LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Cisairse]

Top left/top right/bottom right unity against the deplatform gang.

it's funny how the most ardent supporters of deplatforming and corporate censorship are the left-libertarians

you'd expect them to, you know, oppose both of those things, at least the vast majority of the time, instead of basically never

[Proctopeo]

it's funny how the most ardent supporters of deplatforming and corporate censorship are the left-libertarians

you'd expect them to, you know, oppose both of those things, at least the vast majority of the time, instead of basically never

this but unironically

[Dumb Ideologies]

Does it not make you authoritarian to "deplatform" right wing persons?

Not necessarily. It would certainly be described authoritarian if it happened to be a decision made from an unaccountable, undemocratic authority. But if it were a collective, democratically made decision, the product of a popular consensus...

Do the majority support no-platforming and cancel-culture or is it a small amount of activists playing culture war with the support of complicit members of the economic/political elite who want to wokewash themselves?

[Liriena]

it's funny how the most ardent supporters of deplatforming and corporate censorship are the left-libertarians

you'd expect them to, you know, oppose both of those things, at least the vast majority of the time, instead of basically never

Right-libertarian memes have so much cursed energy

[Ostroeuropa]

Does it not make you authoritarian to "deplatform" right wing persons?

Not necessarily. It would certainly be described authoritarian if it happened to be a decision made from an unaccountable, undemocratic authority. But if it were a collective, democratically made decision, the product of a popular consensus...

This would almost certainly result in deplatforming the cultural progressive left sooner than anyone else. I'm largely fine with that. The problem is that the cultural progressive left controls the major institutions of culture and so they are the ones deciding who to deplatform in a manner at odds with the wishes of the public, and deplatforming the progressive left basically entails;

"We should shut down almost every news organization left of fox news, most social media, and fire most university professors." Because they've successfully managed to deplatform, ban, gatekeep, and censor alternatives until they control those institutions. So it amounts to a cultural revolution and the destruction of a huge amount of the professional class.

Again, i'm largely fine with that. But I doubt society is willing to tackle the extent of it, and i'm pretty sure; "Yes we're basically banned all our journalists from being journalists anymore and have confiscated large amounts of their property because of the fines against hate speech and their decades of violating those laws" would be used by this fifth column ideology to act hysterical and claim it's a dictatorial move internationally.

I'm also not convinced that we have the prison space to hold the number of people who would need to go to prison if the rules were applied evenly.

Further, the rest of the ruling class is going to be on edge about such a massive change in the power structure and setting the precedent of "Well as Guardian editor you published these articles clearly pushing hatred of men and white people for decades, so now you're going to prison like we would for other peddlers of hate speech" because rules for thee not for me, and setting the precedent that the public is entitled to remove their betters is one they don't want.

But if you straight up polled people on who to deplatform, the consensus is already in.

Deplatform the feminists, the intersectionalists, the progressive left, and so on. Ban them from organizing or speaking. People have concluded they are a hate movement that has overtaken our institutions and is using them to enact discriminatory policies.

Again, that doesn't much matter, because that group Is overwhelmingly white, middle class professionals. Which is exactly why the democratic notion of deplatforming will never happen under this current dynamic, and why we're stuck with the group everyone wants to ban from talking wielding the power to ban alternatives in a paradox of tolerance problem.

We tolerated the feminists and progressives and now have an intolerant society as a result where power to shape public discourse is rapidly centralizing around an ideology almost everybody hates, because it has taken over institutions and is intolerant of dissent.

Ideally we'd just start with a law explicitly clarifying that their nonsense rationalizations don't hold up, stuff like "Privilege+Power being used to dismiss racism and sexism is explicitly a racist and sexist statement given how it is used." and then slowly escalate as we squeeze them out fo public discourse.

Straight up no platforming them is too dramatic a change. One day we might reach the point where "This person was a member of a feminist group" is flagged in a similar way to "This person joined an explicitly racist organization" and it impacts their careers, and that would be desirable. But we're a long way from there yet. Instead, incremental deplatforming of specific statements is probably the way to go.

