I’ve been viewing with dread the power of a handful of Silicon Valleyites to kick anybody they want to kick out of their domain registries, search results, hosting services, and social media platforms.
The people being booted may be slime, but most of them are guilty only of having ugly ideas. Expressing ugly ideas is an unavoidable — and protected — aspect of freedom. This sets a terrible precedent
“Not censorship because it’s not done by government!” says traditional libertarian dogma. But traditional libertarians never envisioned a handful of the corporately self-righteous having arbitrary power to shut up anyone they want to silence at any time.
I admit that if they were on my cyber-property, I’d prefer not to have racial supremacists (of any stripe) around, either. But then, I don’t run a supposedly impartial domain registry or a social media operation that’s ominously become the main ‘Net access point billions around the world.
—–
One of the minor happenings in this week’s Purge of White Supremacist Evil was OKCupid banning some guy for being a white racist.
Now, this probably falls back into the old libertarian concept. OKCupid is privately owned and it can set whatever standards it wants for membership. It’s also not Google or F*c*b**k, aiming to rule the world. A ban from a dating site doesn’t condemn the poor sap — however loathsome he may be — to a lifetime of loneliness. His own nastiness might guarantee him a lonely old age, but it won’t be OKCupid’s fault.
But OKCupid didn’t quietly ban him. They publicized his name and (it seems) a few other details that fell short of an outright doxing. That was dubious of them. They also urged their members to report any other Eeeeevil White Men so they could also be kicked to the dating curb. No word on whether they’ll be kicking out bigots of other races.
The censorship (or not) aspects of this might be a topic for another day. This minute, I’m writing because I recognized the guy’s name — and you might, too: Chris Cantwell.
I saw that and thought. No. Wait. That can’t be Christopher Cantwell. But it is. This is the same Christopher Cantwell who, just two years ago, was an interesting (though irritating and provocative) libertarian blogger.
Two years ago, I linked to his writings a couple times and even wrote a blog post about him. I said that he and his perpetual rage were exhausting. I said I thought his pride in his anger and his belief that we should all be angry all the time was a road to burnout. I understood that he was contentious and made a lot of enemies. But never, ever did I see what he eventually became.
Go to his blog now (I won’t link to it) and you’ll find pure poison dripping on your eyeballs. (For instance, while there are many valid reasons for despising President Trump, the fact that his daughter married a Jew isn’t one of them — except to people like the new, but hardly improved, Christopher Cantwell.)
You folks who endured him in the Free State Project (until he was kicked out for advocating violence) might have seen this coming. I sure didn’t. It completely escapes me how someone can go from being a believer in individualism to being the worst sort of collectivist group-thinker overnight.
Perhaps I should have seen it coming, though. Because this isn’t the first time I’ve observed a supposed libertarian transform into a rabid Nazi-wannabe with lightning-strike speed. It’s at least the second, possibly the third.
And the thing the scary transformers all had in common was … rage. Even while they were still celebrating individualism and individual rights, their dominant mode was fury. And a sense that their fury was something to be proud of. Anybody who didn’t agree with them was a coward. Nobody but they were smart enough. Everybody else was wrong-headed, foolish, weak, devious, etc., etc. etc. Anger, anger, anger, anger, anger all the time.
I still don’t understand exactly how their rage eventually overrides their stated principles. I don’t know the mechanism at work. Obviously, there are lots of angry libertarians and angry free-market anarchists who don’t morph into Nazi clones overnight.
But equally obviously white supremacists are angry. Always. About everything. One of the reasons they’re so spectacularly ineffective is that no individual supremacist can get along with another for more than about 15 minutes. They’re all so fury-driven, so convinced that nobody else is good enough, so sure that even their closest potential allies are either plotters or fools. Every faction detests every other tiny faction. Individual supremacists constantly rail at each other online, and presumably off.
So yeah, it’s easy to see how the sheer “two-minute hate” factor of white supremacism could attract anybody for whom anger is all-important. But what happens to the mind of that person who in some moment suddenly switches from individualism to one of the nastiest forms of collectivism on the planet?
