New Reply
Name
×
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


thelp.jpg
[Hide] (61.7KB, 880x660)
A long time back the Mises website used to run their own forum.  We had a troll on the site named "Socialist Gerry" (Socialist Gerry -> Socialist German -> Nazi).  He was irritating, he messed up the board, but everyone replied to him all the same and he stayed around until eventually he got bored and left the site and was replaced by some other moron.

Now, even on libertarian forums, I've noticed trolls like this get banned.  But should they?

Yes, under libertarian ethics it's allowed.  Yeah, it's private property.  Private property owners can do that.  This is not an ethical argument I'm making, it's more of a cultural/moral one.  Like I get you don't want someone running naked on the libertarian party stage, but there's a matter of degree here, and I'm not asking to let communists into your neighborhood, but I am asking that maybe there's a more general moral argument that should be shared so that libertarians and others alike can just...not all turn into HOA Karens.

More generally than just the libertarian sphere, I feel like all across the internet the amount of tolerance has slipped dramatically.  I think that internet communities tend to be more and more ban happy and gatekeepy, and it's getting worse as time goes on.  This doesn't appear to be a government issue; it appears to be a cultural issue.

Personally, I'm making this post because--and this might be because I've become a worse individual over the years--but I can't really find any other places to post anymore.  I personally follow a rule that when a forum temporarily bans me or deletes my posts, I treat it like a permanent ban, leave, and go find someplace else.  I do this because I don't want to be on boards or communities that are that exclusive.  In the past, I used to be on boards for years or until they shut down.  At the moment, I'm pretty much left to this place and two, maybe three other chans on the webring, that's it, and I'll probably have to move again in a year.

Tl;dr:
- How can the cultural decrease of tolerance of speech be reversed?
- How can I find more speech tolerant/less banhappy/gatekeepy places?
Replies: >>887 >>890 >>917
>>886 (OP) 
Yes, trolls should be banned. Life is wasted spending time with people who exist to distract and drag you down. If a group becomes so homogenous that it can't tolerate anything different, let them suffer the consequences of being closed minded. That group will become such a micro culture it probably won't be accepted by wider society, in effect getting a taste of their own medicine. Allow the competing cultures to compete, naturally. Cultures in the past would ostracize trolls from the community. Then they would have to figure out how to survive on their own or perish. This kept people from acting like total shitheads, because they might find themselves getting dragged out of bed in the middle of the night and beaten to a pulp or floating down a river in a small raft. Unfortunately we can't do those things anymore so we must at least ban them for the sake of the community. If you find that you've been wrongfully banned from a community, make an appeal where you try to reason with them like a decent person. And there's the catch, reasonable and decent people usually aren't banned in the first place, because they know how to read the room.

Censorship is a somewhat separate issue. If people are censored because their ideas aren't accepted within the wider group, that of course can be detrimental to the larger group as it misses out on different points of view. However, some ideas are shit and some people need to know when to shut the fuck up. Freedom of speech doesn't mean some tranny can come in and disrupt a conference by shrieking about abortion or whatever. If you want to find a place where you can speak your mind, it will still largely depend on the topic. If you want to be able to talk about absolutely anything, you're better off finding an IRL group of friends you can shoot the shit with over beers.
Replies: >>889 >>911
Reported
Replies: >>889
>>887
>And there's the catch, reasonable and decent people usually aren't banned in the first place, because they know how to read the room.
That's incorrect.  Where on the internet are you hanging out that you would come to this conclusion?  I mean, isn't how this board came about proof enough of that?
>Censorship is a somewhat separate issue. If people are censored because their ideas aren't accepted within the wider group, that of course can be detrimental to the larger group as it misses out on different points of view. However, some ideas are shit and some people need to know when to shut the fuck up. 
When does a group become too prudish?
>Freedom of speech doesn't mean some tranny can come in and disrupt a conference by shrieking about abortion or whatever. If you want to find a place where you can speak your mind, it will still largely depend on the topic.
I already addressed this and conceded some of this in the OP:
>Like I get you don't want someone running naked on the libertarian party stage, but there's a matter of degree here, and I'm not asking to let communists into your neighborhood, but I am asking that maybe there's a more general moral argument that should be shared so that libertarians and others alike can just...not all turn into HOA Karens.
>>888
This, ironically, would prove my point.
>>886 (OP) 
>Yes, under libertarian ethics it's allowed.  Yeah, it's private property.  Private property owners can do that.  
Then that's the end of the debate, dipshit.
Replies: >>895
>>890
>This is not an ethical argument I'm making, it's more of a cultural/moral one.  Like I get you don't want someone running naked on the libertarian party stage, but there's a matter of degree here, and I'm not asking to let communists into your neighborhood, but I am asking that maybe there's a more general moral argument that should be shared so that libertarians and others alike can just...not all turn into HOA Karens.
i think cheese pizza should be legal.

