I dispute that the left ever had any kind of monopoly on chilling speech. Getting people fired from their jobs for exercising speech isn't a specialty of the left. The fact that it consistently made headlines when the SJWs scored a win showed how relatively rare it was. It was and remains much more common for people to get fired for left-leaning speech, such as union organizing efforts. And which side imposed "Don't say gay" laws?
Remember when people lost their shit when it came out that the Biden administration was leaning on social media platforms to stop the spread of certain ideas? Yet now we see the current administration openly and flagrantly punishing and extorting private universities and law firms, even disappearing people for attending rallies, to thunderous silence from the right. It's as if all the outrage about free speech was a farce.
Extremism on any side is bad, period. 'But they are worse' is sort of moot point and most people don't care about details, you simply lose normal audience and maybe gain some fringe.
This strikes me as someone on the left complaining that they fucked around and now they are finding out. I don’t mean this in a malicious way but the lack of self reflection and perspective is staggering.
One ban consists of the exercise of their right to... Not associate with you.
The other sends you to a Salvadoran gulag. (The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)
It's odd that one ban operates within the constraints of freedom (the freedom to associate requires the exercise of the freedom to not associate), while the other does not. It's almost like there's a categorical distinction.
It's utterly pointless to say that the starting point is the same, when one is an utter sabotage of all of society's rights and values... While the other is people affirming those rights.
>(The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)
As one of the 'Free Speech folks', I'll bite.
I absolutely condemn the administration rounding up someone like Mahmoud Khalil if the only thing he did was speak a rallies. If you look up Uncivil Law's video on Mahmoud Khalil Deportation, he is saying the same thing.
Now, let's flip this around. Where are all my left wing friends willing to condemn the investigation into Trump for his Jan. 6th speech? Are you willing to join us now?
> One ban consists of the exercise of their right to... Not associate with you.
Many people have been fired / expelled / and many more silenced by those examples. If you can't tell the truth about your side (from how you're writing I assume you think in sides) then there's no point saying it.
> The other sends you to a Salvadoran gulag. (The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)
I haven't heard about this. Who has been sent to a Salvadoran gulag for speech?
Everything is a flip side of the same coin if you abstract away from all the important details.
Oh the right say that some things are bad? Well the left say that some things are bad too!
These lazy equivalencies only breed cynicism and give intellectual cover to the Trump
administration’s executive power grab. By all means criticize the left as much as you like. But the specifics are important. The current administration’s deportation of green card holders without due process isn’t somehow a mirror image of whatever excesses of left wing ‘cancel culture’ you may be upset about.
This false equivalency, if you honestly believe it, is shallow at best.
The ‘left’ has identified speech that is likely used to belittle or negate someone else’s existence and will appropriately label it as hate speech. Any structural changes to make these words frowned upon have taken years to get into place; people were allowed to adjust (and the length of time to do so is ridiculous in its own right), and what little change has happened did so in a way where the people who must change are barely inconvenienced. There have been few legal repercussions for the use of hate speech by anyone with a modicum of power. Sure, you could identify a few, but there are a ludicrous number of flagrant violations of any such laws (which are few) which go unpunished. The ‘left’ here being any sane member of society which has publicly pointed out that certain words are singularly incendiary.
Meanwhile, the grifters of this ‘right’ have conned the honest conservatives into believing that DEI is a term of hatred against conservatives. The ‘right’ has identified that they wish to say whatever without punishment and are structurally creating a cost for using inclusive language in any official capacity. The grifting part of the ‘right’ also doesn’t mind breaking any semblance of stability for everyone else. The ‘right’ here being the near-narcissistic people who have happened upon positions of privilege and believe that they are superior, have earned it, and that only those similar to themselves should ever attain such a position in the future.
But no, you have reduced your observation to ‘two sides are banning words.’
