Why do so many socialist/communists/leftists adopt libertarian rhetoric when it comes the subject of freedom of speech and deplatforming? - "Muh private company can do whatever it wants!"

[Jewish Porn Hoe]

As others said, leftists don't give a shit about consistency or presuppositions of arguments.
That's why they also completely adopted the Cato/GMU line of economic arguments for open borders.

 

[Aidan]

They say stuff like this when it agrees with their goals. Censoring "the bad guys"? Well that's fine, companies should be allowed to do that.
Censoring "good guys"??? NO WHAT THE FUCK YOU CANT FUCKING OH MY GOD DO THIS

I'm hardly an expert but I think it's just extreme short-sightedness and parroting what they think sounds good.

 

[Penis Drager]

I'll play devil's advocate for a bit and make a logically consistent version of this lunacy:
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is the applicable phrase here. These companies can deplatform you and refuse you service in other ways because it IS their property they're dealing with. On the flipside it is also the customers' right to boycott if the company makes a statement they don't like (or services those that do). This general principle can be seen as common ground between liberals and libertarians. The only thing stopping the right from doing the same shit is the fact that they're not autistic cunts who reee at any sign of dissent.

There was a debate between Foucault and Chomsky decades ago that I never bothered watching all the way through. But one highlight I did sit through was Foucault's response to Chomsky advocating for an anarcho-socialist homostate. As much as Foucault spouts, his response was pretty much on point, perhaps more than ever in this day and age: relying on social influence to moderate human behavior can end up being more oppressive/restrictive than any government.

 

[The best and greatest]

The whole point of this seeming "Hypocrisy" is to point out the absurdity in allowing important social infrastructures to be owned privately by people who ultimately are not accountable to you or any of the people who depend on those infrastructures to dipshits like Ben Shapiro who don't see a problem until it impacts themselves negatively. its supposed to make you recognize the short-comings of prioritizing property rights over the social good of the nation. None of them genuinely believe "But its their property so go fuck yourself" They're just highlighting the absurdity of what they think YOU believe.

 

[Made In China]

Well lets just say it's not a coincidence that the symbol of libertarianism is a snake
.

 

[peach tea]

I’m as far left as it gets and I think most lefties are idiots. We’re not all this stupid.

 

[Dick In a Drawer]

OP is absolutely correct, it's basically the result of intersectionally/critical theory whatever you call it merging with most lines of leftist thought that results in so called socialists taking taking the side with corporations because they see stopping racism as the more important goal over their critiques of capitalism. I'd also say that the socialist left attracts people with authoritarian personalities, of course there's the literal tankie authoritarians that bootlick North Korea, but I've noticed a lot with those that hate tankies too.

(Tangent on a guy that could make a good lowcow thread if there was more people into political spergs)

There's a notorious poster @WASBAPPIN that devotes his entire time to taking ridiculously hawkish positions on Syria, Russia, Iran etc & calling any person on the left that defends these countries in the slightess a fascist. One of his most infamous positions is advocating the literal nuking of Russia & Syria as a way of fighting fascism which needless to say is it fairly unusual for a person on the left to advocate, even on Iran his desire to bomb Iran is something I genuinely haven't seen elsewhere from other leftists & probably identical to the views of the neocons. His profile is interesting in the sense he's the modern iteration of how neocons were formed, the neocons were Trotskyites in 1950s that evolved into Cold War hawks; while the old neocons' hawkishness were primarily motivated by Zionism, this type seems entirely motivated by fighting fascism which to him means needing to literally nuke Russia. I went off on a tangent but I wanted to show this guy's ideology has the same roots, various leftists have infused intersectionally so much into their ideology some not only see being antiwar as a racist but with WASBAPPIN that nuclear armageddon is needed if it means ending "fascism."

Probably the best response to Vaush on this. I agree 100% with it. This guy is one of my favorite people to follow he has some of the most unique & sensible critiques of leftists I've seen, he tries too hard to sound smart when he talks about what's he for but on stuff like this stuff I think he's spot on & his views really don't fit in with the orthodoxy of any ideology from what I've seen.

 

[Wonderful Id]

One thing that really concerns me about the future is hearing the youth talk about censorship like "I'm ok with it as long as it's against something I don't like". These people have no idea that the very idea of free speech is that you defend the bad stuff and in turn, someone is willing to defend you, and both are kept safe. If you try to make free speech a luxury, you'll find that a lot of people are very addicted to that luxury and are ready to defend it.

Plus, if "Hate Speech" ever becomes a thing in the US, who do they think gets to define that?

A: Whomever is in power. I somehow doubt they want Trump deciding what they can and can't say.

 

[Notgoodwithusernames]

To use a phrase coined by an obnoxious leftist piece of shit against the left. "the card says moops"

 

[Made In China]

One thing that really concerns me about the future is hearing the youth talk about censorship like "I'm ok with it as long as it's against something I don't like". These people have no idea that the very idea of free speech is that you defend the bad stuff and in turn, someone is willing to defend you, and both are kept safe. If you try to make free speech a luxury, you'll find that a lot of people are very addicted to that luxury and are ready to defend it.

Plus, if "Hate Speech" ever becomes a thing in the US, who do they think gets to define that?

A: Whomever is in power. I somehow doubt they want Trump deciding what they can and can't say.

Lolberts and lolbertarians need to learn is that their principles are fundamentally opposed to human nature. Humans by nature are authoritarian, any liberal democracy will eventually vote their own rights away if allowed to.