You can start with the privilege+power shit, then move on to attacking their usual nonsense and treating their handling of particular stats in the same way we treat the IQ stats stuff.

The reason we don't have democratic no platforming is its not in the interests of those with the institutional power to deplatform, since they would be the first targets.

[Liriena]

Not necessarily. It would certainly be described authoritarian if it happened to be a decision made from an unaccountable, undemocratic authority. But if it were a collective, democratically made decision, the product of a popular consensus...

Do the majority support no-platforming and cancel-culture or is it a small amount of activists playing culture war with the support of complicit members of the economic/political elite who want to wokewash themselves?

Eh, in the particular case of "cancel culture" I don't think it's either, or at least not in the way you present the two options.

The thing with no-platforming today is that it's still very much a highly localized phenomenon and usually takes place in specific private venues because, let's face it, there aren't a lot of publicly owned platforms in the United States. It would be hard for the platforming or no-platforming of, say, Youtubers or astroturfing orgs like TPUSA to ever be the subject of a genuine popular consensus building when they're both circumscribed to niches that most people either can't access or have no need or interest in accessing.

As for cancel culture... I think it's a bit of everything. From what I can recall, it was born as a genuinely grassroots thing online for communities looking to take care of each other and protect themselves from truly dangerous people. A bit like sex workers blacklisting bad clients.

There is also an outgrowth of it which we saw with some "breadtube" drama over the years (and with other dramas beforehand), which is basically a micro-movement online of people with varying degrees of sincerity who've built unhealthy parasocial relationships with online cultural figures and transform controversies (whether legitimate or not) into a particular form of online vigilante mob justice. Which, in practice, isn't very different from the days when 4chan tracked down animal abusers, except for the fact that the targets of the online mob in this sort of "cancel culture" aren't always dangerous abusers.

And yes, there is an assimilation of "cancel culture" of sorts in the ideological apparatuses of the dominant class, but I wouldn't say that the overlap with the second "culture war" I described is all that constant.

[Liriena]

Not necessarily. It would certainly be described authoritarian if it happened to be a decision made from an unaccountable, undemocratic authority. But if it were a collective, democratically made decision, the product of a popular consensus...

This would almost certainly result in deplatforming the cultural progressive left sooner than anyone else. I'm largely fine with that. The problem is that the cultural progressive left controls the major institutions of culture and so they are the ones deciding who to deplatform in a manner at odds with the wishes of the public, and deplatforming the progressive left basically entails;

"We should shut down almost every news organization left of fox news, most social media, and fire most university professors." Because they've successfully managed to deplatform, ban, gatekeep, and censor alternatives until they control those institutions. So it amounts to a cultural revolution and the destruction of a huge amount of the professional class.

Again, i'm largely fine with that. But I doubt society is willing to tackle the extent of it, and i'm pretty sure; "Yes we're basically banned all our journalists from being journalists anymore and have confiscated large amounts of their property because of the fines against hate speech and their decades of violating those laws" would be used by this fifth column ideology to act hysterical and claim it's a dictatorial move internationally.

I'm also not convinced that we have the prison space to hold the number of people who would need to go to prison if the rules were applied evenly.

Further, the rest of the ruling class is going to be on edge about such a massive change in the power structure and setting the precedent of "Well as Guardian editor you published these articles clearly pushing hatred of men and white people for decades, so now you're going to prison like we would for other peddlers of hate speech" because rules for thee not for me.

But if you straight up polled people on who to deplatform, the consensus is already in.

Jail the feminists, the intersectionalists, the progressive left, and so on. Ban them from organizing or speaking. People have concluded they are a hate movement that has overtaken our institutions and is using them to enact discriminatory policies.

Again, that doesn't much matter, because that group Is overwhelmingly white, middle class professionals. Which is exactly why the democratic notion of deplatforming will never happen under this current dynamic, and why we're stuck with the group everyone wants to ban from talking wielding the power to ban alternatives in a paradox of tolerance problem.

