Current Events > What is the logic of deplatforming somebody for being offensive?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Are you asking why actions should have consequences?

I'm willing to play ball if you can divulge your main first.

Are you asking why actions should have consequences?

The logic is a bunch of executives in a meeting saying "we're afraid of losing money, so we're going to throw this guy under the bus, say that not only do we not share his views, we've terminated him from our platform."

I'm willing to play ball if you can divulge your main first.

The logic is a bunch of executives in a meeting saying "we're afraid of losing money, so we're going to throw this guy under the bus, say that not only do we not share his views, we've terminated him from our platform."

Some are wicked. Revenge is perfectly human.

Just because something happens as a reaction, doesn't mean it is a fair or logical reaction or valid consequence.

If a 10 year old called you a fart face, and so you burnt their house down, and then the police asked you why you burn their house down. Responding with "Are you asking why actions should have consequences?" would not be satisfactory.

You are perfectly capable of reading my original question, and my question is what is the logic behind deplatforming?

I'm willing to play ball if you can divulge your main first.

Joe numbers

Are you asking why actions should have consequences?

Hm, not too far from his style, but usually goes into more effort and bothers to reply. Still just reads like a troll.

I believe it's him because he started using this name in the sudoku topic after his Joe numbers account was unable to post due to the moderations

Liberals/progressives are into censoring "dangerous speech" for all the people they believe are not as smart as they are

Someone says "People who claim to be victims of hate crimes are duplicitous, greedy villains who make life harder for you and me. We should do everything we can to expel these vermin because they're a plague on our species, and by doing that it would be for the betterment of our world".

What happens when we leave that up: people who agree with harassing the target of that statement direct other people to that statement and influence them to join their ranks, whose goal is to scapegoat the target of that rhetoric, harass them, post slander about them to ruin their reputation and hopefully become loud enough to begin affecting public policy that affects them and people like them.

What happens when we make a concerted effort to shut that down: the people making those statements have less influence due to being moderated, the message gets less exposure because it keeps getting removed, and potential new recruits can't be radicalized as easily because the statements are harder to access when they're forced underground.

Less people are exposed to extremist rhetoric, which means less people are at risk of being radicalized by said rhetoric, which means there's less of a network to spread the word, which means the influence of the rhetoric and the people pushing it are neutered. Whereas when you leave it up, the roots grow further and more people are at risk of falling down the rabbit hole into bigotry and political extremism.

This is the best way to explain it.

And while in the case of Rogan I may not agree with the extent it's going, it still fits.

I just feel that as a leftist/progressive/liberal whatever you want to call it, there comes a point where we have to recognize that people can actually change, and not letting them apologize or not recognizing that it's possible for people to open their world view and recognize the fault in the way that they acted.

If not, then what's the point? I know that 12 years ago i had some transphobic or racist views, and while they were mostly just making crude jokes or whatever, i now recognize how dumb and ignorant i was being and have completely changed. If you look at Rogan's apology, it does seem to me that he is sincere and recognizing that the shit in all of the clips is wrong, and if we continue to push and push instead of accepting his apology, then what is the point? How far do we want this to go?

what did Joe Rogan actually apologize for?

I mean, with examples like you...

He apologized for what he said and saying the N word and to any offense and harm that it may have caused people. What do you mean, did you not see his apology? I mean he blatantly says how shocking and ugly it sounds.

Look, im not saying that he didnt do any wrong, what im saying is in this day and age we have people that go through this and they basically just turn super reactionary and talk about how they're being "coerced to apologize for doing nothing wrong and the cancel culture mob is attacking me", etc.

In this instance we have someone who recognizes his wrong and is at least willing to try to atone for it, and if we just reject that notion and anyone elses notion to try to extend an olive branch, then what are we really trying to achieve?

I didn't see any apology. saying the n word, particularly as many times as he's said it (apparently it's over 70 on his podcast), is really weird and suspect, but it's far from the worst thing he's done

people don't "turn" super reactionary because of backlash. and even if they did, the rest of your point isn't applicable here. he did do many things wrong.

what has he done to attempt to atone for it? is he going to stop being credulous to eugenicists and anti-vaxxers? is he going to stop having them on his podcast?