 

[Mortal Wombat]

I would absolutely love to see the cognitive dissonance from these disingenuous hacks being made to apply the same principle to Wedding Cake Shops; Speaking of which, isn't absolutely hilarious how they claim to be the party of the people or the oppressed masses yet they have no problem destroying the livelihoods of average people whom dare to have their own thoughts?

 

[c-no]

I'll play devil's advocate for a bit and make a logically consistent version of this lunacy:
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is the applicable phrase here. These companies can deplatform you and refuse you service in other ways because it IS their property they're dealing with. On the flipside it is also the customers' right to boycott if the company makes a statement they don't like (or services those that do). This general principle can be seen as common ground between liberals and libertarians. The only thing stopping the right from doing the same shit is the fact that they're not autistic cunts who reee at any sign of dissent.

There was a debate between Foucault and Chomsky decades ago that I never bothered watching all the way through. But one highlight I did sit through was Foucault's response to Chomsky advocating for an anarcho-socialist homostate. As much as Foucault spouts, his response was pretty much on point, perhaps more than ever in this day and age: relying on social influence to moderate human behavior can end up being more oppressive/restrictive than any government.

I can see the companies having a right to doing what they want because it's a private enterprise people chose to use, whether it's a bakery refusing to make gay cakes or a company firing an employee whose actions can threaten the bottom line in profits. That said, I wouldn't be surprised at the idea of people clinging to it just because of "rules for thee but not for me." Then again, all the political shit does reach an autistic level amongst any wing of politics. All that's needed is screeches of "freeze peach" and other shit like coomers not liking an alternate platform choosing not to allow whatever porn on it.

 

[Mortal Wombat]

Lolberts and lolbertarians need to learn is that their principles are fundamentally opposed to human nature. Humans by nature are authoritarian, any liberal democracy will eventually vote their own rights away if allowed to.

While that is true, this is why they promote state sovereignty; Speaking as one myself, I have long since come to terms with the fact that, the only way Libertarianism could be sustainable is either in a small & homogeneous nation or if state's ever regain their sovereignty from the fed, then any of the states could pull it off, though the same could be said about any political system in theory I suppose. Either way, a valuable real time example would finally exists, from which point the other 49 states or other countries could take inspiration from, eventually leading to the discovery of best practices and in turn an Optimal Libertarian Government(s). It's honestly not much different from how the private sector has rival busineses competing against each other leading to constant improvements/innovations over time.

 

[Penis Drager]

While that is true, this is why they promote state sovereignty; Speaking as one myself, I have long since come to terms with the fact that, the only way Libertarianism could be sustainable is either in a small & homogeneous nation or if state's ever regain their sovereignty from the fed, then any of the states could pull it off, though the same could be said about any political system in theory I suppose. Either way, a valuable real time example would finally exists, from which point the other 49 states or other countries could take inspiration from, eventually leading to the discovery of best practices and in turn an Optimal Libertarian Government(s). It's honestly not much different from how the private sector has rival busineses competing against each other leading to constant improvements/innovations over time.

Take the land pill bro. Liberty and democracy are incompatible. You're stuck with the decision of either putting autocrats in charge and hopin they don't really give a shit what you do on your own time, or watching as "free" people vote themselves into slavery.

 

[Mortal Wombat]

Liberty and democracy are incompatible.

It's for that exact reason I want State Sovereignty to be restored and for the Fed to revert to nothing more than a "Night Watchman State"; While we'll never overtake the two major parties as things are, let alone be able to sustain such power on a national scale, at least in the theoretical framework I have described we could have at least one Libertarian State that could provide a shining example of our ideals in practice, or at least give an idea to others of what worked and what could be done better.

I also cringe every time someone unironically calls America a Democracy, We're a Constitutional Republic, or at least that is what we we're meant to be... Until Lincoln fucked us all .

PS, I am very sleep deprived so I couldn't make it beyond part 2 of the article you linked, but I fully intend to read it later in case there is more to it besides "Liberty and democracy are incompatible" which I already agree with anyways.

 

[byuu]

Because the left likes to blame private companies for shit?
You can get deplatformed because it's a private platform, so the solution would be a public state-owned platform that must allow free speech. Perfectly consistent with leftist beliefs.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Well lets just say it's not a coincidence that the symbol of libertarianism is a snake
.View attachment 1528983

Jesus fucking Christ, I think you're not even a trollposter at this point but legitimately an autistic retard. You're basically a political Anthony LoGatto and the liberatarians are your Chris-Chan.

Lolberts and lolbertarians need to learn is that their principles are fundamentally opposed to human nature. Humans by nature are authoritarian, any liberal democracy will eventually vote their own rights away if allowed to.

A retarded communist condemning others for having bizarre principles fundamentally opposed to human nature? Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Made In China]

Jesus fucking Christ, I think you're not even a trollposter at this point but legitimately an autistic retard. You're basically a political Anthony LoGatto and the liberatarians are your Chris-Chan.

Overreaction is necessary to ensure that lolbertarianism is stamped out of existence. They need to be mercilessly mocked wherever they go so that no one ever takes their ideas seriously ever again.

 

[L50LasPak]

I mean its not very complicated. Political ideologies aren't this solid thing anyway, they're made up of language. So you can change what people think you believe in by just saying whatever is on your mind. It worked for our Shitposter-In-Chief and if he can do it, so can you.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Overreaction is necessary to ensure that communism is stamped out of existence. They need to be mercilessly mocked wherever they go so that no one ever takes their ideas seriously ever again.

Fixed that for you