Deplatforming and Censorship Examples

A black Jewish inclusion and diversity officer who issued a statement against anti-semitism during an attack on Israel got fired cuz somebody complained that she didn’t also say it’s bad to kill Palestinians.

(I disagree with his anti-mask message here but don’t think he should get banned. I guess now that Trump got permabanned from social media, banning sitting Senators is no big deal…)

long interview. some references to cancel culture towards beginning (haven’t watched whole thing)

1 Like

Lauren mentions at the beginning that she didn’t talk about case before cuz she didn’t wanna jeopardize things. She has more discretion than Aubrey de Grey.

don’t know much about arbitration, but based on Lauren’s description the situation sounds awful

You think ideas don’t rule the world? Ideas aren’t powerful enough to be dangerous? Do you only favor free speech because you think speech doesn’t matter much and can’t be dangerous, and there’s no reason to control something harmless?

Same anon here (my previous anon name timed out).

On second thought, I think the issue is not an objection to ideas being dangerous per se (so, I agree that they can be). I think the issue is that I have objections to what I see as typical strategies employed by people who think ideas can be dangerous (which I don’t think you approve of, but which comes up as a somewhat “automatic” reaction despite my having a mental model of your positions that contradicts the thing I’m objecting to).

That’s a probably unclear high level summary so let me get into some details. So I think I have a mental model in my head of a two sides of a free speech debate. And on the one side are people who are pro free speech, who think the answer to answer to bad speech is more speech, who think that the truth will always win out in the end in a free society, and so on. And maybe a lot of these people are kind of naive about how dangerous ideas can be.

And on the other side are people who think ideas can be dangerous and destabilizing, who think that bad ideas can cause enormous destruction, and who think the govt should play a role in forcibly suppressing speech because of this big danger. I don’t think you’re at all in the “the government should forcibly suppress speech” camp, but when I hear you talking about the danger of ideas, I have an immediate reaction kind of like as if you were, cuz in my mind there is a strong association between thinking ideas are dangerous and wanting to suppress them using the force of the state.

Now, logically, you can of course think ideas are dangerous and also be in favor of free speech, and I think you actually have that view. But despite having some explicit knowledge of your positions, I still react sometimes as if you had different/more conventional views.

I think that issue - having express knowledge of your views but reacting as if you had different views - is a theme that comes up in different contexts (e.g. reading stuff in a social dynamics type way and reacting based on that rather than reading it in just a literal way). It’s also a subset of the more general issue of not having explicit knowledge integrated very well with one’s automatic reactions/intuitions.

This post focuses on the trees but not the forest. Because there’s no introduction or conclusion stated, it’s hard to tell if it’s an admission about having a bunch of tribalist biases or an attempt to distract from the tribalist biases by getting lost in details.

My intention for the post was as an admission of not treating Elliot’s views fairly due to some automated reactions/interpretations getting in the way. I would not have framed the content myself precisely in terms of being “an admission about having a bunch of tribalist biases” but I don’t have any criticism of that as a summary.

Ron Paul had a YouTube channel banned but then reinstated. YouTube claims it was a “mistake”. See thread

A left wing anarchist think tank has been locked out of paypal, who will keep their money for 180 days:

Asmongold criticizes Reclaim The Net’s new claim about YouTube “Censorship”:

1 Like

Followup video. Asmon has tons of tribalist fans, who only want certain political takes like “screw big tech censorship”, who were flaming Asmon and YT. Asmon responds: