For justifications for the manipulation markers, see the section below the transcript.
[Post]
Merryjest Starchild
May 2, 2019
Buhbye!
[Link]
cnn.com
Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, Infowars and others from its platforms as 'dangerous'
5 likes 38 comments 1 share
[Comments]
Most relevant
Geoff Jones - 6y
Buhbye free speech ?
1 like
[In reply] Asher Wolfstein - 6y
(Geoff Jones) Which part of a private service/network determining what is allowed on their platforms with its own terms of service is NOT free speech?
Geoff Jones - 6y
(Asher Wolfstein) the part where they are censoring peoples speech.
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
(Geoff Jones) I don't see anyone coming at them telling them to shut up or else, with the threat of force. They are free to say whatever they want, wherever they want in public spaces, and with whatever service/network will allow what they have to say on it. That's free speech.
Facebook and the internet aren't just some weird robot service provided by the government or random nobodies, no service is. They have the right, like I do with any service or website I build on my on server hardware I pay for (Facebook does too), to determine who gets to put up a video, a post, a chat, a page, whatever. I'm super thankful for that right, since any furry page I put up would be drowned with assholes I'd be obligated to allow.
That's how private communications and services are. By the way, when you signed up for Facebook (or ANY site) for those reasons you agree to the terms of that service.
This isn't the government. Their speech was censored on a private platform. Well yes, yes it was because they're assholes nobody on that service really wants to be around anymore.
They are perfectly capable of setting up their own newsletters, mailing lists, websites, chat services, clubs, social networks, flags, rallies, marches magazines, merchandise, and all those things; and believe mt they do. THAT is free speech.
Colloquially is their "freedom to say whatever they want" curtailed on this platform infringed? Hell yes!
I'd do the same on any other site/server I own (I happen to own 35.)
You tell me, why should I give these guys a place to broadcast on my service? On my site?
Then ask why you should Facebook?
1 like
Geoff Jones - 6y
Do you own a monopoly on communication like FB does? How many views do your services receive per month? I'd wager it's not even a fraction of the traffic FB gets in a second. I'm well aware that FB CAN censor speech. That isn't the question. (#22)
The world has changed a lot since free speech laws were first enacted. FB didn't exist then. It has since become the modern day town square. It is ubiquitous.
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
(Geoff Jones) if you think Facebook is that ubiquitous, and that it has anything close to a monopoly on the "town square" or internet communications, hell, even just social networks on the global billion person/page/domain internet... you need to stop browsing Facebook for a while.
Seriously.
My traffic amounts in comparison don't matter. My online view counts don't matter. Freedom doesn't depend on how popular you are. That's a shitty metric, really. Does that mean if I build something, anything, worthwhile that's used in every home... you (or anyone) should set the price? Does that mean if I have the highest rated and watched commentary show (say like Bill O'Reilly allegedly) I am obligated to put anyone on? I suspect the answer is no.
Who's going to determine ANY of those things ever even if that were my obligation? Who out of the hundreds, thousands, or million views out there do I have to put on? ISIS'? Neo-Nazis? Islam? Jainism? Theosophy? Anti-vaxxers? Flat Earther's? Yours? Satanist New World Order communist Militia Furries? NAMBLA? Who?
Your argument is insular, myopic, and falls apart. If you think Facebook is that big and that important my only advice to you is to get off the internet and remember the real world
1 like
Geoff Jones - 6y
3 billion users monthly... yep I'd say it's ubiquitous.
Freedom may not necessarily depend on popularity, but unpopular business don't tend to become monopolies. [ED: hahaha]
Your comparison to a talk show is a false equivalence. They aren't the same thing. Who get's to decide what is or isn't "dangerous speech" for a quarter of the world's population? Some suits in a boardroom? If you are comfortable with that, then I guess there isn't much more to say.
John Kirkland - 6y
(Geoff Jones) Do you have to let someone with an opinion you disagree with stand in you[r] yard/house/whatever and hold rallies/preach/shout at passersby !
John Kirkland - 6y
if you kick them out of your yard are you censoring them?
John Kirkland - 6y
when a society is tolerant, it doesn't mean it has to tolerate everything across the board.
Geoff Jones - 6y
(John Kirkland) Let's use a valid comparison. (#22) If I owned a social media network with 3 billion monthly users, then yes, I feel free speech should be paramount on such a platform.
Merryjest Starchild - 6y
You own a social lounge. A man comes in and starts talking to your clients about how the Holocaust was false and it was nothing more than a conspiracy of the great Jew cabal to wear down resistance in the Western Hemisphere.
Your clients ask you to remove this man because he is being offencive [sic] belligerent and disruptive. Because the lounge is your property, you do so.
No rights have been infringed.
You're free to say whatever you want, but you're not entitled to to [sic] a platform and you're not entitled to force others to give you one. You're not entitled to demand what other people do with their property.
Simple as that.
