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

(+) Yeah! (+)

The longer a shitty platform doesn't get deplatformed, the more time their shitty messages have to reach more gullible people or people more susceptible to believing lies/misinformation hear these messages.

The logic is that we don't want harmful messages or misinformation to reach too many ears.

scamatoru posted...

words aint actions

You think this is dungeons and dragons? Speaking is an activity, it has a reaction. "The pen is mightier than the sword" and all that; and a speech or a podcast is the verbal version of that.

NoMeLx22x posted...

I'm talking specifically about Chapelle or literally any other situation.

But it literally is avoidable. Just scroll past the tweet, change the channel, don't click that link, etc.

I bet there's a thousand Rogan/Chappelle stories out there that you're either actively avoiding, or have no idea are even out there, because they're happening in areas of media that you don't involve yourself in.

MyMainAccount posted...

You think this is dungeons and dragons? Speaking is an activity, it has a reaction. "The pen is mightier than the sword" and all that; and a speech or a podcast is the verbal version of that.

But it is true in certain cases.

For example, a comedian that make a joke about, say, hitting a dog with a car is MUCH different than someone actually hitting a dog with a car.

People are so malleable that just walking down the street and hearing the echo of Rogans voice coming out of a passing car will create nazi's

A disingenuous question being argued in bad faith on CE? Lets gooooo

I think the logic is pretty straightforward.

People saying bad things may convince others to think and behave in ways that are socially undesirable. To prevent this, we must stop people from saying bad things. Thus, we must not afford them a platform. Removing their platform will keep people from saying bad things and therefore prevent people from thinking and behaving in socially undesirable ways.

More specific arguments can be made on a case by case basis, but that more or less captures it. Im not saying its convincing, but there it is.

bigblu89 posted...

But it is true in certain cases.

For example, a comedian that make a joke about, say, hitting a dog with a car is MUCH different than someone actually hitting a dog with a car.

Yes, but that's another pointless metaphor. The comedian isn't bringing a guy on who likes hitting dogs with his car and trying to discuss how we should consider doing it more.

Besides that, even jokes can have negative influence on the world. There wouldn't be comedians getting into scandals for "just jokes" if words didn't matter. They can have a positive influence too. The Three Stooges and Looney Tunes had propaganda films decrying Hitler; They did a great job of bringing up support in WW2. And negatively, some of them were pretty damn racist. Despite being "Jokes". For my part, I agree that the line where jokes are inappropriate and how far an offensive joke can be and still just be a joke is complicated and a whole different issue we don't need to go into now; it's just the point that words even in jokes have power.

MyMainAccount posted...

Yes, but that's another pointless metaphor. The comedian isn't bringing a guy on who likes hitting dogs with his car and trying to discuss how we should consider doing it more.

Which is why I said it was true in certain cases.

Sometimes a joke is literally just a joke.

And one man's "scandal" is another man's "overblown reaction".

Deplatforming works. Has anyone heard from Milo Yiannopolous in years?

BlackBlueButts posted...

Deplatforming works. Has anyone heard from Milo Yiannopolous in years?

I had no idea who that guys was till he was on Bill Maher's show 4-5 years ago.

And I honestly think that was the first and last time I ever saw him on anything.

bigblu89 posted...

Sometimes a joke is literally just a joke

This is true and a more concise version of my paragraph at the end there, sure. It can be difficult to find the line sometimes though. Offensive humor is a tightrope walk.

And people can choose to not let people walk it on their website.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You basically want to think for other people and narrow their choices in life.

Not a good idea to declare topic over when your answer brings up more problems than the question.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

You basically want to think for other people and narrow their choices in life.

Not a good idea to declare topic over when your answer brings up more problems than the question.

some people are actively destroying society by being given the privilege of "thinking" and "choosing" for themselves