We tolerated the feminists and progressives and now have an intolerant society as a result where power to shape public discourse is rapidly centralizing around an ideology almost everybody hates.

Ideally we'd just start with a law explicitly clarifying that their nonsense rationalizations don't hold up, stuff like "Privilege+Power being used to dismiss racism and sexism is explicitly a racist and sexist statement given how it is used." and then slowly escalate as we squeeze them out fo public discourse.

Straight up no platforming them is too dramatic a change. One day we might reach the point where "This person was a member of a feminist group" is flagged in a similar way to "This person joined an explicitly racist organization" and it impacts their careers, and that would be desirable. But we're a long way from there yet.

k

[Cekoviu]

Not necessarily. It would certainly be described authoritarian if it happened to be a decision made from an unaccountable, undemocratic authority. But if it were a collective, democratically made decision, the product of a popular consensus...

This would almost certainly result in deplatforming the cultural progressive left sooner than anyone else. I'm largely fine with that. The problem is that the cultural progressive left controls the major institutions of culture and so they are the ones deciding who to deplatform in a manner at odds with the wishes of the public, and deplatforming the progressive left basically entails;

"We should shut down almost every news organization left of fox news, most social media, and fire most university professors." Because they've successfully managed to deplatform, ban, gatekeep, and censor alternatives until they control those institutions. So it amounts to a cultural revolution and the destruction of a huge amount of the professional class.

Again, i'm largely fine with that. But I doubt society is willing to tackle the extent of it, and i'm pretty sure; "Yes we're basically banned all our journalists from being journalists anymore and have confiscated large amounts of their property because of the fines against hate speech and their decades of violating those laws" would be used by this fifth column ideology to act hysterical and claim it's a dictatorial move internationally.

I'm also not convinced that we have the prison space to hold the number of people who would need to go to prison if the rules were applied evenly.

Further, the rest of the ruling class is going to be on edge about such a massive change in the power structure and setting the precedent of "Well as Guardian editor you published these articles clearly pushing hatred of men and white people for decades, so now you're going to prison like we would for other peddlers of hate speech" because rules for thee not for me.

But if you straight up polled people on who to deplatform, the consensus is already in.

Jail the feminists, the intersectionalists, the progressive left, and so on. Ban them from organizing or speaking. People have concluded they are a hate movement that has overtaken our institutions and is using them to enact discriminatory policies.

Again, that doesn't much matter, because that group Is overwhelmingly white, middle class professionals. Which is exactly why the democratic notion of deplatforming will never happen under this current dynamic, and why we're stuck with the group everyone wants to ban from talking wielding the power to ban alternatives in a paradox of tolerance problem.

We tolerated the feminists and progressives and now have an intolerant society as a result where power to shape public discourse is rapidly centralizing around an ideology almost everybody hates.

Ideally we'd just start with a law explicitly clarifying that their nonsense rationalizations don't hold up, stuff like "Privilege+Power being used to dismiss racism and sexism is explicitly a racist and sexist statement given how it is used." and then slowly escalate as we squeeze them out fo public discourse.

Straight up no platforming them is too dramatic a change. One day we might reach the point where "This person was a member of a feminist group" is flagged in a similar way to "This person joined an explicitly racist organization" and it impacts their careers, and that would be desirable. But we're a long way from there yet.

k

[Cisairse]

Not necessarily. It would certainly be described authoritarian if it happened to be a decision made from an unaccountable, undemocratic authority. But if it were a collective, democratically made decision, the product of a popular consensus...

This would almost certainly result in deplatforming the cultural progressive left sooner than anyone else. I'm largely fine with that. The problem is that the cultural progressive left controls the major institutions of culture and so they are the ones deciding who to deplatform in a manner at odds with the wishes of the public, and deplatforming the progressive left basically entails;

"We should shut down almost every news organization left of fox news, most social media, and fire most university professors." Because they've successfully managed to deplatform, ban, gatekeep, and censor alternatives until they control those institutions. So it amounts to a cultural revolution and the destruction of a huge amount of the professional class.