Not really. In both cases, compulsion is the problem. Neither side has the right to compel anyone to do anything, but they operate on the premise that they do, usually characterized by indignant self-rightiousness. The irrational extremists of both sides, the ones screaming the loudest, naturally, seek to enforce their version of "how things should be" on to other people, regardless if their objections are rational or not, while also constantly changing the rules or shifting goal posts, which keeps us forever locked in a state of not knowing if we are breaking them. It's mind-numbing to a degree that apathy starts to seem like a perfectly valid option. It's also a tactic historically used by totalitarianism.
They are two sides of the same monster, like Jekyll & Hyde.
> That's because the extent of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture" while the present behavior of the illiberal right is abductions and overseas slave camps. You can see why people might find having the two equated a little ridiculous, right?
You are correct - one is objectively worse than the other.
The unfortunate truth is that, also, one is a consequence of the other.
Trump is simply doing what his voters wanted[1]. And they voted for him precisely because `of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture"`.
Had the first thing not happened, then the consequence would have been a fictional story in an alternate timeline.
But here we are, and we don't get to say "Sure, we were assholes to 50% of the population, but your response is worse".
It's not an equation in what it does to people. Yes, abduction is worse than being yelled at.
However, it's pointing out that the general principle has been established: "People whose opinion I don't like can be banned from society." At first, it's only removing individuals from public discourse (cancel culture), then it's removing people physically (deportation).
This is always the endgame of eroding core liberal values. This has been pointed out to the illiberal left time and time again, to no avail.
> it is valid to be more annoyed by the ways they are the same
Is it? One side has a vocal minority who took defense of minorities to the point of harassment and was ultimately rebuffed. The other side controls the government and is enthusiastically renditioning legal residents to prisons and defying the constitution and courts to keep doing it.
To be more upset about both sides being imperfect than the injustice of irreversible deportations to foreign prison seems ... absurd.
The government may be within its legal rights. As an expression of values however it's hard not to see the expulsion of these students as petty politicalized retaliation. The sort of thing you would see in an electoral autocracy as opposed to a liberal democracy.
If you're a guest, act like a guest. Anti-Israel protests are by extension a protest against the US foreign policy, so yeah... You protest your host in a violent and disruptive manner, you probably shouldn't have been allowed in to begin with.
That only Americans have the right to participate in our political system is an expression of values. And it’s entirely compatible with democracy. The citizen versus non-citizen distinction is fundamental to democracy.
> The US has the prerogative to filter immigrants based on their views and affiliations.
What comes before “filter[ing] immigrants” is due process. Resident aliens have the right to due process which the current US administration is not providing.
Alien residents with every right to be here are being removed from the US illegally and mistakenly.
I am not sure there's technically a due process right in the case of immigration visa revocation and the ensuing deportation. There is a due process right in the case of crimes, but getting your visa revoked is not a crime.
The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited reasons. Speech would probably be one of those bad reasons under the US's civil rights framework.
If there's no due process for everyone, that distinction literally does not matter in the slightest!
Dozens of citizens could have been sent into slave labor for all we know, and no judge has been able to provide the constitutionally mandated oversight. It has been upheld many times and for hundreds of years that the Due Process clause applies to non-citizens for this reason.
Due process only means “This is the minimum required process for the government to act”. It doesn’t mean that every non-citizen is entitled to a jury trial that can escalate to the USSC.
In some cases, “due process” is “Your name made it into a spreadsheet, the President can drone strike you”
> The US has the prerogative to filter immigrants based on their views and affiliations.
Just to point, the prerogative to "filter" immigrants does not allow the US to keep them in jail, torture, or send them to foreign countries non-supervised labor camps.
I dispute that the left ever had any kind of monopoly on chilling speech. Getting people fired from their jobs for exercising speech isn't a specialty of the left. The fact that it consistently made headlines when the SJWs scored a win showed how relatively rare it was. It was and remains much more common for people to get fired for left-leaning speech, such as union organizing efforts. And which side imposed "Don't say gay" laws?
