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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M

With regard to the Israel boycott portion of the question , it would appear that the courts are rightly taking a dim view of this type of nonsense ;

https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-laws-banning-boycotts-arent-really-pro-israelbut-they-are-surely-un-american?ref=wrap

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@RodionRomanovitch That is good news. My main point though is that the political right is quite happy to ignore certain free-speech violations.

RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M

@Burnley123 Of course they are , would you expect anything else from these unabashed hypocrites ?

Back to the Israeli boycott though , dyk there is an entire government dept. (including military intelligence) dedicated solely to discreding the BDS movement ? They regard it now as their greatest existential threat.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@RodionRomanovitch I didn't but personally, I'm not surprised. I would also not be surprised if it was done in the name of counter-terrorism. You should do a post about that.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@Burnley123 [quote]quite happy to ignore certain free-speech violations.[/quote]

I disagree. We, (the right) get mightily pissed at all the free speech violations of the left.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Budwick You guys talk a good game on that Jack, I'm just looking for consistency.

Budwick · 70-79, M

@Burnley123 [quote] I'm just looking for consistency.[/quote]

Then, here's a some friendly advice. Avoid the left at all costs.

Example -

[quote]1. Illegal immigration is wrong, and a primary goal of comprehensive immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration.

2. Operational control of our borders--through significant additional increases in infrastructure, technology, and border personnel--must be achieved within a year of enactment of legislation.

3. A biometric-based employer verification systemwith tough enforcement and auditingis necessary to significantly diminish the job magnet that attracts illegal aliens to the United States and to provide certainty and simplicity for employers.

4. All illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States Governmentand submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenshipor face imminent deportation.

5. Family reunification is a cornerstone value of our immigration system. By dramatically reducing illegal immigration, we can create more room for both family immigration and employment-based immigration.

6. We must encourage the world's best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but must discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers; and finally

7. We must create a system that converts the current flow of unskilled illegal immigrants into the United States into a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by our economy.

The first of these seven principles is that illegal immigration is wrongplain and simple. When we use phrases like "undocumented workers," we convey a message to the American people that their Government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

Above all else, the American people want their Government to be serious about protecting the public, enforcing the rule of law, and creating a rational system of legal immigration that will proactively fit our needs rather than reactively responding to future waves of illegal immigration.

People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally.
Chuck Schumer - 2009[/quote]

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Budwick I don't think Schumer is left-wing but I do think your post is massively off-topic. 😂

Budwick · 70-79, M

[quote]I do think your post is massively off-topic.[/quote]

Ooops - I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to cloud your leftist rant with fact.

I'll show myself out.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Budwick Bye jack 😘

Northwest · M

@Burnley123 [quote]I don't think Schumer is left-wing but I do think your post is massively off-topic[/quote]

I don't see the point of this post either. It's not like Schumer, or the Democrat Party, is lobbying for open borders, or no national security. Beside, the thread is about free speech, but Jack has to be Jack.

But, free speech, to some, means only when it's not exposing their points of view, or failings.

Free speech, is free speech, but no one should be forced to gout of their way, to insure someone's free (hate) speech, is provided a venue. Example is what happened at UC Berkeley. Those events are paid for by Alumni associations. While I support Milo's right to be a dick, I do not want Alumni contributions to go toward paying for his hate speech. Of course, he provoked an incident, and turned it into an attack on his right to free speech.

There are multiple dimensions to this. In an ideal world, readers/listeners/viewers would be well informed. We, however, live in a world, where Trump can lie, every single day, and his supporters will not consider any other view points.

RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M

@Northwest 'but Jack has to be Jack.'

..... you mean this actually our good friend JJ ?