Again, i'm largely fine with that. But I doubt society is willing to tackle the extent of it, and i'm pretty sure; "Yes we're basically banned all our journalists from being journalists anymore and have confiscated large amounts of their property because of the fines against hate speech and their decades of violating those laws" would be used by this fifth column ideology to act hysterical and claim it's a dictatorial move internationally.

I'm also not convinced that we have the prison space to hold the number of people who would need to go to prison if the rules were applied evenly.

Further, the rest of the ruling class is going to be on edge about such a massive change in the power structure and setting the precedent of "Well as Guardian editor you published these articles clearly pushing hatred of men and white people for decades, so now you're going to prison like we would for other peddlers of hate speech" because rules for thee not for me.

But if you straight up polled people on who to deplatform, the consensus is already in.

Jail the feminists, the intersectionalists, the progressive left, and so on. Ban them from organizing or speaking. People have concluded they are a hate movement that has overtaken our institutions and is using them to enact discriminatory policies.

Again, that doesn't much matter, because that group Is overwhelmingly white, middle class professionals. Which is exactly why the democratic notion of deplatforming will never happen under this current dynamic, and why we're stuck with the group everyone wants to ban from talking wielding the power to ban alternatives in a paradox of tolerance problem.

We tolerated the feminists and progressives and now have an intolerant society as a result where power to shape public discourse is rapidly centralizing around an ideology almost everybody hates.

Ideally we'd just start with a law explicitly clarifying that their nonsense rationalizations don't hold up, stuff like "Privilege+Power being used to dismiss racism and sexism is explicitly a racist and sexist statement given how it is used." and then slowly escalate as we squeeze them out fo public discourse.

Straight up no platforming them is too dramatic a change. One day we might reach the point where "This person was a member of a feminist group" is flagged in a similar way to "This person joined an explicitly racist organization" and it impacts their careers, and that would be desirable. But we're a long way from there yet.

k

[Cekoviu]

it's funny how the most ardent supporters of deplatforming and corporate censorship are the left-libertarians

you'd expect them to, you know, oppose both of those things, at least the vast majority of the time, instead of basically never

everybody who isn't a right-libertarian is ET?

[Cisairse]

everybody who isn't a right-libertarian is ET?

As a left-libertarian, I am okay with this.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Do the majority support no-platforming and cancel-culture or is it a small amount of activists playing culture war with the support of complicit members of the economic/political elite who want to wokewash themselves?

Eh, in the particular case of "cancel culture" I don't think it's either, or at least not in the way you present the two options.

The thing with no-platforming today is that it's still very much a highly localized phenomenon and usually takes place in specific private venues because, let's face it, there aren't a lot of publicly owned platforms in the United States. It would be hard for the platforming or no-platforming of, say, Youtubers or astroturfing orgs like TPUSA to ever be the subject of a genuine popular consensus building when they're both circumscribed to niches that most people either can't access or have no need or interest in accessing.

As for cancel culture... I think it's a bit of everything. From what I can recall, it was born as a genuinely grassroots thing online for communities looking to take care of each other and protect themselves from truly dangerous people. A bit like sex workers blacklisting bad clients.

There is also an outgrowth of it which we saw with some "breadtube" drama over the years (and with other dramas beforehand), which is basically a micro-movement online of people with varying degrees of sincerity who've built unhealthy parasocial relationships with online cultural figures and transform controversies (whether legitimate or not) into a particular form of online vigilante mob justice. Which, in practice, isn't very different from the days when 4chan tracked down animal abusers, except for the fact that the targets of the online mob in this sort of "cancel culture" aren't always dangerous abusers.

