LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Proctopeo]

hrrmm
corporate censorship... good? lwdt are you okay




government censorship being praised, even by an ancom, now my worries are dispelled, the lwdt is operating as normal I see

I see you're bringing out your usual uncritical jabs. Perhaps you'd fancy yourself to learn the difference between thinking corporate censorship is good and laughing at the far-right getting a taste of its own medicine?

If it was schadenfreude, it was presented incredibly poorly. Seems to be the "I-it's just a j-joke guys!" defense but without the pretense of having a sense of humor, so...

Or how denying somebody a platform isn't censorship?

I see a strong material difference between "kicked off the stage during Comedy Night" and "banned from one of the largest public forums in history" but that's just me. Twitter is not someone's house, restaurant, or bakery, it's basically the equivalent of a roadway (with invisible police).

Seeing as how you're probably not gonna bother thinking about it critically,

Ironic.

though, I'm just gonna leave this as my one and only reply to you to save the headache you intend to create.

Also, clever how you latched on to the corporate censorship angle... while completely and utterly skipping over the government censorship angle, which you agreed with as being a good thing. Well, perhaps not that clever, but definitely an interesting plan: "if I pretend they didn't call attention to it, attention wasn't called to it!".

I haven't claimed to be "an" for more than 2 years. I have never claimed to be a "com". I support censorship of opinions I don't like. I've made a point of pointing it out almost every time an argument about censorship pops up.

Also, you can still be an Anarchist and realize that the rough equivalent to denying somebody the ability to use your home to preach some hateful bullshit is hardly censorship. I guess right-wing """Libertarians""" only value freedom of association when it benefits their ideology, though.

Yadda yadda material difference. See above. But I do have to wonder why left anarchists so willingly go to bat for massive corporations. Kinda goes against the whole thing, doesn't it?
Either reconsider your self-described political views or reconsider your views on censorship. The two are legitimately not compatible and you come off as an inconsistent hypocrite.

[Torrocca]

I see you're bringing out your usual uncritical jabs. Perhaps you'd fancy yourself to learn the difference between thinking corporate censorship is good and laughing at the far-right getting a taste of its own medicine?

If it was schadenfreude, it was presented incredibly poorly. Seems to be the "I-it's just a j-joke guys!" defense but without the pretense of having a sense of humor, so...

Or how denying somebody a platform isn't censorship?

I see a strong material difference between "kicked off the stage during Comedy Night" and "banned from one of the largest public forums in history" but that's just me. Twitter is not someone's house, restaurant, or bakery, it's basically the equivalent of a roadway (with invisible police).

Seeing as how you're probably not gonna bother thinking about it critically,

Ironic.

though, I'm just gonna leave this as my one and only reply to you to save the headache you intend to create.

Also, clever how you latched on to the corporate censorship angle... while completely and utterly skipping over the government censorship angle, which you agreed with as being a good thing. Well, perhaps not that clever, but definitely an interesting plan: "if I pretend they didn't call attention to it, attention wasn't called to it!".

Also, you can still be an Anarchist and realize that the rough equivalent to denying somebody the ability to use your home to preach some hateful bullshit is hardly censorship. I guess right-wing """Libertarians""" only value freedom of association when it benefits their ideology, though.

Yadda yadda material difference. See above. But I do have to wonder why left anarchists so willingly go to bat for massive corporations. Kinda goes against the whole thing, doesn't it?
Either reconsider your self-described political views or reconsider your views on censorship. The two are legitimately not compatible and you come off as an inconsistent hypocrite.

Seeing as how you'd rather ignore the obvious difference between finding it hilarious that the Far-Right's getting a taste of its own medicine after spending countless time bringing censorship to the Left and actually supporting censorship, the fact of the matter of how the freedom of association actually works - despite proclaiming yourself a """Libertarian""" - in favor of these low-level jabs, and ignore the difference between freedom of association and censorship, I'm just gonna practice one of the core fundamentals of the freedom of association and voluntarily unassociate myself with you, since that freedom's a two-way street and since I don't give much of a shit about your faux pearl-clutching. Maybe then you'll learn how it works.

[Northern Davincia]

If it was schadenfreude, it was presented incredibly poorly. Seems to be the "I-it's just a j-joke guys!" defense but without the pretense of having a sense of humor, so...


I see a strong material difference between "kicked off the stage during Comedy Night" and "banned from one of the largest public forums in history" but that's just me. Twitter is not someone's house, restaurant, or bakery, it's basically the equivalent of a roadway (with invisible police).


Ironic.




Also, clever how you latched on to the corporate censorship angle... while completely and utterly skipping over the government censorship angle, which you agreed with as being a good thing. Well, perhaps not that clever, but definitely an interesting plan: "if I pretend they didn't call attention to it, attention wasn't called to it!".


Yadda yadda material difference. See above. But I do have to wonder why left anarchists so willingly go to bat for massive corporations. Kinda goes against the whole thing, doesn't it?
Either reconsider your self-described political views or reconsider your views on censorship. The two are legitimately not compatible and you come off as an inconsistent hypocrite.

Seeing as how you'd rather ignore the obvious difference between finding it hilarious that the Far-Right's getting a taste of its own medicine after spending countless time bringing censorship to the Left and actually supporting censorship, the fact of the matter of how the freedom of association actually works - despite proclaiming yourself a """Libertarian""" - in favor of these low-level jabs, and ignore the difference between freedom of association and censorship, I'm just gonna practice one of the core fundamentals of the freedom of association and voluntarily unassociate myself with you, since that freedom's a two-way street and since I don't give much of a shit about your faux pearl-clutching. Maybe then you'll learn how it works.

Libertarians aren't a monolith, surely you know this by now. Corporate suppression of views is effectively de facto censorship because it cuts off the largest possible audience. They have the right to do this, and we have the right to denounce it.
An eye for an eye in politics inevitably leaves your own eyes gouged.

[Torrocca]

Seeing as how you'd rather ignore the obvious difference between finding it hilarious that the Far-Right's getting a taste of its own medicine after spending countless time bringing censorship to the Left and actually supporting censorship, the fact of the matter of how the freedom of association actually works - despite proclaiming yourself a """Libertarian""" - in favor of these low-level jabs, and ignore the difference between freedom of association and censorship, I'm just gonna practice one of the core fundamentals of the freedom of association and voluntarily unassociate myself with you, since that freedom's a two-way street and since I don't give much of a shit about your faux pearl-clutching. Maybe then you'll learn how it works.

Libertarians aren't a monolith, surely you know this by now.

And you'd surely know by now I don't pretend you right-wingers are actually Libertarian by any stretch of the word.

Corporate suppression of views is effectively de facto censorship because it cuts off the largest possible audience. They have the right to do this, and we have the right to denounce it.
An eye for an eye in politics inevitably leaves your own eyes gouged.

You're obviously making the same mistakes I was calling out Proct about: I'm not cherishing or supporting corporate censorship, which SHOULD go without saying given my beliefs but apparently can't because nuance is like cancer on this website. I'm laughing at the Far-Right chucklefucks getting a taste of their own medicine. There's a clear and obvious difference there.

[Northern Davincia]

Libertarians aren't a monolith, surely you know this by now.

And you'd surely know by now I don't pretend you right-wingers are actually Libertarian by any stretch of the word.

Corporate suppression of views is effectively de facto censorship because it cuts off the largest possible audience. They have the right to do this, and we have the right to denounce it.
An eye for an eye in politics inevitably leaves your own eyes gouged.

You're obviously making the same mistakes I was calling out Proct about: I'm not cherishing or supporting corporate censorship, which SHOULD go without saying given my beliefs but apparently can't because nuance is like cancer on this website. I'm laughing at the Far-Right chucklefucks getting a taste of their own medicine. There's a clear and obvious difference there.

Also, you can still be an Anarchist and realize that the rough equivalent to denying somebody the ability to use your home to preach some hateful bullshit is hardly censorship.

It seems like you're denying any censorship has actually taken place, or at the very least, underplaying the severity of it. The only way the groups/people you've deemed far-right are getting a taste of their own medicine, is if they all unanimously support censorship of their enemies. That isn't always the case. As for your insistence on fallacious reasoning to deny us as libertarians, that's on you.

[Torrocca]

And you'd surely know by now I don't pretend you right-wingers are actually Libertarian by any stretch of the word.



You're obviously making the same mistakes I was calling out Proct about: I'm not cherishing or supporting corporate censorship, which SHOULD go without saying given my beliefs but apparently can't because nuance is like cancer on this website. I'm laughing at the Far-Right chucklefucks getting a taste of their own medicine. There's a clear and obvious difference there.