Remember when people lost their shit when it came out that the Biden administration was leaning on social media platforms to stop the spread of certain ideas? Yet now we see the current administration openly and flagrantly punishing and extorting private universities and law firms, even disappearing people for attending rallies, to thunderous silence from the right. It's as if all the outrage about free speech was a farce.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
70 replies →
They got themselves fired. People who wrote things didn't get themselves disappeared to a holding site in Louisiana.
1 reply →
Very refreshing to finally see people on HN call out the ridiculousness of the "both sides" arguments when it comes to this topic.
Extremism on any side is bad, period. 'But they are worse' is sort of moot point and most people don't care about details, you simply lose normal audience and maybe gain some fringe.
30 replies →
Thanks for proving his point...
This strikes me as someone on the left complaining that they fucked around and now they are finding out. I don’t mean this in a malicious way but the lack of self reflection and perspective is staggering.
One ban consists of the exercise of their right to... Not associate with you.
The other sends you to a Salvadoran gulag. (The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)
It's odd that one ban operates within the constraints of freedom (the freedom to associate requires the exercise of the freedom to not associate), while the other does not. It's almost like there's a categorical distinction.
It's utterly pointless to say that the starting point is the same, when one is an utter sabotage of all of society's rights and values... While the other is people affirming those rights.
>(The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)
As one of the 'Free Speech folks', I'll bite.
I absolutely condemn the administration rounding up someone like Mahmoud Khalil if the only thing he did was speak a rallies. If you look up Uncivil Law's video on Mahmoud Khalil Deportation, he is saying the same thing.
Now, let's flip this around. Where are all my left wing friends willing to condemn the investigation into Trump for his Jan. 6th speech? Are you willing to join us now?
2 replies →
> One ban consists of the exercise of their right to... Not associate with you.
Many people have been fired / expelled / and many more silenced by those examples. If you can't tell the truth about your side (from how you're writing I assume you think in sides) then there's no point saying it.
> The other sends you to a Salvadoran gulag. (The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)
I haven't heard about this. Who has been sent to a Salvadoran gulag for speech?
14 replies →
Oh bugger off with your both sides horsewash
Everything is a flip side of the same coin if you abstract away from all the important details.
Oh the right say that some things are bad? Well the left say that some things are bad too!
These lazy equivalencies only breed cynicism and give intellectual cover to the Trump administration’s executive power grab. By all means criticize the left as much as you like. But the specifics are important. The current administration’s deportation of green card holders without due process isn’t somehow a mirror image of whatever excesses of left wing ‘cancel culture’ you may be upset about.
This false equivalency, if you honestly believe it, is shallow at best.
The ‘left’ has identified speech that is likely used to belittle or negate someone else’s existence and will appropriately label it as hate speech. Any structural changes to make these words frowned upon have taken years to get into place; people were allowed to adjust (and the length of time to do so is ridiculous in its own right), and what little change has happened did so in a way where the people who must change are barely inconvenienced. There have been few legal repercussions for the use of hate speech by anyone with a modicum of power. Sure, you could identify a few, but there are a ludicrous number of flagrant violations of any such laws (which are few) which go unpunished. The ‘left’ here being any sane member of society which has publicly pointed out that certain words are singularly incendiary.
Meanwhile, the grifters of this ‘right’ have conned the honest conservatives into believing that DEI is a term of hatred against conservatives. The ‘right’ has identified that they wish to say whatever without punishment and are structurally creating a cost for using inclusive language in any official capacity. The grifting part of the ‘right’ also doesn’t mind breaking any semblance of stability for everyone else. The ‘right’ here being the near-narcissistic people who have happened upon positions of privilege and believe that they are superior, have earned it, and that only those similar to themselves should ever attain such a position in the future.
But no, you have reduced your observation to ‘two sides are banning words.’