And yes, there is an assimilation of "cancel culture" of sorts in the ideological apparatuses of the dominant class, but I wouldn't say that the overlap with the second "culture war" I described is all that constant.

Would you agree that it's more of a case of specific small groups organising to shut down debate and speech that they think is against the greater good, rather than said "shut it down" groups enjoying a majority support in society as a whole?

[Dumb Ideologies]

everybody who isn't a right-libertarian is ET?

The only ones who aren't alienated are the ownership class. Marx was right.

[Cekoviu]

Eh, in the particular case of "cancel culture" I don't think it's either, or at least not in the way you present the two options.

The thing with no-platforming today is that it's still very much a highly localized phenomenon and usually takes place in specific private venues because, let's face it, there aren't a lot of publicly owned platforms in the United States. It would be hard for the platforming or no-platforming of, say, Youtubers or astroturfing orgs like TPUSA to ever be the subject of a genuine popular consensus building when they're both circumscribed to niches that most people either can't access or have no need or interest in accessing.

As for cancel culture... I think it's a bit of everything. From what I can recall, it was born as a genuinely grassroots thing online for communities looking to take care of each other and protect themselves from truly dangerous people. A bit like sex workers blacklisting bad clients.

There is also an outgrowth of it which we saw with some "breadtube" drama over the years (and with other dramas beforehand), which is basically a micro-movement online of people with varying degrees of sincerity who've built unhealthy parasocial relationships with online cultural figures and transform controversies (whether legitimate or not) into a particular form of online vigilante mob justice. Which, in practice, isn't very different from the days when 4chan tracked down animal abusers, except for the fact that the targets of the online mob in this sort of "cancel culture" aren't always dangerous abusers.

And yes, there is an assimilation of "cancel culture" of sorts in the ideological apparatuses of the dominant class, but I wouldn't say that the overlap with the second "culture war" I described is all that constant.

Would you agree that it's more of a case of specific small groups organising to shut down debate and speech that they think is against the greater good, rather than said "shut it down" groups enjoying a majority support in society as a whole?

Sure, and?

[Grenartia]

Does it not make you authoritarian to "deplatform" right wing persons?

Community self-regulation isn't authoritarianism
This is an incredibly simple concept

Where's the updoot button?

Right-libertarian memes have so much cursed energy

"AHKTSHUALLY technically its ephebephilia..."

Do the majority support no-platforming and cancel-culture or is it a small amount of activists playing culture war with the support of complicit members of the economic/political elite who want to wokewash themselves?

Eh, in the particular case of "cancel culture" I don't think it's either, or at least not in the way you present the two options.

The thing with no-platforming today is that it's still very much a highly localized phenomenon and usually takes place in specific private venues because, let's face it, there aren't a lot of publicly owned platforms in the United States. It would be hard for the platforming or no-platforming of, say, Youtubers or astroturfing orgs like TPUSA to ever be the subject of a genuine popular consensus building when they're both circumscribed to niches that most people either can't access or have no need or interest in accessing.

As for cancel culture... I think it's a bit of everything. From what I can recall, it was born as a genuinely grassroots thing online for communities looking to take care of each other and protect themselves from truly dangerous people. A bit like sex workers blacklisting bad clients.

There is also an outgrowth of it which we saw with some "breadtube" drama over the years (and with other dramas beforehand), which is basically a micro-movement online of people with varying degrees of sincerity who've built unhealthy parasocial relationships with online cultural figures and transform controversies (whether legitimate or not) into a particular form of online vigilante mob justice. Which, in practice, isn't very different from the days when 4chan tracked down animal abusers, except for the fact that the targets of the online mob in this sort of "cancel culture" aren't always dangerous abusers.

And yes, there is an assimilation of "cancel culture" of sorts in the ideological apparatuses of the dominant class, but I wouldn't say that the overlap with the second "culture war" I described is all that constant.

I fundamentally agree with this.

[Grenartia]

Not necessarily. It would certainly be described authoritarian if it happened to be a decision made from an unaccountable, undemocratic authority. But if it were a collective, democratically made decision, the product of a popular consensus...