You’d think the cognitive dissonance, endured even for a millisecond, would make the person’s head explode.
Being perpetually angry poisons the soul. I avoid people like that as I don’t want to be poisoned by them.
I can’t explain it either, or even imagine living that way for a week, let alone longer. Talk about adrenal burnout.
But like the penchant to provoke and to start violence — Trump was right about this — the anger/rage thing isn’t confined to any one side. What’s now being called the alt-left is just as humorless, loud, intolerant, and forceful as this fellow you’re describing, Claire. Maybe more so… I don’t know nor care to find out.
I don’t know the explanation. It’s got to me more involved than just extra-squeaky wheels expecting more grease.
Speaking of banning, Google has removed the Gab app from the Play store.
I’ve been around a person with rage issues. It’s exhausting. No, I don’t how they sustain it.
jed — Google’s attempting to suppress an entire discussion forum just because they might disagree with some of the views expressed there? Holy crap. The inmates are running the asylum.
free.and-true, I completely agree the alt-left and alt-right differ only in minor details. (As in the tweet Joel posted http://joelsgulch.com/well-there-it-is/). Alas, the alt-left seems to have Silicon Valley and the entire MSM on its side. I wonder about those extra-squeaky wheels …
Cognitive dissonance indeed. But you have to realize that these are people who believe that they are superior to Jews physically, mentally, spiritually, genetically, and in numbers; yet the Jews have taken control of the world.
OTOH the other side seems to believe they can counter whatever influence the angry white supremacists have by making lots more white people much more angry.
“I’ve been around a person with rage issues. It’s exhausting. No, I don’t how they sustain it.”
Nor do I.
As a nurse, I’ve seen parents and adult children angry at each other until the only thing they have left is anger – they do not know how to relate any other way. And it ultimately burns them out before their time – although a few very tough people do seem to thrive on it. It’s what keeps them alive, it might be said that anger is the only life they have.
It’s very disheartening to cope with, and rarely can you break it down. It’s particularly sad when one member is dying and no way to bring them together.
“It completely escapes me how someone can go from being a believer in individualism to being the worst sort of collectivist group-thinker overnight.”
I think that was discussed once on this blog, wasn’t it? That the “individualist” was not really an indivdualist, but just going along with ideas he thought he should have to be a part of the group, to belong to a group that he thought was correct – but couldn’t sustain the ideal within his “real self,” over time.
“It’s what keeps them alive, it might be said that anger is the only life they have.”
My father was like that. He thrived on his rage and I can almost, in retrospect, see why. It gave him the illusion of having control over people and situations that otherwise were out of his grasp.
It is sad, though. Completely unnecessary ruination of lives. I can only imagine how hard it must have been for you as a nurse, dealing with people at the end of their lives and having everyone still raging.
I suppose your explanation that the individualist was never really an individualist is as good as any we’ll get. But it still puzzles me how people can hold such opposing ideas without seeing the contrast.
What bothers me is that so few people get to set the narrative. And for many of them, you have to think that it’s faux rage. It has to be an act. They can’t possibly be all in. To keep it up it would have to be exhausting.
The Google thing I think is not going to end the way Google envisions it. They are as much in a bubble as the idiots inside the beltway. They think that they are fine with disenfranchising what they think is a small minority but I spent time on Gab everyday. There are a few kooks there, there is also a lot of smart people. Tech savvy people. Google would do well to remember that they weren’t always on the top.
. . . it still puzzles me how people can hold such opposing ideas without seeing the contrast.
Frank Zappa explained it possibly best, and certainly most succinctly: “[T]hat, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”
Regarding Cantwell, if Tom Knapp is correct, he was photographed at the Charlottesville rally. http://knappster.blogspot.ca/2017/08/congratulations-to-christopher-cantwell.html
I don’t know him at all, so I can’t say if that photo is of him. I have read that at least one person has been falsely identified as being at that rally. OTOH, I would expect Tom Knapp to get this right.
