[jackvalentine]

> For instance on what precipitated this particular issue (the Blizzard stuff), many are framing it as an issue of free speech. But that's incredibly disingenuous because there's no doubt that many of the same people outraged ostensibly about a violation of free speech would have been the first ones lining up to cheer and rejoice had Blizzard chose to ban a player who chose to show up in a MAGA hat and screamed "Build the wall!" in an identical venue.

I've seen this argument so many times in relation to this and I don't get it - this isn't what happened and you can't presume to know what "many of the same people" would do. It's such a shit argument because you can state that "many of the same people" would do anything you want to frame as bad and it's impossible to disprove.

Why not just address what actually happened?

[jplayer01]

> I've seen this argument so many times in relation to this and I don't get it - this isn't what happened and you can't presume to know what "many of the same people" would do. It's such a shit argument because you can state that "many of the same people" would do anything you want to frame as bad and it's impossible to disprove.

I'd even suggest the complete opposite would happen. People would be criticizing Blizzard for banning the player. Of course, we can't know what could've happened, but we do know what happens when pro-Trump protestors are in the streets protesting. Nobody is out there saying the government needs to suppress these people and their opinions. No, the people start their own grass-roots protests on the same street. As in, they fight free speech with free speech. The vast majority don't put pressure on the government to stamp out contrary opinions, nor is there an expectation that they should, and there'd be protests against it if they did.

Meanwhile, we know exactly what would happen in China.

[rjf72]

The original post I was responding to was pondering what would happen if the NBA pulled out. In order to try to predict this it's important to try to accurately characterize how people would behave in response. In the US we ostensibly value free speech, but especially in modern times this is increasingly often set aside faster than you can blink when it becomes an issue where somebody says something we disagree with. See for instance practically every major social media platform that has been censoring increasingly loosely, largely to stabilize (and ideally increase) their profit by satisfying advertisers. When people dislike the groups censored they not only could not care less, but are often genuinely enthusiastic about it.

Think of the countless times people have, rather enthusiastically, argued that 'free speech doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of your actions'. Yet when it's a group that individuals ideologically align with they rapidly segue from free speech being a technical legal requirement as defined by the first amendment of the US constitution, to a value - an ethos. And we are not speaking in hypotheticals - this is happening, right now.

In modern times people increasingly seem to not like defending the right of groups they disagree with. We could debate the reasons there, but I suspect a large part is because we now live in an era of never-ending social media virtue signaling. That's actually what makes what I wrote above so easy to show. If you are genuinely arguing in good faith and do not believe people are engaging in wide-spread hypocrisy, you could go obsessive-compulsive and digging through people's post histories and find many of the same people upset about corporate censorship today cheering it on not long ago. Because they felt that by cheering on nasty groups getting censored, that they were showing their own virtue in being so adamantly against such things. We are, in effect, living out the "First they came ..." poem. As always, what's new is old.

[jackvalentine]

When the original poster didn't respond the way you wanted them to you then decided to switch tracks and claim they're in the minority.

Have you considered that in the public there are so many people that you can arrange people in to groups that say anything? You've not made a convincing case that 'the same people' 'rapidly segue' - merely that groups of differing opinions exist and are vocal about different things.

[rjf72]

I think you make a great point. From my perspective there are some things that cannot be reasonably proven that people may have different views on. For instance I'm sure you'd agree that social media "platforms" (as well as various other "platforms") over the past ~6 or so years have been engaging in increasing censorship. And that censorship has been not only accepted but applauded by some segments of the population. So where we probably diverge is on who are these segments of the population? How big are they? What are their views on this recent censorship?

I've been unable to find any sort of polling or other objective data (for that matter even poll data on Hong Kong is basically nonexistent) so we're left to rely on anecdotal data. When stories of censorship against unpopular topics came out in times past, what was the zeitgeist in your view? In the Hong Kong story as of today, does that vary? I took as an assumption people sharing a roughly similar view on this question. But I think it's a fair point that perhaps this is an invalid assumption. If I've learned anything on the internet it's that we all live in our own little bubbles, try as we might to escape them.

Of course I'm certain I could dig up plenty of examples of people contradicting themselves but that no more proves your [implied] view incorrect anymore than you finding a examples of people remaining consistent would prove my view incorrect.