This would almost certainly result in deplatforming the cultural progressive left sooner than anyone else. I'm largely fine with that. The problem is that the cultural progressive left controls the major institutions of culture and so they are the ones deciding who to deplatform in a manner at odds with the wishes of the public, and deplatforming the progressive left basically entails;

"We should shut down almost every news organization left of fox news, most social media, and fire most university professors." Because they've successfully managed to deplatform, ban, gatekeep, and censor alternatives until they control those institutions. So it amounts to a cultural revolution and the destruction of a huge amount of the professional class.

Again, i'm largely fine with that. But I doubt society is willing to tackle the extent of it, and i'm pretty sure; "Yes we're basically banned all our journalists from being journalists anymore and have confiscated large amounts of their property because of the fines against hate speech and their decades of violating those laws" would be used by this fifth column ideology to act hysterical and claim it's a dictatorial move internationally.

I'm also not convinced that we have the prison space to hold the number of people who would need to go to prison if the rules were applied evenly.

Further, the rest of the ruling class is going to be on edge about such a massive change in the power structure and setting the precedent of "Well as Guardian editor you published these articles clearly pushing hatred of men and white people for decades, so now you're going to prison like we would for other peddlers of hate speech" because rules for thee not for me.

But if you straight up polled people on who to deplatform, the consensus is already in.

Jail the feminists, the intersectionalists, the progressive left, and so on. Ban them from organizing or speaking. People have concluded they are a hate movement that has overtaken our institutions and is using them to enact discriminatory policies.

Again, that doesn't much matter, because that group Is overwhelmingly white, middle class professionals. Which is exactly why the democratic notion of deplatforming will never happen under this current dynamic, and why we're stuck with the group everyone wants to ban from talking wielding the power to ban alternatives in a paradox of tolerance problem.

We tolerated the feminists and progressives and now have an intolerant society as a result where power to shape public discourse is rapidly centralizing around an ideology almost everybody hates.

Ideally we'd just start with a law explicitly clarifying that their nonsense rationalizations don't hold up, stuff like "Privilege+Power being used to dismiss racism and sexism is explicitly a racist and sexist statement given how it is used." and then slowly escalate as we squeeze them out fo public discourse.

Straight up no platforming them is too dramatic a change. One day we might reach the point where "This person was a member of a feminist group" is flagged in a similar way to "This person joined an explicitly racist organization" and it impacts their careers, and that would be desirable. But we're a long way from there yet.

k

[Liriena]

Honestly, if you ask me, the best way to get rid of the conservative grifters and demagogues of the online world isn't excluding them from specific, highly localized platforms. Because none of them built their power on that stuff. Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Dave Rubin, Candace Owens... The foundations of their prominence weren't them having a Twitter account or speaking in front of young Republicans in some private university.

They're all astroturfers. We know for a fact that all of them, to some extent, owe their prominence to the substantial material support they receive from a sector of the dominant class, of a social and economic elite whose interests they represent.

Remove their corporate overlords from the equation and they have nothing. They'll fall into pathetic obscurity like Milo Yiannopoulos did.

[Ostroeuropa]

k

If you're trying to say that there's a way of deplatforming things democratically and without unaccountable authority, then it's important to acknowledge what the results of that would actually look like and how starkly it contrasts current deplatforming as it occurs. Its also worth examining why we don't do it that way - Because it's not in the interests of those who currently use deplatforming to maintain a monopoly on discourse in institutions. If deplatforming democratically suited their needs, they'd do it. It doesn't, so they don't.

Thinking that it can be improved and still maintain the same character is pretty out there, along the lines of "Well the dictatorship can be improved by allowing people to vote for it, nothing would change except how the dictatorship receives its legitimacy.". If they could win an election, they wouldn't need the dictatorship.

[The New California Republic]

everybody who isn't a right-libertarian is ET?

The only ones who aren't alienated are the ownership class. Marx was right.

Fucking lol.

[Cekoviu]

k

If you're trying to say that there's a way of deplatforming things democratically and without unaccountable authority, then it's important to acknowledge what the results of that would actually look like and how starkly it contrasts current deplatforming as it occurs. Its also worth examining why we don't do it that way - Because it's not in the interests of those who currently use deplatforming to maintain a monopoly on discourse in institutions. If deplatforming democratically suited their needs, they'd do it. It doesn't, so they don't.

Thinking that it can be improved and still maintain the same character is pretty out there, along the lines of "Well the dictatorship can be improved by allowing people to vote for it, nothing would change except how the dictatorship receives its legitimacy.". If they could win an election, they wouldn't need the dictatorship.

k

[Grenartia]

Honestly, if you ask me, the best way to get rid of the conservative grifters and demagogues of the online world isn't excluding them from specific, highly localized platforms. Because none of them built their power on that stuff. Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Dave Rubin, Candace Owens... The foundations of their prominence weren't them having a Twitter account or speaking in front of young Republicans in some private university.

They're all astroturfers. We know for a fact that all of them, to some extent, owe their prominence to the material support of a dominant class, of a social and economic elite whose interests they represent.

Remove their corporate overlords from the equation and they have nothing. See: Milo Yiannopoulos.

God, the salty tears and self awarenessless entitled begging of that chomo apologist continually sustain me.

[Liriena]

Eh, in the particular case of "cancel culture" I don't think it's either, or at least not in the way you present the two options.

The thing with no-platforming today is that it's still very much a highly localized phenomenon and usually takes place in specific private venues because, let's face it, there aren't a lot of publicly owned platforms in the United States. It would be hard for the platforming or no-platforming of, say, Youtubers or astroturfing orgs like TPUSA to ever be the subject of a genuine popular consensus building when they're both circumscribed to niches that most people either can't access or have no need or interest in accessing.

As for cancel culture... I think it's a bit of everything. From what I can recall, it was born as a genuinely grassroots thing online for communities looking to take care of each other and protect themselves from truly dangerous people. A bit like sex workers blacklisting bad clients.

There is also an outgrowth of it which we saw with some "breadtube" drama over the years (and with other dramas beforehand), which is basically a micro-movement online of people with varying degrees of sincerity who've built unhealthy parasocial relationships with online cultural figures and transform controversies (whether legitimate or not) into a particular form of online vigilante mob justice. Which, in practice, isn't very different from the days when 4chan tracked down animal abusers, except for the fact that the targets of the online mob in this sort of "cancel culture" aren't always dangerous abusers.

And yes, there is an assimilation of "cancel culture" of sorts in the ideological apparatuses of the dominant class, but I wouldn't say that the overlap with the second "culture war" I described is all that constant.

Would you agree that it's more of a case of specific small groups organising to shut down debate and speech that they think is against the greater good, rather than said "shut it down" groups enjoying a majority support in society as a whole?

Yeah.

[Ostroeuropa]

Would you agree that it's more of a case of specific small groups organising to shut down debate and speech that they think is against the greater good, rather than said "shut it down" groups enjoying a majority support in society as a whole?

Yeah.

Right. And why are those small groups listened to?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Would you agree that it's more of a case of specific small groups organising to shut down debate and speech that they think is against the greater good, rather than said "shut it down" groups enjoying a majority support in society as a whole?

Sure, and?

It just sounds a bit odd to call a group "libertarian" just because of their organisational structure when what they actually do is march round censoring and trying to intimidate opponents without enjoying significant popular support. I always figured that the logic must be that they in some way represented some much larger constituency then their absolute numbers suggest.

[Cekoviu]

Sure, and?

It just sounds a bit odd to call a group "libertarian" just because of their organisational structure when what they actually do is march round censoring and trying to intimidate opponents without enjoying significant popular support.

That's pretty much what internet rightlibs do tbf, just in a slightly different fashion