When will 'free-speech' defenders show some consistency?
Jordan Peterson and Dave Ruben are two members of the self-styled 'intellectual dark-web'. It's a collection mostly made up of right-wing internet celebrities whose main calling card is to defend freedom of expression from the encroaching power of 'post-modern neo-marxism'. To anyone who has ever read any Marx or anything by post-modernist writers; please forget what you know because for their purposes they mean any ideas which can be seen as culturally liberal. They see the strident progressivism of teenaged political activists and the pedantry of the Google HR department as part of the same 'Marxist' plot to overturn western civilisation.
Their latest noble crusade is against Patreon, the company which allows citizens to donate to their favourite political commentators. Patreon has recently de-platformed Carl Benjamin, AKA Sargon of Akad because he got into a (probably drunken) online argument with people in the alt-right and said they were acting like a bunch of n****rs. Tbh, I think Patreon was wrong to ban him though the whole issue is a bit ridiculous. However, it's much more likely that Patreon is trying to protect their brand image by enforcing standards of etiquette than it is for a business corporation to become 'Marxist' because they are inspired by Foucault and Derrida.
Meanwhile, a children's speech pathologist in Austin Texas has been barred from working in her school district because she refused to sign an oath saying that she would not engage in a boycott of Israeli goods. Whatever your opinion on the actions of the Israeli state or a boycott campaign, this is clearly political and an infringement on the rights of free expression. It's also somewhat alarming that publically employed workers can be forcefully mandated into taking a political stance by a government.
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/
In other news, the actual President of the United States threatens legal action against a comedy show because they take the piss out of him. He has also openly advocated control over the free press because he doesn't like their criticism. His inability to enforce these things does not forgive his intent.
The 'intellectual dark-web' and the rest of the right like to present themselves as defenders of 'edgy' and 'alternative' views when the actual substance of what they are defending is nothing more than the right to offend minority groups. Not offensively difficult political opinions, just the right to offend people. See Milo as another example of this. At the same time, they completely ignore genuine infringements on political free-speech and the abuses of power from the world's most powerful office.
Their latest noble crusade is against Patreon, the company which allows citizens to donate to their favourite political commentators. Patreon has recently de-platformed Carl Benjamin, AKA Sargon of Akad because he got into a (probably drunken) online argument with people in the alt-right and said they were acting like a bunch of n****rs. Tbh, I think Patreon was wrong to ban him though the whole issue is a bit ridiculous. However, it's much more likely that Patreon is trying to protect their brand image by enforcing standards of etiquette than it is for a business corporation to become 'Marxist' because they are inspired by Foucault and Derrida.
Meanwhile, a children's speech pathologist in Austin Texas has been barred from working in her school district because she refused to sign an oath saying that she would not engage in a boycott of Israeli goods. Whatever your opinion on the actions of the Israeli state or a boycott campaign, this is clearly political and an infringement on the rights of free expression. It's also somewhat alarming that publically employed workers can be forcefully mandated into taking a political stance by a government.
https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/
In other news, the actual President of the United States threatens legal action against a comedy show because they take the piss out of him. He has also openly advocated control over the free press because he doesn't like their criticism. His inability to enforce these things does not forgive his intent.
The 'intellectual dark-web' and the rest of the right like to present themselves as defenders of 'edgy' and 'alternative' views when the actual substance of what they are defending is nothing more than the right to offend minority groups. Not offensively difficult political opinions, just the right to offend people. See Milo as another example of this. At the same time, they completely ignore genuine infringements on political free-speech and the abuses of power from the world's most powerful office.
41-45, M