Ok, first id at least try to watch his apology.

Second, a lot of the N word usage was him using it in a discussion format and not just saying it in a joking way or mocking somebody. I still feel like that is wrong, but I'm not gonna accuse someone of being overtly racist for saying the N word while discussing it with other black people or quoting it from a joke that someone performed. I, personally, would never do it now, but i used to, and through self reflection and discussion with others recognize that it's really ignorant and have learned why, and how it can still be hurtful.

Secondly people absolutely can become more reactionary, and it's weird that you think that people can't. But whatever just agree to disagree there.

Thirdly, i hope that he stops platforming these people, i really do. And if he continues having them on, i hope he starts to pushback on some of the bull shit they spew, or do basically anything to argue. He said that he's going to start trying to have more people on that give all sides of an argument. And i think that at least that's a start i suppose. Idk, it remains to be seen what he'll do.

what has he done to attempt to atone for it?

My question to you though is, and im asking this earnestly not condescendingly, what do you want done to Joe Rogan? Like what do you feel like the acceptable penance is for him?

We can start with 2 assumptions:

1. The person in question did indeed say something some people find offensive
2. Nobody is forced to listen to the person in question

If both these things are true, then what is the logic behind deplatforming them?

Is it purely punitive? Like "I don't like this person now and thus I want their life to be worse"? Or is there more logic than that?

This is a sincere question as I honestly don't understand the logic.

why are people actually wasting time responding to this obviously disingenuous bad faith topic?

Liberals/progressives are into censoring "dangerous speech" for all the people they believe are not as smart as they are

That's the logic of the platform, which makes some sense to me. But the logic of those calling for the deplatforming is what I am confused by.

Well, we do also have to assume something else:

3. Each platform is a private entity, with the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

This means, sure, that entity can, based on the opinions of their owners, determine they want the life of that creator to be worse due to the nature of their content.

This also means there is nothing personal about the creator, because the entity cannot have "feelings" including whatever drives people to want to hurt another person.

Asking if a platform, which is a business, which, regardless of the legal decision to consider a business a person, means the drive to remove creators from their platform has nothing to do with punishment. If your washing machine ruined your clothes, is it because the washing machine wanted to make your life worse? Whenever you're terminated from a job, does that mean the company (not your supervisor or boss) you worked for wants your life to be worse?

Also, a company's motivation to react to calls to deplatforming makes some sense to me, the logic am I questioning is the actual calls for deplatforming. I do not understand the motivation of those.

Basically, it's the people using the platform not wanting to see it.

Some of it is easily avoidable, like not watching a comedian on Netflix you find offensive, or using Spotify despite not liking Joe Rogan.

Other times it's a matter of not wanting to give up on an entire product just because there's one singular thing about it that you don't like.

It would be like being a Mets fan and loving everything about the team but the 2nd baseman. Instead of abandoning the entire team, you call for them to trade or release that one guy.

It's with anything in life.

It's rare that someone loves every aspect of anything.

It's like saying you love a certain TV show, but can't stand one of the actors. You're (not you personally, but the proverbial "you") not going to stop watching the show, but tweeting things like "The show would be so much better if so-and-so wasn't on it or was played by a different actor".

Assuming this is about Rogan, people feel that Spotify would be a better experience if they didn't support Rogan's show and allow him the platform to release his (in their opinion) controversial/negative/divisive podcast.

I'm willing to play ball if you can divulge your main first.

Joe numbers

I think this is at the heart of it. How is spotify a worse experience if it contains content you don't like, if you are never exposed to that content in any way?

If I understood this, I think I'd understand the logic behind deplatforming.

Like Chapelle said on one of this standups (not the most recent one that got him heat) "You put on Netflix and clicked on my face. No one is forcing you to hear this."

This is irrelevant. You don't have to watch the special to be exposed to what he's saying, there's numerous clips/channels/tweets/articles covering it no matter what side of the aisle you fall on. Even just a casual scroll on twitter can lead to you seeing a name/controversy in the trending category and can lead to you discovering the situation.

Even if you don't listen to his show (which I don't) sometimes hearing about it is unavoidable.

Did you not read the rest of my post where I literally said about Rogan: