A Devil With Unity: On Hate Speech (Video & Script)

DWTWSBTWOTL

Update:

This is probably the last video I will put up before I fly to Japan
Two Channels I have been enjoying lately are:

Dr Layman
Zarathrustra’s Serpent
The two of them have managed to cover various topics I was planning on taking on
They have also done it as well, or better, than I would have.
I am not saying I agree with all of their positions, but if I only interacted with those who agreed with me on everything,

I would never grow
And I would be very, very lonely…

[Orwell.Hate Truthspeakers]
There is a trend, pushed by authoritarians, mostly from the left (currently anyway) to "deplatform" Hate Speech.

[Clip: Gate Rory : Are you stupid]

The steps to winning any battle are: [Yukio Mishima]
1) Know yourself
2) Know your Enemy

Why would you not want people with opposing viewpoints to freely express themselves?[Massey. Authority as Truth-Truth as Authority]

I want to know who my enemies are

I want to know who I can trust to have my back and who will step away (or worse thrust a dagger into my back)

The Regressive Left seems to feel that if they deplatform these people, their opinions will go away [Consensus = Bliss.jpg]

This is so incredibly stupid that I barely know where to start.
Obviously, if unchallenged the ideas will never change.

Further, you cannot challenge their ideas if you do not know what they are
The best you can do is straw man their arguments, which will never convince anyone

The phrase “Preaching to the Choir” comes to mind

The main way in which we can change or mold opinions is through Dialectic [McDonalds vs Sanders]

I am not an expert on Hegel or Marx, so I will explain what I mean by the term
You have two ideas that are in opposition (either to a lesser or greater degree)
These ideas meet in the glory of battle
The Stronger idea will win

Now I admit to some assumptions [Truth vs Lies.jpg]

First is that ideas closer to Truth (ie, the actual nature of reality) are stronger than ideas in opposition to the truth.

This can be expressed via the biblical parable of the house built on sand (Matthew 7:24-27)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (KJV)

The idea is that things in accordance with the fundamental nature of reality are “built upon a rock”.

My Second assumption is that both parties have similar logical and emotive capabilities. [If Someone doesn't Value Evidence]

This one is actually harder for me to justify, but I hold that in aggregate, the groups should be roughly similar in their capability to use logic (whether they elect to do so or not)
And that emotive arguments will be equally impassioned by each sides commitment to their ideals.
The flaw in this is that the person holding the lesser truth is either missing facts or is not utilizing logic.
In that case, their position deserves to die

Anyway, If we accept these two premises, then it should be obvious that the dialectic process will move us closer to the truth

We should also point out that “deplatforming” will not stop them from spreading their ideas. [Orwell - Political Speech]

Sure, it will allow you to indoctrinate those who feel security in adhering to what appears to be the dominant (or only) narrative
However, you will cloak the alternative opinion in the aura of mystery, making it counter-cultural and rebellious

Watson is right when he says “Conservatism is the NEW Counter-Culture”
And, since they are deplatformed, there are no coherent arguments against what they are actually preaching.

So, we have to ask, why do some people try to deplatform other people? [O Sensei - Wise win before fighting]

One reason could be the realization (if even on a subconscious level) of the divorce between their idea and reality

They realize that they do not have any facts to support their position and do not wish to risk having their emotive arguments undermined
This cognitive dissonance between what they believe and what reality is telling them is painful so they seek to avoid it.

Whenever the Regressive Left tells you they are offended or that your words are violence, this is what they are referring to
Ludovici, in his book The Child: An Adult’s Problem, discusses this as the conflict between the Pleasure Principle and the Principle of Reality.
Essentially, their behavior is just a childish tantrum.

Another reason could a general contempt for all other beings. [Hitler. People Don't think]

The regressive left seems to feel that other people are generally incapable of thought
They feel that they know the truth and that other people are just to primitive to grasp it
Further, they feel that the opposing ideas are just to seductive

They tell people that they are special and deserve to “oppress” other people.
And that other people will fail to critically examine these ideas and be swayed to their service.

Simply put, this is all projection on their part.

In a rare bout of subconscious self-reflection, they realize that they are like this
Since they feel they are more enlightened, they assume everyone else has their flaws but to a greater degree.

As you can see, the desire to deplatform of censor opposing opinions comes from feelings of Fear and Weakness [I am Friedrich Nietzsche und I approve of this message]

If you disagree, please feel free to comment with logical alternative possibilities.
The feelings of Fear and Weakness derive from the feelings of ressentiment (ala Nietzsche & Kierkegaard)
People who believe they are right have no reason to fear opposing viewpoints
Now some attempt to argue that the arguments have been made before and “resolved”

This is funny to me
Isn’t it a tenet of modern thought that we should re-examine and critique pre-existing convictions?
They show their religious roots with their belief that it is good butcher everyone’s sacred cows but their own.

So, to all those who wish to censor,

[Rory Clip]

Yes, Rory, I think they are. Heaven help us all.

To sum up: [Voltaire. Who Rules - don't crit]

Censorship, or “deplatforming”, is an ultimately self-defeating strategy
It manifests the herd morality’s predilection for ressentiment
This can be seen in its reactions based on fear and weakness
It is also a way to hide from uncertainty & doubt by eliminating the cognitive dissonance which spurs us forward
It is stagnating since new forms cannot arise from the process of dialectic
Dialectic is the process of annihilating two opposing ideas to see a new idea arise