I can kick a Nazi out of my property because I don't want him spewing his poisonous and drivel [sic] there, but I cannot stop him from actually speaking, and I cannot stop those who wish to listen to his insanity from giving him a platform in their property. [sic]
Censorship pertains exclusively to the power of government to silence someone through the use of legislative force, the act of permanently silencing someone and not allowing them to speak under penalty of punishment. That is something the government can do since it is charged with executing laws and it can create laws to persecute people. That is why the First Amendment exists, to prevent that.
That's its sole function. Period. It does not dictate what citizens may do with their property.
By no means will I allow you to go unchallenged and quivocate between censorship by the government and individuals exercising their freedom of speech to decide who they want and whom they do not want speakin on their private property, be it their yards or their social media platforms. Confusing those two is a deliberate attempt to force others to relinquish those aforementioned rights through intimidation. That is not going to fly here.
I will not brook for a moment any argument that requires someone to sacrifice their freedoms for the sake of some nebulous floating abstraction used to wave away the rights of others.
3 likes
Asher Wolfstein - 6y (liked by author)
Oh I see (Geoff). So I have the freedom to create the community I want, as long as it's not TOO big. That's the angle. Makes sense now.
Probably the same thought process that leads to banks that are "too big to fail" are "too big." A company can be too big. There can be too many deodorants. A house can be too big. A man can have too much money. Yet, somehow, I'm guessing here, things that are important such as welfare, or wages, or whatever, can't be too much/big/high...
Look, even if this is just a personal gripe with Facebook and not about "rights" (I probably just gave you an out) your stance/angle are still all wrong. Your statements also imply that's not your gripe. It's telling that you want a direct comparison to something like Facebook when discussing its rights, as if rights work that way.
Seriously, Facebook isn't the end all of anything. It really isn't! Get off it. It doesn't matter how many uses it has, that changes nothing. Rights don't work like that. Like I already said: the more popular I get the less rights I have? Makes no sense.
You haven't addressed anything anyone's said except by saying, "But Facebook BIIIG!" Really?
Also, there is NO monopoly, particularly not on communication. As long as the internet exists the way it does now, there will never be a monopoly. There is competition EVERYWHERE. Or, is the internet... too big?
I take great issue with the idea that I don't get to decide what my online community looks like once I surpass a certain number of users or success. That kind of populist thinking is fucking shit.
1 like
Asher Wolfstein - 6y (liked by author)
By the way Facebook PAYS for their server space and traffic. It's not given to them. And those 3 billion? They're all there voluntarily, and AGREED TO THE TERMS OF SERVICE so who the fuck cares? How can you even make this argument with a straight face?
2 likes
Jojo King - 6y
I agree with Geoff here. I dislike those aforementioned people as much as the next person but free speech is free speech and everyone should have a right to voice their opinion no matter how stupid it is. It's why we are given options to ignore and block on every platform but people would rather be enraged than use those features. Right now, it's working in everyone's favor but when people start getting banned for voicing their opinions, beliefs, etc., no one is safe. No one.
1 like
Geoff Jones - 6y
(Asher Wolfstein) things can become too big. I also support the idea of breaking up the big banks.
What exactly should happen to facebook, I'm not fully convinced of yet, but the fact that you don't like it is of little concern to me. As a society we need to put in place certain restrictions for the public good. I know you don't agree with that. (#10) But oh well.
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
It's funny you somehow know what "we" should do "as a society" for the "public good."
Am I not part of this "society" as a person who lives and talks? Why do I not seem to matter? Is it cause... I'm outnumbered? Hmmm, weird how that works.
By the way, one of the most evil excuses is "the public good" for all sorts of really awful fuckuperry. And when people gain forceful destructive power under it, no one is safe. No one.
Also, no one ever anywhere is saying or making them unable to say or express any of that shit in public (Facebook is NOT public) or anywhere anybody let's them. No one.
So, let me get this straight though. It's in the "public good" to allow Neo-Nazi Supremacists to have any platform they want on[e] of the largest most widespread network ever where they can reach and indoctrinate anyone (including children and the deranged), as you can see it's NOT about "ignoring," but it's NOT in the public interest to let people, not matter how popular, have full rights on the property and services they offer.
Like I said, fuckuppery.
Your pragmatism in the name of the public good is dangerous, soulless, fake morality, and you will be swallowed in it when you're no longer convenient.
1 like
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
And safe from what?
Seriously, from what?
Not being able to post on Facebook?
REALLY?
Geoff Jones - 6y
I don't mean any offence here, but you seem to be getting very emotional. It's kinda difficult to have a conversion [sic] with you. (#8)
To answer your question, yes free speech includes speech you don't like; with the obvious limitations that are already in place. And yes, I think that should be the case on platforms like Facebook too.
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
First, that's a really terrible rhetorical ploy (Geoff) so you can just drop that now, no one's buying it. You seem like a total idiot who's unable to abstract, and I find it very difficult to talk to you all the time. I manage. Secondly, do not explain the right to free speech to me, when you don't even understand what rights are, where they come from, or what they mean in totality. [ED: I believe I'm referencing previous threads.]
Third, you're not going after my "emotionalness" and explaining freedom of speech to me. You must be out of arguments, or will you address what I said?
1 like
Geoff Jones - 6y
(Asher Wolfstein) Drop out of what? no need for the name calling. You don't know me, I don't know you. We are just (trying) to have a conversation... (#20, #28)
I did address what you said. You asked me a question and I answered it. The answer was yes.
Geoff Jones - 6y
Is there anything else you would like me to address specifically?
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
You're not on the higher road (Geoff). I meant you can drop the whole "you're emotional" thing, it's pretty obvious. I never said, "drop out," so I don't know where you're getting that from.
For someone who doesn't care how I feel or think, you sure seem real interested in my "emotionalness" by the way.
So, sure! What's a right Geoff? What is a right derived from? How is it defined? What kinds of rights do people have?
Geoff Jones - 6y
(Asher Wolfstein) Oh sorry, my mistake, I misread. I did drop it... like 3 or 4 messages back... (#9)
What relevance does that have? We are talking about how companies like FB should conduct themselves. Should they adhere to the principles of free speech or shouldn't they? (#28)
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
First, literally two messages ago you were asking about it. Way to go to assert... oh who the fuck knows.
Alright, I see what you're saying, very clearly, and that then the answer is no.
They should adhere to whatever they want to do. It's their site, they can do whatever they want. You don't like it? Don't use it.
But that's not really what you're getting at, so you're being dishonest. You say "what exactly should happen to Facebook," you imply it's "too big" for some reason, you said it's a monopoly, and so on. Am I not to think you have decided that Facebook's rights should be violatd in some way ultimately and forced to do something they've decided not to do?
If you're not arguing for that, fine, then the answer remains "no." If you are, and you want to stop hiding behind crap, then my questions stand... cause I actually can converse honestly.
1 like
Geoff Jones - 6y
(Asher Wolfstein) The question wasn't "Should they be forced to do X" The question was "Should they". Two very different questions. (#28)
On the question of whether or not they should be forced by law, I'm not entirely convinced either way. I would hope that they would adhere to those principles without having to be forced.
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
(Geoff) fine then that's my answer on both fronts.
But Geoff, really, your language, even in this post, betrays you. It really does. Just own up.
Merryjest Starchild - 6y
Free speech includes speech you don't like, but it's protected status only applies to force by government. Individuals are free to excise undesirable individuals from the platforms that they own.
You are not entitled to my ear. You have no right to demand it. And the fact that called bullshit on it is being gas-lit [sic] by you into him being emotional is astonishing.
I have some things to say on that point. People who hold principles very close, who will take nothing less but the principled approach, tend to be passionate about those principles. Especially when you adhere to Virtue ethics instead of secondhand deontology that seeks to enslave everyone to some nebulous common good that nobody defines yet everybody believes it includes everything they like and excludes everything they don't like.
You don't argue on behalf of principle, you argue on behalf of a pragmatist [ED: Again, probably referencing previous threads.] which is essentially the expediency of the moment at the sacrifice of any principle or ethical approach, because whatever works now is best, right? Except that that [sic] approach is essentially what has created the clown show that is the GOP right now [ED: Remember, this is 2019.] because they decided to sacrifice whatever virtues they said they backed up in order to back the candidate they thought would win, even if he was an outright betrayer of their alleged espoused virtues.
At what cost?
You are arguing from that school of thought, from that line of logical conclusions, and yet you want to tell us that [Asher] is the emotional one when you were essentially trying to imply, though in not so many words, that your comfort, that your desire for ecumenicalism is far more important than adhering to principle. That we somehow should make room and invite the cannibal for dinner, because he is willing to use a knife and fork.
I will take your presumption and I will point it at you by asking yo this: how dare you not be emotionally invested in matters of principle? How dare you be willing to tolerate to [sic] the Intolerable just to say that you're tolerant? How dare you hide behind the mantle of the enlightened individual to evade the fact that you will not pass judgment because he is terrified of the judgement others will pass on him?
Only someone for whom there is nos uch thing as an important cause or a virtue worth defending is completely emotionless. Therefore, your accusations that Asher is emotional only betray something about you.
1 heart (not me)
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
(Geoff) Youre rhetorical/social ploys were so transparent it's frustrating but also pitiful. Every one I called bullshit on you immediately distanced yourself from like a stink bomb. (Keith) [ED: Merryjest] put it well: I'm immune to gaslighting, particularly high road discourse dude bro variety. It would been a lot less time wasting and "emotional" if you'd just come out and say what you mean rather than hiding behind crap or trying to belittle me like an asshole.
Geoff Jones - 6y
(Keith O'Neil) [ED: Merryjest] That was well said, Keith. but you are misjudging me. I appreciate it when someone is passionate about a cause, I was only saying that it made it difficult to have a conversation with him, and it did. Maybe our personalities clash. I don't know.
You really have a way with words, It's quite impressive, and I mean that sincerely.
Geoff Jones - 6y
(Asher Wolfstein) You assumed too much without seeking clarification. (#28) Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been, and that's my fault.
Asher Wolfstein - 6y
(Geoff) so, what exactly did my husband say that was so amazing that I myself didn't really articulate (particularly the pragmatist morality part)? Cause... uh... 🤔
Geoff Jones - 6y
(Asher Wolfstein) His way with words. It was poetic 🙂 Very well written.
Geoff Jones - 6y
You are both obviously very articulate and intelligent. I wish I was able to write so eloquently.
Merryjest Starchild - 6y
I'm not impressed by the fact that for you to pay attention to a point someone had to dress it up in make-up and a dress.
1 like
Asher Wolfstein - 6y (liked by author)
Okay, I'm done. It's too painfully obvious at this point.
Thanks for the nice words, but I do not, at this point, appreciate your compliments. Shoulda thought of that I guess.
3 likes
Geoff Jones - 6y
(Keith O'Neil) [ED: Merryjest] No Keith, the points you made were quite good. I just don't agree with it all, and I don't have the energy to respond point for point...
Lori Cole - 6y [NOT in reply to the thread, but the post]
Hate speech is never free - it costs us all.
1 like
Did You See That?
Read carefully, ’cause this is so ingrained, you might’ve missed it. And, upon missing it, concluded that Maus (my husband Merryjest), and I were ‘too harsh’ and not ‘understanding’ enough in the end.
I ask you to see it from our end just for a couple minutes:
Buhbye free speech ? Here, Geoff immediately relates the topic to a constitutional term concerning individual’s rights.
Which part of a private service/network determining what is allowed on their platforms with its own terms of service is NOT free speech? I then counter and ask for clarification, because I don’t see the connection or turn into individual rights as defined by the constitution.
the part where they are censoring peoples speech Geoff counters with the mechanism that free speech operates under (preventing censorship), but which doesn’t encapsulate the constitutional term concerning individual’s rights.
I don't see anyone coming at them telling them to shut up or else, with the threat of force. They are free to say whatever they want, wherever they want in public spaces, and with whatever service/network will allow what they have to say on it. That's free speech. I then clarify what I understand free speech to be, and the free speech I’m talking about, and asking about.
Colloquially is their "freedom to say whatever they want" curtailed on this platform infringed? Hell yes! I address the fact that may not be what he means.
You tell me, why should I give these guys a place to broadcast on my service? On my site? Then ask why you should Facebook? And then, I complete the argument with a Socratic-like question.
Do you own a monopoly on communication like FB does? How many views do your services receive per month? I'd wager it's not even a fraction of the traffic FB gets in a second. I'm well aware that FB CAN censor speech. That isn't the question. Here, Geoff engages with my definition, then, he discards the question he believes I’m asking. However, I engaged his colloquial point, and then asked why I should give people a place on my service. In my closing question-arguments I did not mention forcing anyone to do anything. I asked him why he should ask his question to Facebook. I was not confused on the question. On the contrary, Geoff seems confused about what the question is.
The world has changed a lot since free speech laws were first enacted. FB didn't exist then. It has since become the modern day town square. It is ubiquitous. Geoff, after discarding the legal principle of free speech (a right as defined in the constitution), then indirectly appeals to that very legal principle without quite looking like he is (the indirect approach).
My traffic amounts in comparison don't matter. My online view counts don't matter. Freedom doesn't depend on how popular you are. That's a shitty metric, really. Does that mean if I build something, anything, worthwhile that's used in every home... you (or anyone) should set the price? Does that mean if I have the highest rated and watched commentary show (say like Bill O'Reilly allegedly) I am obligated to put anyone on? I suspect the answer is no. Who's going to determine ANY of those things ever even if that were my obligation? Who out of the hundreds, thousands, or million views out there do I have to put on? ISIS'? Neo-Nazis? Islam? Jainism? Theosophy? Anti-vaxxers? Flat Earther's? Yours? Satanist New World Order communist Militia Furries? NAMBLA? Who? Here I re-engage with the very principle he divested himself from, but without actually discarding it. I’m not going to respect or acknowledge a divestment that never functionally occurred. I see this as a tactic often employed to make it so the topic being discussed isn’t the topic being discussed as a means to discuss the topic in such a way that no one actually makes a judgment on the actual topic, because, it’s not being discussed. I don’t do that.
Freedom may not necessarily depend on popularity, but unpopular businesses don't tend to become monopolies. Here Geoff admits the very thing I’m saying, without committing to it: Freedom may not necessarily depend on popularity (meaning, that, sometimes, it very well does, in Geoff’s world!) This is 2019, and the idea of unpopular businesses not becoming monopolies was laughable then, and it’s extremely laughable now.
Your comparison to a talk show is a false equivalence. They aren't the same thing. Who get's to decide what is or isn't "dangerous speech" for a quarter of the world's population? Some suits in a boardroom? Here Geoff declares my comparison as a “false equivalence.” And then, he proceeds to make a false equivalence between Facebook and government officials, which, is the issue at hand in the legal (but not legal!) argument over the legal right of free speech that we’re, you know, not actually talking about (but we’re really talking about).
Let's use a valid comparison. If I owned a social media network with 3 billion monthly users, then yes, I feel free speech should be paramount on such a platform. He doubles down. He believes a valid comparison is only between large numbers to large numbers, and given that, he ‘feels’ that free speech should be paramount. But, which one, the colloquial one? Or the right? It never became clear for a second. And, what does that mean, that it should be enforced? I know that if I ask that directly, there will simply be more double-speak evasion, so, I don’t exactly bother doing that anymore, which matters later, as we’ll see.
So I have the freedom to create the community I want, as long as it's not TOO big. That's the angle. Makes sense now. After Maus (Merryjest/Keith) makes the issue very concrete and clear, I reply and mark that Geoff keeps appealing to volume as if that’s relevant to how rights are protected (which, above, you’ll see, it very well could according to Geoff!)
Look, even if this is just a personal gripe with Facebook and not about "rights" (I probably just gave you an out) your stance/angle are still all wrong. Your statements also imply that's not your gripe. It's telling that you want a direct comparison to something like Facebook when discussing its rights, as if rights work that way. Here I address Geoff’s double-speak argument as well, because we’re allegedly not talking about “rights” as that “wasn’t the question,” which, I already recognized as not the question.
What exactly should happen to facebook, I'm not fully convinced of yet, but the fact that you don't like it is of little concern to me. As a society we need to put in place certain restrictions for the public good. I know you don't agree with that. But oh well. Here, we can see the beginning of what I later reference as “the ploy.” Note what Geoff does here. I’ve addressed both sides of the double-speak. I opened with a direct clarifying question. And now, Geoff once again reengages with the idea that it’s very much about rights ("What exactly should happen to facebook"), but also, we’re actually not talking about forcing anyone to do anything, not really, even though we keep alluding to it as if we are.
But that’s not the thing to notice. The thing to notice is this:
Geoff here places me outside of society. Really!
He says that my personal gripe, the fact I don’t like it, is of little concern to him. What he’s concerned with is what we should do “as a society”: putting in place certain restrictions for the public good. Remember, we’re not talking about forcing anyone to do anything, or to not do anything, because we’re not talking about rights while talking about rights. He says my preference is of little concern. He says we need to act as a society for the public good (which means that’s how he’s acting, since he’s sorta-kinda-maybe advocating for restrictions, without advocating for restrictions) and then, there it is, "I know you don't agree with that."
He’s right, it’s true! I don’t! So, he does know! That’s not the issue.
But, see, me not agreeing with that doesn’t unequivocally remove me from this ‘society’ IF that society arises from a mass of individuals. I’m still here! If that society emerges because of a ‘social contract’ none of us actually voluntarily agrees to, and which is never written down or made clear, then yeah, suddenly, I’d be out wouldn’t I? And that’s what Geoff is doing, pushing me out rhetorically, marking my entire position as irrelevant to everything (being that the ‘public good’ is the measure of everything ‘relevant,’ apparently, and always).
Let me ask you, how would you feel being pushed out of a ‘society’ and being rendered completely irrelevant in an argument? Would you respond positively?
Would that have a positive effect on your immediate emotions?
Here, I get more passionate yes, however, my emotions are not controlling me. What happens next is a reasoned response that identifies illogicity and offense at that illogicity:
It's funny you somehow know what "we" should do "as a society" for the "public good." Am I not part of this "society" as a person who lives and talks? Why do I not seem to matter? Is it cause... I'm outnumbered? Hmmm, weird how that works. Tada, I show how that’s what he must’ve meant all along, IF this is true (“necessarily” my ass).
So, let me get this straight though. It's in the "public good" to allow Neo-Nazi Supremacists to have any platform they want on[e] of the largest most widespread network ever where they can reach and indoctrinate anyone (including children and the deranged), as you can see it's NOT about "ignoring," but it's NOT in the public interest to let people, no matter how popular, have full rights on the property and services they offer. Here I explain the absolute illogicity of appealing to the “public good,” because, what the fuck is it, and who decides it? The answer is, Geoff decides it.
I don't mean any offence here, but you seem to be getting very emotional. It's kinda difficult to have a conversion [sic] with you. And there it is.
Now I seem to be getting “very emotional” and that’s allegedly what’s making the argument difficult. Note here it’s my emotionality, not my arguments, but my emotional responses, which, I argue, in this highly colloquial double-speak world indicates capricious irrationality, not a reasoned argument.
So, here’s the steps. These are always the steps:
- Dismiss person’s opinion/argument as being completely irrelevant to the ‘good.’ The ‘good’ is society and the “public good,” literally in the phrase. Position yourself as the proponent of that ‘good’ and that this argument is all about that, despite the question not being about any of that. Remember that part?
- Person gets offended and, understandably, speaks with more emotion from that offense. They makes further reasonable arguments, but with emotional language accentuating the ridiculous stance and their taking offense with it.
- It’s not that the “public good” and not working towards the “public good” is offensive. That’s a stance to be debated. What’s offensive is being completely pushed out of ‘society’ and rendered irrelevant because you’re not aligned to this nebulous floating abstraction of the “public good.”
- Now you claim it’s “difficult” to have a conversation because they’re, understandably, and expectedly, “very emotional.” Of course, it’s not understandable, and not to be expected, because, what you said is the understandable, and the expected, right? You’re trying to solve a problem for everybody, not just one person, right? Who can argue with that? It’s cheap. They’re emotional, because, well, you just removed them from society and declared their opinions completely irrelevant to ‘good’ oriented people.
- The person is now in the position of having to not be offended or be emotional at the very. obvious. ploy. Even if it isn’t on purpose, which, since my adopted brother Cliff did this all the time in our discussions (which is why I can spot it immediately, and I spotted it then too) and I know it’s most likely subconscious (this isn’t mindreading; I’ve known Cliff just about my whole life), the function is the same: I don’t matter anymore, for the crime of not working towards ‘the public good’ which Geoff, or anyone who does this, magically knows what the “public good” is.
Again, simplified:
- Dismiss person as ‘outside of society’ and thus ‘irrelevant’ to any discussion about society or rights because they aren’t concerned with ‘the public good,’ even though, they are, just not in the way you deem appropriate or relevant.
- Person becomes offended, and says they are, indeed, ‘still part of society’ (understandably), and responds with emotion, but, also some reasoned arguments pointing out how ridiculous it is.
- You then label them as “seeming very emotional,” and thus, “difficult to talk to,” even though, from my end, the difficulty seems to stem from the inability to confront the arguments I’m making head on.
- Person becomes effectively irrelevant and pushed out of the discussion arbitrarily, all because you don’t like what they’re saying and can’t counter it. If they point this out, they’re just being even more “emotional,” and thus, they further alienate themselves from mature, real, productive discussion.
The end cap, the keystone to this, is to never, ever acknowledge that this is what’s happening, which, is gaslighting, or that their reactions are understandable, reasonable, and worth considering, ever.
A million times over.
Tada! Now your opponent is irrelevant!
This is rhetorical abuse.
Nothing they say, especially if they further point out exactly what’s happening, since that’s going to be emotionally charged no matter what, is relevant to anything, and you, and others, can safely ignore it… despite never actually not being part of society, nor ever taking on ‘the public good,’ nor what this discussion was initially about, allegedly, even though we’re not talking about the ‘public good’ which is most people’s concern when it comes to rights (not mine).
That’s right. Remember that enforcement "isn't the question" being asked. But, as you can see, the debate centering around NOT that, is all about that, but not really, because, no, we CAN’T talk about it directly, even though we’re talking about it…
*bangs head against wall*
And everyone misses this, it seems to me, because, that’s what they’d most likely do too. But…
IT’S NOT AN ARGUMENT!
IT’S A PLOY!
AN EMOTIONALLY LADEN PLOY FROM THE BEGINNING!
*sigh*
I can’t say this enough, but, the more I say it, the more people ignore it.
What to do, right?
And so I persist, not because it’s necessarily productive (it doesn’t have to be), but because I’m invested for my own personal reasons. Those are real, relevant things… at least, when everyone else has them, it appears.
You might roll your eyes and think “such teenage melodramatics” and I wouldn’t necessarily blame you, but, given the last 16 months, what else am I supposed to conclude after being treated like that by a mental health journalist with an allegedly high degree of journalistic integrity?
What else am I supposed to think?
Nothing? Just “walk way”? Just not invest, it’s not productive? It accomplishes nothing?
For who?
And that’s the thing. I’ve been led to believe that I’m supposed to shut down, ignore, block, stop talking because it’s not “productive” (again, to fucking who?) and this is where I point out what I think is obvious:
If I ‘shut up’ like that, sure, maybe I gain some inner peace (I actually don’t), and maybe others don’t have to experience the conflict (which, they can ignore it, not my problem), but it accomplishes, effectively, exactly what the ploy is aiming to accomplish: removing me from the discussion, from society, and from relevance.
Why in the ever living fuck would I ever do that to MYSELF for my ABUSER? (#2)
And so, I persist, and we witness the double-speak mealy-mouthed fallout, which, thankfully my husband doesn’t “fall for.”
To answer your question, yes free speech includes speech you don't like; with the obvious limitations that are already in place. And yes, I think that should be the case on platforms like Facebook too. Geoff now explains what free speech even is, to me, the one making the more nuanced argument about free speech that is consistent with the definition of free speech as it is practiced in the United States as a right from the constitution.
Why?
Well, subconsciously or not, this is a subtle reinforcement that I’m irrelevant. If I also don’t really understand what free speech is, then, why am I relevant?
Once the seed is planted, it must be watered.
Cliff used to do this too. After dismissing me, he’d then start explaining the terms I was using to me (half the time getting them wrong). I can spot this shit from a mile away, and I recognized it then too.
Of course, understandably, I’ll be offended at this as well. It’s rage bait. “Taking the bait,” isn’t a reflection on the person taking the bait, by the way, not morally. The moral reflection is that of the person placing the bait.
And if I’m “enraged”? Well, all the better, right?
First, that's a really terrible rhetorical ploy (Geoff) so you can just drop that now, no one's buying it. You seem like a total idiot who's unable to abstract, and I find it very difficult to talk to you all the time. I manage. Secondly, do not explain the right to free speech to me, when you don't even understand what rights are, where they come from, or what they mean in totality. [ED: I believe I'm referencing previous threads.] Third, you're not going after my "emotionalness" and explaining freedom of speech to me. You must be out of arguments, or will you address what I said? So I call fucking bullshit, bullshit, in just as arrogant and pushy a way as Geoff is doing, though, he does it with less work and with more innocuous subtlety. You might notice my subtlety towards innocuousness is of a different nature and rare in frequency.
no need for the name calling. You don't know me, I don't know you. We are just (trying) to have a conversation And the gaslighting continues. The ploy was set, and now the fallout occurs. This isn’t an argument. None of this is a rebuttal. This is an emotionally-laden manipulative response. I don’t need to know Geoff. He doesn’t need to know me. And no, the conversation is disintegrating, but not because I wasn’t ‘trying’ to have one, but because Geoff is dissolving it and trying to make it my fault.
You seem like a total idiot... (non chronological) Here I show I’m taking offense, again. Geoff says that I seem like I’m very emotional, and that makes it difficult, and… that’s okay because he said “no offence”? Uh, no. “No offence” isn’t a command or get out of jail free card. But, I return in kind and what does Geoff do? He doesn’t call bullshit, he deftly avoids, and then returns with gaslighty feigned innocence.
I did address what you said. You asked me a question and I answered it. The answer was yes. Is there anything else you would like me to address specifically? How suddenly reasonable he is!
For someone who doesn't care how I feel or think, you sure seem real interested in my "emotionalness" by the way. Uh oh, things don’t seem to line up.
What's a right Geoff? What is a right derived from? How is it defined? What kinds of rights do people have? Oh look, a bunch of requests for clarification.
What relevance does that have? We are talking about how companies like FB should conduct themselves. Should they adhere to the principles of free speech or shouldn't they? Note here, after essentially rendering me irrelevant, saying I’m emotional in my offense to that, and then, making sure to appear quite reasonable, Geoff then establishes, single handedly, the actual topic of the entire thread.
This is part and parcel of this ploy, almost every time.
It reinforces the irrational irrelevancy. No, we weren’t only taking about that. Geoff now attempts to reinforce the irrelevancy he so aptly set up previously. It’s not irrelevant. We’ve been not talking about rights the entire time. However, Geoff is returning to the actual question that clearly wasn’t the actual question. It’s double-speak.
Alright, I see what you're saying, very clearly, and that then the answer is no. They should adhere to whatever they want to do. It's their site, they can do whatever they want. You don't like it? Don't use it. But that's not really what you're getting at, so you're being dishonest. You say "what exactly should happen to Facebook," you imply it's "too big" for some reason, you said it's a monopoly, and so on. Am I not to think you have decided that Facebook's rights should be violated in some way ultimately and forced to do something they've decided not to do? If you're not arguing for that, fine, then the answer remains "no." If you are, and you want to stop hiding behind crap, then my questions stand... Here I point out the double-speak constantly shifting context (cause that’s what this has been) bullshit while still addressing whatever argument Geoff claims to be making, which, I think is pretty generous.
The question wasn't "Should they be forced to do X" The question was "Should they". Two very different questions. On the question of whether or not they should be forced by law, I'm not entirely convinced either way. I would hope that they would adhere to those principles without having to be forced. And here Geoff directly references the double-speak instance, to which I already agreed in the same manner it was presented. Now we must once again distance ourselves from what we’re actually talking about, even though, it’s clear we’re mixing both together at whim. Geoff then states what I’ve been getting at the whole time, which is, he’s saying he “isn’t convinced” either way. But he is, because by saying that he’d hope Facebook would adhere without having to be forced… then… why would they “have to be forced?”
That means, well, he’d want to force them, wouldn’t it? Which means, that IS actually the question.
*sigh*
Maus finally steps in, and lays it out, again.
And Geoff’s response?
That was well said, Keith. ... You really have a way with words, It's quite impressive, and I mean that sincerely. And here is the appeal to the third-party who says things more reasonably, more eloquently. Subconscious or not, this reinforces the view that, as opposed to Maus, I’m irrational, and much less impressive. Why do I venture to say that?
You assumed too much without seeking clarification. Here Geoff makes clear, to me, the interpersonal intent. But, his statement isn’t true:
Which part of a private service/network determining what is allowed on their platforms with its own terms of service is NOT free speech?Here’s me, leading the entire exchange with a clarifying question.You tell me, why should I give these guys a place to broadcast on my service? On my site? Then ask why you should Facebook?More clarifying questions serving double time.Does that mean if I build something, anything, worthwhile that's used in every home... you (or anyone) should set the price? Does that mean if I have the highest rated and watched commentary show (say like Bill O'Reilly allegedly) I am obligated to put anyone on? Who's going to determine ANY of those things ever even if that were my obligation? Who out of the hundreds, thousands, or million views out there do I have to put on? ISIS'? Neo-Nazis? Islam? Jainism? Theosophy? Anti-vaxxers? Flat Earther's? Yours? Satanist New World Order communist Militia Furries? NAMBLA? Who?Holy shit looks at all these fucking clarifying questions!Or, is the internet... too big?A rhetorical question, for sure, but also, a question.They're all there voluntarily, and AGREED TO THE TERMS OF SERVICE so who the fuck cares? How can you even make this argument with a straight face?More clarifying questions, though, uh, informal.Am I not part of this "society" as a person who lives and talks? Why do I not seem to matter? Is it cause... I'm outnumbered? And safe from what? Seriously, from what? Not being able to post on Facebook?Pretty good questions that would clear things up, once and for all…What's a right Geoff? What is a right derived from? How is it defined? What kinds of rights do people have?And more. fucking. questions.
Let’s see… 32 questions in total.
Now, did I make assumptions? I made a few, yes!
However, my point isn’t that I didn’t assume (see, that’s assuming I’m trying to look good to someone, when, I’m not).
My point is that I sought clarification, while Geoff chides me for not doing so.
Now, let’s look at Geoff’s questions, just to be fair:
Buhbye free speech ?Do you own a monopoly on communication like FB does? How many views do your services receive per month?Who get's to decide what is or isn't "dangerous speech" for a quarter of the world's population? Some suits in a boardroom?Drop out of what?Is there anything else you would like me to address specifically?WTF? Hello?What relevance does that have? ... Should they adhere to the principles of free speech or shouldn't they?
So, let’s see, 9 questions, and three of them aren’t about clarification, so, 6.
so, what exactly did my husband say that was so amazing that I myself didn't really articulate (particularly the pragmatist morality part)? I said all the same things.
You are both obviously very articulate and intelligent. I wish I was able to write so eloquently. And then, after shitting on me with such a terrible ploy, he compliments me after I finally confronted his bullshit once and for all in a way that was recognizable to him, realizing Maus wasn’t going to apologize for my behavior, most likely, as that’s a guess.
This is what I call the “apologize after” phase of the ploy, which, sometimes happens sometimes doesn’t. It depends on how much they feel called out or showed up, and how much they think they successfully ostracized me.
They shit on you, and then they apologize after, and then, if you don’t forgive them, or walk away, or whatever, not taking their abuse is suddenly on you again, all while they talk about how much they respected you by apologizing.
It’s shit.
Respect isn’t the apology after.
Respect is endeavoring to get it right the first time and not pull this emotionally-laden sophistic trickery to belittle the one that you can’t face. The apology doesn’t fucking matter, especially if it’s because you just got caught.
If you were being respectful, then, you wouldn’t have any reason to apologize.
*brain explodes*
As I wrote IN 2019, and IN 2026, Thanks for the nice words, but I do not, at this point, appreciate your compliments. Shoulda thought of that I guess.
Consistency.
It’s my thing.
Now, this wasn’t a giant analysis done 7 years later. All of this was being thought of and mulled over in my head while this was happening, in parallel, simultaneously, and with great verbosity to Maus.
This whole analysis, word for word, pretty much as I remember it (and I do!), was happening in real-time as these comments were posted. This is just an explanation after the fact because, well, for some reason, I really believe it’s important that people see it and my thought process. If I were to be sarcastic for a second, I’d say that I have no idea why I think it’s important! I dunno who needs to hear this… or some such.
But, once you see it, it’s EVERYWHAR.
And, having almost every Internet interaction I’ve ever had stored somewhere, I can present a very large catalogue.
And, someday, I might.