Brad R — Thanks for the link. Yes, he was at the rally, and apparently was even featured in a documentary making some very foolish remarks about his willingness to kill people. I tried watching the video clip Tom included in his post — Cantwell blubbering while talking about what a peaceable person he really is — but I made it only about halfway through.
It’s strange to see someone who talks so tough online puling like a baby when he feels he’s been wronged. No doubt it’s true that the Charlottesville rally organizers tried to work within the system. But it’s hard to believe they had no idea what they were getting into.
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” Dune
I opine that living in fear leads to hate. Fear of actually looking at oneself and making the determination that for all the lofty ideals, instinctive fear of “the different”, and lust for that which we most desire (but cannot realistically obtain) – some individuals allow a steady drip of poison infect their very being.
I’m sure there is a complicated analysis out there proving and/or debunking this notion. This is just my thoughts.
I once read “What Remains” (The Chapter – Bone and Flesh). Cultural Revolution always sounds better than “…a small number of Officials hunted down, slaughtered and ate the Livers of the uncooperative”.
I doubt those people even saw what they were doing was incorrect, but that slow drip had consumed what I personally would consider Human.
—-
Is this extreme as applied in this case? It depends how Fearful the factions are of becoming irrelevant to the signal:noise
Time ran out for editing : comment I’ve thought appropriate from your original Post:
“If rage is a requirement, then reason has failed.”
And thank you, Brad, for writing on corporate censorship at your (and Wendy’s) own blog:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?item.8254.1
“I opine that living in fear leads to hate. Fear of actually looking at oneself and making the determination that for all the lofty ideals, instinctive fear of “the different”, and lust for that which we most desire (but cannot realistically obtain) – some individuals allow a steady drip of poison infect their very being.”
M – I think you are right. And fear of the unknown as well, an unknown based on their not seeking to find out. It’s easier and safer to go along with the crowd, to believe what everyone else believes, than to seek answers for oneself. But by refusing to find the truth they are relegating themselves to never knowing – and never being in control, always, consciously or not, relying on others to tell them what to believe and how to live. Some – perhaps much – of that hatred may be self-loathing turned inside out toward others.
That would explain both SJW and Cantwell.
Claire spoke of her father. My father was the same, and though he projected a very confident attitude to the public, I always detected a fundamental lack of confidence in himself, a feeling of inadequacy. For one who professed to be a knowledgeable man, he was unsure of his own ability to cope, and he wasn’t up to that. That fear of being found out guided his actions toward others.
And for a little good cheer, here’s a black man who befriends KKK members:
http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/2344/He-Spent-Years-Befriending-KKK-Members-Hundreds-Have-Quit-Because-Of-Him
He doesn’t try to convert them. But merely knowing him changes their minds.
I confess, Claire, it was jed’s comment above, about Google banning the Gab app, that prompted my latest blog post. Thanks for the link and the kind words.
But merely knowing him changes their minds.
The first book on relationships I read was my father’s copy of Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” I’ve read or skimmed several similar books since.
I don’t remember any of them having chapters on banishing people, hurling insults, violent demonstrations, tearing down symbols, filing lawsuits, etc.
“I still don’t understand exactly how their rage eventually overrides their stated principles.”
Read your own words again. Their rage IS their primary stated principle, the libertarian talk was just an excuse to let it out. And since anger is most often* a desire to control, it really isn’t much of a change. People who lose their temper easily want to be the ones in control.
(*Note that I said “most often”, not “always”. There are times when anger has other roots. But, if you take a look at the times you’ve lost your temper, you’ll probably find that it was when someone or something didn’t do what you wanted them to, or what you thought they were supposed to have done. And in that moment, didn’t you wish you could somehow force them to do it?)
“But what happens to the mind of that person who in some moment suddenly switches from individualism to one of the nastiest forms of collectivism on the planet?”
I’m not sure I agree with your premise. It seems to me that racism, antisemitism, white supremacism, etc., are the antithesis of collectivism. Rather, there are individualism (in the sense of excluding all who are not just like oneself) in an extreme form; they are an expression of the absolute right to disassociate.
Which isn’t to say, of course, that both they and their opponents aren’t precisely alike, just on opposite sides of the coin. I offer the following (hypothetical) exchange of a Social Justice Warrior and a Neo-Nazi on a bus:
SJW: Did you hear that at the University of Michigan, they’re so progressive, student activists demanded segregated areas for students of color?
NN: This is exactly as it should be – the races are distinct and should stay that way. We must all strive to keep our unique practices intact. Honestly, it sickens me to see whites shamelessly adopting the customs of other cultures.
Both: It’s the libertarian types who are the worst, with their self-serving so-called freedoms.
Sounds about right to me.
And I’m once again reminded of Lessig’s Code, and Other Laws of Cyberspace. He who writes the code, writes the rules.
Hate breeds hate, the hate from one side feeds the hate from the other, they really need each other to exist.
The communist needs the fascist as much as the fascist needs the communist, same goes for the BLM vs the KKK, etc. etc. of course if either side is ever successful they then will destroy the other but what they both have in common is their desire to both destroy all those who don’t agree with either of them.
The problem that we have today are the people who can only see the hate from the other side of which they think they are on and in doing that they are the ones that are putting in danger those they think they are protecting, the innocence among us.
True.
Until the rules come up against Robespierre’s Law: The power you give the government (or large monopoly corporations) to do unto others, will be used to do unto you.
One other note; it isn’t only government that uses a hangman knot.
“It seems to me that racism, antisemitism, white supremacism, etc., are the antithesis of collectivism. Rather, there are individualism (in the sense of excluding all who are not just like oneself) in an extreme form; they are an expression of the absolute right to disassociate.”
That’s an original take on it, Laird. I’ll grant you that. I’ll grant you the right to disassociate and the fact that both extremes are … well, as you describe.
But racism as an extreme form of individualism? Nope, not buying that. Indeed the racist may consider himself to be a distinct individual. But then anybody he perceives as not like him is just part of some indeterminate mass: “all blacks are …” “all Jews are …” “all foreigners are …” Collectivist. Totally.
Just a highly narcissistic form of collectivism.
Larry – in this case it appears to be “do unto you” has morphed into “undo you”. That is concerning.
Claire, I guess we just have different ideas about what it means to be a “collectivist”. Which, of course, is always the problem with labels, isn’t it?
It reminds me of the case in the ’90’s in which Fred Meyer sued for an injunction to keep signature gatherers off their properties. The ninth circuit court of appeals found that Fred Meyer, by opening its properties to the public had essentially become a modern day public square and so they couldn’t bar the activities from it’s premises.
One would think this would apply to the internet as well.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1014926.html
I wonder what public accommodation law has to say on the subject.
Note 1: An internet company is a private entity, eg., completely non-governmental, save for whatever zoning, labor, tax and licensing laws and regulations they much comply with. Said private entity proclaims person X or group Y possesses undesirable characteristics or possesses or is expressing unsavory opinions not in conformance with those the private entity ownership prefers and takes action to remove them from the electronic premises and deny them future access.
Note 2: A restaurant is a private entity, eg., completely non-governmental, save for whatever zoning, labor, tax and licensing laws and regulations they much comply with. Said restaurant proclaims person X or group Y possesses undesirable characteristics or possesses or is expressing unsavory opinions not in conformance with those the restaurant ownership prefers and takes action to remove them from the restaurant’s premises and deny them future access.
It has been decided that one of those two things is blatantly illegal when applied to race, sex (including sexual preference and/or artificial orientation(s), age, national origin, expressed opinion not intended to incite violence, religion, or physical infirmities), and subject to governmental action to rectify, up to and including financial penalties.
The other is not.
I’m not suggesting the heavy hand of government be applied to internet providers as a means of enforcing equality of access; restaurants are legally permitted to deny service to those intent on deliberate or excessive unintentional disruption, which has fairly broad definitions (for example, a restaurant is within its legal rights to deny service and eject patrons with severely offensive body odor, substantial inebriaton, severe rowdiness, etc.), and which do not exist in the internet environment. But…what are the limits of acceptance, or rejection, of the patrons of an internet firm? It’s a different environment, should the rules be different?
“But…what are the limits of acceptance, or rejection, of the patrons of an internet firm? It’s a different environment, should the rules be different?”
How is it a different environment? If it is, how does that change the nature of private property? Having your restaurant under water would change the environment, or at least the access…
This, and similar questions have been asked and argued at some of the forums and blogs I frequent.
The first thing I usually say is, “who should make the rules?” And then, who enforces those rules?
OT, but for our 1st time, we’ve been getting emergency update calls about fire conditions and evacuation. Our local fire, Chetco Bar, has gone from 6000 acres on Thursday to 31,000 this morning, and the Level 3 evac zone doubled in size from noon to 4:30 today. The northern edge of evac was 20 miles away this morning, 10 now.
With high winds, low humidity, super heavy fuel load and totally inaccessible terrain, officials are saying they expect containment about October 15 (when the rains start)
Being from back east, we’re used to wind and water emergencies, fire is a whole new one for us! Guess its time to load the truck.
Good grief — and good luck, jw! I hope you get to stay put. Normally your little stretch of the coast is hardly big-time fire territory. First you get there just in time for the worst winter in decades, now one of the dryest, fieriest summers. Welcome to your new home!
Lol, it still beats the heck out of living down the street from Trump’s NJ White House
Today the internet companies want to deny service to voices and thoughts that they do not agree with.
Tomorrow, perhaps, will the utilities do the same to your water, sewer, electric and gas services?
Ridiculous you say….
“The first thing I usually say is, “who should make the rules?” And then, who enforces those rules?”
answer #1: The property owner
answer #2: The property owner, or, failing that, the police.
‘“Not censorship because it’s not done by government!” says traditional libertarian dogma.’
I must be a traditional libertarian, then.
Confuting Law (even long-established law like the 1964 Civil Rights Act) with Rights oft leads one astray.
Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, et al., have every right to deny their service to whomever they please, for whatever reason they please … INCLUDING race, sex, religion, nationality, etc.
Which side of “the great gay wedding cake bakery debacle” did you folks take?
The so-called “cognitive dissonance” on this issue is yours. Re-read your own post, find the flawed logic and contradictions in your own emotional response, …
… or not.
A fool abhorreth instruction.
p.s.: This situation is why anti-trust laws are a GOOD idea. A monopoly acquired honestly should nevertheless not stand outside of the free market (which requires competition to function) and hold a population hostage, and so should be broken. A monopoly acquired through bribery, graft, and government collusion is anathema.
Ah, Jim. You then assume that everyone will be a “property owner?” There are likely many who will never manage to acquire real estate property, if that’s what you mean. No, I take it down to a much more fundamental level.
Self ownership. That’s the basic property, without which no real estate private property (or liberty of any kind) could exist in a free market world. Each person must make and enforce the “rules” for him/herself, subject always to the consequences of those choices and actions.
First, do no harm… The non-aggression principle by other words. Make your rules/choices in full recognition of your responsibility for the consequences, and most important for any harm those choices inflict on others. That won’t always be crystal clear either, of course, which is why people of good character, integrity, will agree to binding arbitration.
People who deliberately harm others, and will not agree to cooperate in finding truth and making restitution, would not likely be tolerated by the community for long. As true “outlaws,” they would soon face a choice between learning to cooperate and being shot by their next victim… if indeed they survived the first attempt. The “outlaws” could, of course, form their own community. Lots of very interesting speculation can be made on the possibilities of such different communities and how they might interact.
Non-voluntary “government” and buildings full of “law” books will not fit in there anywhere, at any level…
MamaLiberty @ August 22, 2017 7:20 am:
Superbly well said. I would add only that Non-voluntary “government” and buildings full of “law” books will not fit in there anywhere, at any level . . . goes double (at least) for anti-trust laws.
A fool, indeed.