not making cheese pizza, or the cheese shredding activity involved in the making of it, or being an accomplice to cheese shredding activity, but anything else involving cheese pizza should be legal.

it should be legal to see it, to have it, even to share it.

as it is simply a record of crimes that have already occurred, it harms none to have it be made legal to view.

the only reason it is illegal is to protect the specific people to whom the priviledge of cheese shredding activities are given by powerful masters of our governments.

its a luxury given to certain allies of the powers that be to buy their loyalty and ensure their compliance, even if they never accept the offer to commit cheese shredding activities, the ptb can simply hold the threat of publicizing the accusation of having performed it over their heads, one does not need to commit a crime to be threatened with prosecution, they merely need to be suspected of it by the public.
Replies: >>908
>as it is simply a record of crimes that have already occurred, it harms none to have it be made legal to view.
but what if sharing these records of crimes encourages more crime to be committed?
Replies: >>909
>>899
I fucking hate cheese pizza, but I have to say that the best argument I've heard to legalize it is that if cheese pizza isn't legalized, the FEDs just order cheese pizza deliveries to any group they want to shut down.
>>907
Then we should ban gore to prevent murders too.
>>887
>they might find themselves getting dragged out of bed in the middle of the night and beaten to a pulp or floating down a river in a small raft. Unfortunately we can't do those things anymore
"Unfortunately" you can't violate NAP anymore.
>>886 (OP) 
>I've noticed trolls like this get banned. But should they?
It's not clear what you're talking about here. By definition trolls are clowning around trying to provoke an emotional reaction out of people. They don't add any value to the community and you have no moral obligation to let them stay.
Replies: >>918
>>917
>Like I get you don't want someone running naked on the libertarian party stage, but there's a matter of degree here, and I'm not asking to let communists into your neighborhood, but I am asking that maybe there's a more general moral argument that should be shared so that libertarians and others alike can just...not all turn into HOA Karens.
Replies: >>919 >>940
>>918
This is a stupid premise, OP.
Replies: >>921
>>919
No, I think it's actually pretty good.  This is because HOAs are a great example of technically following libertarian principles, but clearly passing a dystopian line.  It's also not saying something ridiculous like "We need the government to outlaw HOAs," but there's still a need for libertarians to eschew ridiculous arrangements like them on a private level, call out people who naively push for them on a private level, and suggest alternative solutions.
Replies: >>923 >>940
>>921
Gatekeeping is fine. We've seen what happens when you don't gatekeep hard enough. If a platform doesn't want to host someone who does not contribute in a conductive manner than it is not being a 'Karen' to kick their ass out. There will be "anything goes" platforms for them as well. You don't have to be censor-happy to come to this conclusion.
Replies: >>925
>>923
When do you think gatekeeping crosses the line, and it's clearly gone too far?
Replies: >>931 >>940
>>925
Depends? On online forums, ResetEra would be a good example of gatekeeping too hard because it's just banning everyone who disagrees at that point than just the absolute worst people/trolls who disrupt discussion.
Replies: >>935
>>931
The word 'gatekeep' is a good word to use.  I think that would've made the OP a lot less muddied.  I have a better way to express my question now.
Are highly gatekept communities more or less likely to support liberty?  E.g., if you spent most of your time in a heavily gatekept community, would you be more likely to support or rationalize a government placing similar restrictions on society as a whole?
Replies: >>936 >>944
>>935
I don't think there's always a relationship between the two. Keeping idiots out of your private property does not mean you want the state to enforce other people's property laws. Look at nu-4chan and how idiots flooded it thinking they were in good company. Look at 8chan and how it became packed with Qschizos. Look at social media overall. It can be good to gatekeep or keep people out of a community sometimes, and at other times a community can destroy itself by self-censoring or banning too much and it makes people flock to an alternative or a competitor.
>>918
Just copy and pasting the unclear text doesn't make it less unclear you fucking retard.