Good luck in that case ;)
[flagged]
Not really. In both cases, compulsion is the problem. Neither side has the right to compel anyone to do anything, but they operate on the premise that they do, usually characterized by indignant self-rightiousness. The irrational extremists of both sides, the ones screaming the loudest, naturally, seek to enforce their version of "how things should be" on to other people, regardless if their objections are rational or not, while also constantly changing the rules or shifting goal posts, which keeps us forever locked in a state of not knowing if we are breaking them. It's mind-numbing to a degree that apathy starts to seem like a perfectly valid option. It's also a tactic historically used by totalitarianism.
They are two sides of the same monster, like Jekyll & Hyde.
2 replies →
> That's because the extent of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture" while the present behavior of the illiberal right is abductions and overseas slave camps. You can see why people might find having the two equated a little ridiculous, right?
You are correct - one is objectively worse than the other.
The unfortunate truth is that, also, one is a consequence of the other.
Trump is simply doing what his voters wanted[1]. And they voted for him precisely because `of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture"`.
Had the first thing not happened, then the consequence would have been a fictional story in an alternate timeline.
But here we are, and we don't get to say "Sure, we were assholes to 50% of the population, but your response is worse".
[1] Spoiler - they may not even want it anymore!
10 replies →
It's not an equation in what it does to people. Yes, abduction is worse than being yelled at.
However, it's pointing out that the general principle has been established: "People whose opinion I don't like can be banned from society." At first, it's only removing individuals from public discourse (cancel culture), then it's removing people physically (deportation).
This is always the endgame of eroding core liberal values. This has been pointed out to the illiberal left time and time again, to no avail.
5 replies →
> while the present behavior of the illiberal right is abductions and overseas slave camps
Can you provide examples of people getting abducted and sent to "overseas slave camps" purely for their speech?
6 replies →
Reminder to anyone triggered by a “both sides” comment:
just like you, we are all aware of how the sides are different, it is valid to be more annoyed by the ways they are the same
> it is valid to be more annoyed by the ways they are the same
Is it? One side has a vocal minority who took defense of minorities to the point of harassment and was ultimately rebuffed. The other side controls the government and is enthusiastically renditioning legal residents to prisons and defying the constitution and courts to keep doing it.
To be more upset about both sides being imperfect than the injustice of irreversible deportations to foreign prison seems ... absurd.
7 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
The government may be within its legal rights. As an expression of values however it's hard not to see the expulsion of these students as petty politicalized retaliation. The sort of thing you would see in an electoral autocracy as opposed to a liberal democracy.
If you're a guest, act like a guest. Anti-Israel protests are by extension a protest against the US foreign policy, so yeah... You protest your host in a violent and disruptive manner, you probably shouldn't have been allowed in to begin with.
21 replies →
That only Americans have the right to participate in our political system is an expression of values. And it’s entirely compatible with democracy. The citizen versus non-citizen distinction is fundamental to democracy.
5 replies →
> The US has the prerogative to filter immigrants based on their views and affiliations.
What comes before “filter[ing] immigrants” is due process. Resident aliens have the right to due process which the current US administration is not providing.
Alien residents with every right to be here are being removed from the US illegally and mistakenly.
I am not sure there's technically a due process right in the case of immigration visa revocation and the ensuing deportation. There is a due process right in the case of crimes, but getting your visa revoked is not a crime.
The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited reasons. Speech would probably be one of those bad reasons under the US's civil rights framework.
4 replies →
If there's no due process for everyone, that distinction literally does not matter in the slightest!
Dozens of citizens could have been sent into slave labor for all we know, and no judge has been able to provide the constitutionally mandated oversight. It has been upheld many times and for hundreds of years that the Due Process clause applies to non-citizens for this reason.
Due process only means “This is the minimum required process for the government to act”. It doesn’t mean that every non-citizen is entitled to a jury trial that can escalate to the USSC.
In some cases, “due process” is “Your name made it into a spreadsheet, the President can drone strike you”
[flagged]
3 replies →
> The US has the prerogative to filter immigrants based on their views and affiliations.
Just to point, the prerogative to "filter" immigrants does not allow the US to keep them in jail, torture, or send them to foreign countries non-supervised labor camps.