaviors to occur because they are deemed harmonious, productive and constructive.

Speech being a behavior, free speech is whatever we make it, but not all speech is "free" speech." For a person advocating free speech in the context it is being advocated here and perhaps widely - and wrongfully - understood, it certainly should be regulated. Otherwise we may as well consider the acts of rape or murder as free speech.

 

[Elixir]

Speech being a behavior...

There was a time not so long ago when speech was a behavior. Then a conservative SCOTUS deemed money speech.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Free speech is a myth. It doesn't exist except as within a larger domain of human behavior we simply call speech.

Speech certainly exists, but not all speech and expression should be considered free speech. This is because speech is a human behavior and societies certainly regulate human behavior deeming some to be repugnant and unlawful while allowing other behaviors to occur because they are deemed harmonious, productive and constructive.

Speech being a behavior, free speech is whatever we make it, but not all speech is "free" speech." For a person advocating free speech in the context it is being advocated here and perhaps widely - and wrongfully - understood, it certainly should be regulated. Otherwise we may as well consider the acts of rape or murder as free speech.

Who should do this regulating? Trump?

 

[Trausti]

Could the fascists here explain why I, or any other person, should not be allowed to decide what I, or any other person, can read or say? Why should you, or whatever guardian of morality you would appoint, get to make that choice for me?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Could the fascists here explain why I, or any other person, should not be allowed to decide what I, or any other person, can read or say? Why should you, or whatever guardian of morality you would appoint, get to make that choice for me?

Well, we'd need to have a pretty large federal department in charge of regulating speech. There are lots of meanies out there (SNL, Maher, Fox news, Sasha, newspapers, Face Book, Bill O'Reilley and etc) that we'd need to get into line pretty quick.

 

[Elixir]

Could the fascists here explain why I, or any other person, should not be allowed to decide what I, or any other person, can read or say? Why should you, or whatever guardian of morality you would appoint, get to make that choice for me?

Well, we'd need to have a pretty large federal department in charge of regulating speech. There are lots of meanies out there (SNL, Maher, Fox news, Sasha, newspapers, Face Book, Bill O'Reilley and etc) that we'd need to get into line pretty quick.

Be quiet, Harry. Trausti addressed his question to "the fascists here".

I guess he forgot that I already explained it to him.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Free speech is a myth. It doesn't exist except as within a larger domain of human behavior we simply call speech.

Speech certainly exists, but not all speech and expression should be considered free speech. This is because speech is a human behavior and societies certainly regulate human behavior deeming some to be repugnant and unlawful while allowing other behaviors to occur because they are deemed harmonious, productive and constructive.

Speech being a behavior, free speech is whatever we make it, but not all speech is "free" speech." For a person advocating free speech in the context it is being advocated here and perhaps widely - and wrongfully - understood, it certainly should be regulated. Otherwise we may as well consider the acts of rape or murder as free speech.

Who should do this regulating? Trump?

We should, the same people who regulate other behaviors.

Could the fascists here explain why I, or any other person, should not be allowed to decide what I, or any other person, can read or say? Why should you, or whatever guardian of morality you would appoint, get to make that choice for me?

Trolling much?

 

[TSwizzle]

Does Facebook not have some sort of self policing on these sorts of things ? They are pretty quick at censoring pictures of women breastfeeding when a few people complain, I think.

 

[Trausti]

I remember a time when it was the left that championed free speech while the religious right sought to limit it. What the hell happened?