>you don't want someone running naked on the libertarian party stage
Whoever owns the stage makes the rules. Whoever paid to rent the stage can impose additional rules.

>I'm not asking to let communists into your neighborhood
I don't give a fuck if there are communists in my neighborhood. As long as the state doesn't help them steal my property all they can do is eat vegan burgers and cry about racism.

>I am asking that maybe there's a more general moral argument that should be shared so that libertarians and others alike can just...not all turn into HOA Karens.
I have no moral obligation to let anybody use my property.

>>921
>This is because HOAs are a great example of technically following libertarian principles, but clearly passing a dystopian line. 
If you don't like the HOA then don't buy the house. Or sell it and leave. What are we missing?

>>925
>When do you think gatekeeping crosses the line, and it's clearly gone too far?
If you quoted Rothbard's views on abortion and then the chistcuck admin bans you because muh bible that would be an example of gatekeeping becoming harmful.
Replies: >>944
>>940
>Just copy and pasting the unclear text doesn't make it less unclear you fucking retard.
The 'fucking retard' is an unnecessary ad hominem.  I'm much more likely to avoid trying to find any common ground with you as well.
I copied and pasted the response because I've had to deal with a number of posters only reading the subject line or first sentence of a post and then nothing else.  So, I copy and paste a line that I have found already responds or counters to what you have posted.  If I'm wrong, then usually the person responds by saying _why_ it doesn't counter what they're saying, or I at least take a sentence out of the middle of my post that "first sentence only" posters will be more likely to see.
I don't understand how you find it unclear, but when I do understand how you find it unclear, only then can I actually respond to you.  That places us at an impasse there, sorry.
>Whoever owns the stage makes the rules. Whoever paid to rent the stage can impose additional rules.
I don't understand how what I copied and pasted to you does not already address that I understand this point, and that this point does not create a cogent counter.
>I don't give a fuck if there are communists in my neighborhood. As long as the state doesn't help them steal my property all they can do is eat vegan burgers and cry about racism.
I mean...the state probably is going to help use them to help steal your property, but O.K..
>I have no moral obligation to let anybody use my property.
I am using the word 'ethical' as hard, libertarian normative rules.
I am using the word 'moral' as loose, guidelines for individual behavior.
E.g., the NAP is an ethical rule, and not smoking/drinking is a moral rule.
>If you don't like the HOA then don't buy the house. Or sell it and leave. What are we missing?
Let me back out of that one.  I think what I really wanted to get at was >>935 .
>If you quoted Rothbard's views on abortion and then the chistcuck admin bans you because muh bible that would be an example of gatekeeping becoming harmful.
Interesting.
Replies: >>946
>>944
>The 'fucking retard' is an unnecessary ad hominem. 
Fucking retard.

>I mean...the state probably is going to help use them to help steal your property, but O.K..
In that case it doesn't matter where they are as long as they exist within the political influence of the state. I assume what you actually meant was that we should object to living near communists because they're our "enemies" or whatever. The truth is I don't care what they believe as long as they don't act against me or I can defend myself if they do. You're never going to agree with everyone, finding a way to peacefully live with people you don't like is part of libertarianism.

>I am using the word 'moral' as loose, guidelines for individual behavior.
If you're looking for gaps between morality and ethics some examples would be:
refusing to share water with a man dying of thirst would not be a violation of the NAP (it's my water) but it would be immoral. Or getting an abortion (i.e. evicting an unwanted guest from your property who will definitely die in the process) is not a violation of the NAP but should be considered immoral. Not letting somebody post on my forum is just nonsense. Who gives a fuck. Make your own forum.

>if you spent most of your time in a heavily gatekept community, would you be more likely to support or rationalize a government placing similar restrictions on society as a whole?
No I don't think one thing follows from the other. The difference is that in one case a person is evicting you from his property. In the other case somebody is using aggression to evict you from your own property.

>Are highly gatekept communities more or less likely to support liberty?
People have misconceptions about liberty. What we want is property rights. You are king of your property, do whatever you want with it as long as you don't impact other people's property without their permission. You can run around naked inside your own house but not inside my house. There is no contradiction there. It doesn't follow that the next step after banning you from being naked in my house is that I will break into your house with a gun and stop you being naked there as well.
freezepeachplan.jpg
[Hide] (99.6KB, 680x603)
Alright, the election is over, time to have fun on this board again!

What do y'all think of picrel?  I'm scared of anyone touching Section 230 with a ten foot pole (will places like this disappear?).  Overhaul FISA courts?  How about fucking get rid of them?  Oh, and go after whistleblowers; yeah, that'll teach the Deep State!
Replies: >>1033
>>1025
Nobody gives a fuck what CNN told you Trump's "plan" is.
Replies: >>1034
>>1033
I'm pretty sure CNN would love to butcher Section 230, empower FISA courts, and go after whistlepowers.
Replies: >>1036 >>1037
>>1034
*blowers
>>1034
CNN also wants you to think Trump is the second coming of Hitler. My point is why do you think the list you posted is legitimate? Unless Trump actually said it on video it is just more corporate media lies and projections.
Replies: >>1038 >>1042
>>1037
>Unless Trump actually said it on video
Even then it's probably nonsense he doesn't intend to follow up on.
Replies: >>1039
171106110904-trump-feeds-koi-fish-4.jpeg
[Hide] (42.3KB, 850x478)
>>1038
>Even then it's probably nonsense he doesn't intend to follow up on.
Indeed. That's what's so ridiculous about the Project 2025 psyop, they expect me to believe the dude who ragequit after 30 seconds of feeding fish sat down and read a 800 page policy document.
Replies: >>1040
>>1039
Are you actually stupid?
Oh this is the lolberg board, yes you are.
Replies: >>1043
>>1037
Bro it's from his official website.  People can still criticize Trump without automatically being cock-sucking CNN-watching communists, they can even criticize him while still supporting him.
Section 230 bullshit:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/president-donald-j-trump-free-speech-policy-initiative
FISA court and whistleblower bullshit:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-president-trumps-plan-to-dismantle-the-deep-state-and-return-power-to-the-american-people
In better news, Mike Pompeo is NOT going to be in the cabinet!
Replies: >>1044
>>1041
This and the Ron Paul forum are the only libertarian spaces that I know of and I'd rather post there than in any schizo'd out fascist board.
neocondeepstatedeath.jpg
[Hide] (51.8KB, 680x383)
>>1042
>In better news, Mike Pompeo is NOT going to be in the cabinet!
Nikki Haley too!

Yaaaaay, neocons get wrecked!
I've been speaking with friends of mine who supported Kamala, and am really surprised by how many of them aren't just surprised by Trump winning, but by Trump _crushingly_ winning.  There's a lot of, "How?" "I don't know anyone who supported Trump!" (I never told them) "Who are these people?" "Why were the polls so wrong?!" or just outright denial that Trump supporters exist at all.

At some point one has to realize that banning everyone off of your platform, deleting their posts, falsifying polling data, etc. is creating an echo chamber where you don't know what reality is anymore.  If you can't know what reality is anymore, you won't be able to function or plan your actions.  At some point, don't moderators, pollsters, and the media realize that they're doing this to themselves, and that it's in their best interest to have an American Glasnost?
Replies: >>1047
>>1045
leftists: billionaires and corporations are evil scumbags who will do anything to make a profit
>also leftists: let me download today's news and talking points from my favorite billionaire controlled media corporations
[New Reply]
36 replies | 4 files | 19 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.4.1