Also, you can still be an Anarchist and realize that the rough equivalent to denying somebody the ability to use your home to preach some hateful bullshit is hardly censorship.

It seems like you're denying any censorship has actually taken place, or at the very least, underplaying the severity of it.

Or maybe freedom of association isn't a restriction on freeze peach?

The only way the groups/people you've deemed far-right are getting a taste of their own medicine, is if they all unanimously support censorship of their enemies. That isn't always the case.

Neat; they're almost all still universally pieces of shit so it's still a deserved comeuppance.

As for your insistence on fallacious reasoning to deny us as libertarians, that's on you.

Thinking that Capitalism with a small state is equivalent to liberty doesn't make you a Libertarian.

[Northern Davincia]

It seems like you're denying any censorship has actually taken place, or at the very least, underplaying the severity of it.

Or maybe freedom of association isn't a restriction on freeze peach?

The only way the groups/people you've deemed far-right are getting a taste of their own medicine, is if they all unanimously support censorship of their enemies. That isn't always the case.

Neat; they're almost all still universally pieces of shit so it's still a deserved comeuppance.

As for your insistence on fallacious reasoning to deny us as libertarians, that's on you.

Thinking that Capitalism with a small state is equivalent to liberty doesn't make you a Libertarian.

Having bad viewpoints isn't enough to warrant a "comeuppance". If it were, the Communist Exclusion Act would still be enforced. As far as linguistics are concerned, we're just as libertarian as you.

[Proctopeo]

If it was schadenfreude, it was presented incredibly poorly. Seems to be the "I-it's just a j-joke guys!" defense but without the pretense of having a sense of humor, so...


I see a strong material difference between "kicked off the stage during Comedy Night" and "banned from one of the largest public forums in history" but that's just me. Twitter is not someone's house, restaurant, or bakery, it's basically the equivalent of a roadway (with invisible police).


Ironic.




Also, clever how you latched on to the corporate censorship angle... while completely and utterly skipping over the government censorship angle, which you agreed with as being a good thing. Well, perhaps not that clever, but definitely an interesting plan: "if I pretend they didn't call attention to it, attention wasn't called to it!".


Yadda yadda material difference. See above. But I do have to wonder why left anarchists so willingly go to bat for massive corporations. Kinda goes against the whole thing, doesn't it?
Either reconsider your self-described political views or reconsider your views on censorship. The two are legitimately not compatible and you come off as an inconsistent hypocrite.

Seeing as how you'd rather ignore the obvious difference between finding it hilarious that the Far-Right's getting a taste of its own medicine after spending countless time bringing censorship to the Left and actually supporting censorship,

A lapse in your memory seems to have happened:

Oh, make no mistake. It's absolutely soothing for the soul to see people be sane enough to deplatform them when the government isn't sane enough to do it for them.

Hell yeah it is.

It's not just corporate censorship we're talking about here.

the fact of the matter of how the freedom of association actually works

"a multi billion dollar company's website is an association of its users, like a worker's union or a sports club"
-Torrocca, 2019

See, I understand the freedom of association. Seems like you don't, or at least have an extremely basic understanding of what it actually is.

- despite proclaiming yourself a """Libertarian""" - in favor of these low-level jabs,

I'm doing a lot better at upholding my libertarian beliefs than you are holding up your anarchist ones. See above.

and ignore the difference between freedom of association and censorship,

When a comedy club kicks you out for making too many off-color jokes, that's not quite "freedom of association" (unless you had a membership) but it's not censorship
When the same is done by a forum with a very large share of the public discourse, it's censorship. If Twitter was just a tiny corner of the Internet (like, say, NationStates) then it wouldn't be censorship. Just, perhaps, somewhat rude.

I'm just gonna practice one of the core fundamentals of the freedom of association and voluntarily unassociate myself with you, since that freedom's a two-way street and since I don't give much of a shit about your faux pearl-clutching. Maybe then you'll learn how it works.

I've already mentioned your poor understanding of "freedom of association" masquerading as a "proper" understanding so I don't feel the need to repeat myself outside of a meta context.

[Torrocca]

Or maybe freedom of association isn't a restriction on freeze peach?



Neat; they're almost all still universally pieces of shit so it's still a deserved comeuppance.



Thinking that Capitalism with a small state is equivalent to liberty doesn't make you a Libertarian.

Having bad viewpoints isn't enough to warrant a "comeuppance". If it were, the Communist Exclusion Act would still be enforced.

Those same bad viewpoints have driven numerous people to commit mass-murder of innocent people in the name of those viewpoints. Quit trying to "both sides" this.

As far as linguistics are concerned, we're just as libertarian as you.

Nah, you're not. And you'll never be, so long as you've got a fancy for Capitalism.

[Nakena]

And you'll never be, so long as you've got a fancy for Capitalism.

You don't get to define that.

[Torrocca]

And you'll never be, so long as you've got a fancy for Capitalism.

You don't get to define that.

Neato; don't really care, because I'm not claiming to be the one defining it. I'm basing it off international usage of the term "Libertarian" and the bullshit pulled in America in the 1960s.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Having bad viewpoints isn't enough to warrant a "comeuppance". If it were, the Communist Exclusion Act would still be enforced.

Those same bad viewpoints have driven numerous people to commit mass-murder of innocent people in the name of those viewpoints.

Like Socialism?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

snip

I don't want to get involved in this feud, but I am enjoying the irony of a libertarian, who's basing their arguments on libertarianism, arguing that private corporations shouldn't be allowed to create and enforce rules concerning the use of their website.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that private individuals should be allowed to do more or less whatever they want with their legally-owned property, and the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with how private corporations operate as long as those corporations aren't violating anyone's basic human rights. Or does that basic premise no longer apply at a certain scale?

[Nakena]

You don't get to define that.

Neato; don't really care, because I'm not claiming to be the one defining it. I'm basing it off international usage of the term "Libertarian" and the bullshit pulled in America in the 1960s.

Theres left and right libertarism. And other kinds probably too. Ya know?

Like theres anarcho-communism. And anarcho-capitalism.

Deal with it. ^^

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Those same bad viewpoints have driven numerous people to commit mass-murder of innocent people in the name of those viewpoints.

Like Socialism?

Depends on the flavor of socialism, but it's worth noting that none of the flavors that are known for mass murder are particularly common.
Saying that "Socialism does X" is a bit like saying that "Capitalism does X", in that they're both economic systems that have different political connotations depending on who exactly you're talking to. Some people have committed mass murder in the name of capitalism; that does not mean that capitalism as a whole is built around mass murder.

[Torrocca]

Neato; don't really care, because I'm not claiming to be the one defining it. I'm basing it off international usage of the term "Libertarian" and the bullshit pulled in America in the 1960s.

Theres left and right libertarism. And other kinds probably too. Ya know?

Murray Rothbard literally treated the use of "Libertarianism" to describe Classical Liberals as an act of stealing the word from Leftists; do take note that he wasn't a Leftist himself, and celebrated this notion in his own writings.

Like theres anarcho-communism. And anarcho-capitalism.

News flash: just as right-wing """Libertarians""" aren't Libertarians, """""Anarcho"""""-Capitalists sure as shit aren't Anarchists.

Deal with it. ^^

I am dealing with it - by calling it out for the bullshit that it is.

[Torrocca]

Those same bad viewpoints have driven numerous people to commit mass-murder of innocent people in the name of those viewpoints.

Like Socialism?

Ring me up when Socialism calls for a Final Solution to enact against a minority group that's perceived as "subhuman".

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Like Socialism?

Ring me up when Socialism calls for a Final Solution to enact against a minority group that's perceived as "subhuman".

inb4 they claim that the bourgeoisie are that minority group, proving only that they misunderstood every single term involved

[Northern Davincia]

Having bad viewpoints isn't enough to warrant a "comeuppance". If it were, the Communist Exclusion Act would still be enforced.

Those same bad viewpoints have driven numerous people to commit mass-murder of innocent people in the name of those viewpoints. Quit trying to "both sides" this.

As far as linguistics are concerned, we're just as libertarian as you.

Nah, you're not. And you'll never be, so long as you've got a fancy for Capitalism.

Marxist-Leninism has a higher death toll than fascism when it comes to ideology. I still believe one has the right to express views sympathetic to either/neither side.

snip

I don't want to get involved in this feud, but I am enjoying the irony of a libertarian, who's basing their arguments on libertarianism, arguing that private corporations shouldn't be allowed to create and enforce rules concerning the use of their website.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that private individuals should be allowed to do more or less whatever they want with their legally-owned property, and the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with how private corporations operate as long as those corporations aren't violating anyone's basic human rights. Or does that basic premise no longer apply at a certain scale?

I'd imagine the general consensus among libertarians is that censorship is bad regardless of who does it, but private companies have the right to do it.

You don't get to define that.

Neato; don't really care, because I'm not claiming to be the one defining it. I'm basing it off international usage of the term "Libertarian" and the bullshit pulled in America in the 1960s.

And yet right-libertarianism has spread beyond America.

[Proctopeo]

snip

I don't want to get involved in this feud, but I am enjoying the irony of a libertarian, who's basing their arguments on libertarianism, arguing that private corporations shouldn't be allowed to create and enforce rules concerning the use of their website.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that private individuals should be allowed to do more or less whatever they want with their legally-owned property, and the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with how private corporations operate as long as those corporations aren't violating anyone's basic human rights. Or does that basic premise no longer apply at a certain scale?

It's more complicated than you're presenting it as, but, yes, on a very basic level, when a corporation becomes a certain scale, they do start to get the ability to actively violate basic human rights, though not all do.

[Torrocca]

Those same bad viewpoints have driven numerous people to commit mass-murder of innocent people in the name of those viewpoints. Quit trying to "both sides" this.



Nah, you're not. And you'll never be, so long as you've got a fancy for Capitalism.

Marxist-Leninism has a higher death toll than fascism when it comes to ideology. I still believe one has the right to express views sympathetic to either/neither side.

Marxism-Leninism can get fucked, too, for all I care.

Neato; don't really care, because I'm not claiming to be the one defining it. I'm basing it off international usage of the term "Libertarian" and the bullshit pulled in America in the 1960s.

And yet right-libertarianism has spread beyond America.

It's spread so magnificently that it's literally a laughing stock everywhere, including America.

[Nakena]

Theres left and right libertarism. And other kinds probably too. Ya know?

Murray Rothbard literally treated the use of "Libertarianism" to describe Classical Liberals as an act of stealing the word from Leftists; do take note that he wasn't a Leftist himself, and celebrated this notion in his own writings.

Like theres anarcho-communism. And anarcho-capitalism.

News flash: just as right-wing """Libertarians""" aren't Libertarians, """""Anarcho"""""-Capitalists sure as shit aren't Anarchists.

Deal with it. ^^

I am dealing with it - by calling it out for the bullshit that it is.

Libertarians and Anarchism can carry different adjectives and forms. Not all of them are ideologically aligned to your views however. You will have to accept that theres some amongst us who will disagree with your ideology.

Did I told you I became recently a little interested in anarchism and mutualism? Of course, in my very own interpretation thereof. :^)

[Northern Davincia]

Theres left and right libertarism. And other kinds probably too. Ya know?

Murray Rothbard literally treated the use of "Libertarianism" to describe Classical Liberals as an act of stealing the word from Leftists; do take note that he wasn't a Leftist himself, and celebrated this notion in his own writings.

Like theres anarcho-communism. And anarcho-capitalism.

News flash: just as right-wing """Libertarians""" aren't Libertarians, """""Anarcho"""""-Capitalists sure as shit aren't Anarchists.

Deal with it. ^^

I am dealing with it - by calling it out for the bullshit that it is.

Indeed, we've stolen a word in order to make up for the fact that right-libertarianism is distinct from classical liberalism (we are far more resistant to the state) and contemporary liberalism (which fully embraces the state).

[Torrocca]

Murray Rothbard literally treated the use of "Libertarianism" to describe Classical Liberals as an act of stealing the word from Leftists; do take note that he wasn't a Leftist himself, and celebrated this notion in his own writings.



News flash: just as right-wing """Libertarians""" aren't Libertarians, """""Anarcho"""""-Capitalists sure as shit aren't Anarchists.



I am dealing with it - by calling it out for the bullshit that it is.

Libertarians and Anarchism can carry different adjectives and forms.

And none of them are right-wing.

Not all of them are ideologically aligned to your views however.

Yeah, yeah, I know LibComs, LibSocs, AnPacs, AnSynds, AnMuts, Egoists, SocDems, DemSocs, and the whole rest of the non-authoritarian left exists.

You will have to accept that theres some amongst us who will disagree with your ideology.

Neat. I'm not denying that. Right-wing """Libertarianism""" is still a crock of bullshit in all its forms.

Did I told you I became recently a little interested in anarchism and mutualism? Of course, in my very own interpretation thereof. :^)

Good for you.

[Pacomia]

Hold on, how exactly is right-libertarianism not libertarian?