Antipodean fruit growers 3 - Is the Kiwi a Dodo or a Phoenix?

[Bosky]

Continuation thread from Antipodean fruit growers 2 - Canary in the internet coal mine
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632616-antipodean-fruit-growers-2-canary-in-the-internet-coal-mine

Front row seat on the seemingly eternal battle between Jersh (aka Suzi Quatro's Fat Nan) and his Merry Band of Farmers against the Transpowered Forces of Internet Censorship.

1st Thread - Antipodean fruit grower statement
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4620584-antipodean-fruit-grower-statement

[landOFconfusion]

@AlisonDonut

You are the one mentioning Nazis you plum.

And you are the one who just described Mumsnet as “nazi adjacent”.

[Clymene]

Oh @landOFconfusion, what a very apt username you've chosen

[pickledandpuzzled]

Obviously Mumsnet is not Nazi adjacent. They are simply, according to the aptly named Confusion,

"...providing a forum for its members to post information about fundraising and support for Moon. 

Make no mistake about Moon and what he really is. He has been providing literal neo-Nazis with an Internet platform on which to metastasise their toxic ideology. He is happy to make money from hosting toxic men that are united by their collective hate."

So MN is scandalously allowing people to talk about Moon, who is allowing people to talk even even if they may say unpleasant things, and have their own website they could be talking on.

Shocking.

Thanks for alerting us, Confusion.

[ArabeIIaScott]

What is it we're doing? I'm a bit confused, somehow.

[UtopiaPlanitia]

@DevilinaCardigan

That’s the thing with free speech, people are going to say things I don’t agree with - like TWAW, or neo-nazi stuff, or Trump was a great president. But while I disagree, people are perfectly entitled to say those things.

A don’t agree with a lot of what is said on KF (or Mumsnet) but they’re allowed to say it.

Well said, DevilinaCardigan. I don’t mind debating those with opposing views - that’s free speech and democracy in action - but I’m fed up of being sniped at, admonished and scolded by thread-ploppers 🙄

Glad to see a new thread Bosky, I found the previous threads very informative

[Needmoresleep]

@ArabeIIaScott

What is it we're doing? I'm a bit confused, somehow.

Is it the Susie Quattro nan thing.

It appears Josh is "he, who should not be mentioned". We might corrupt the internet, or, worse still, radicalise mums.

[DevilinaCardigan]

I think it’s interesting to see farmers who would not consider themselves feminists look at TRAs and go ‘damn that is misogynistic!’.

[nothingcomestonothing]

@landOFconfusion

This is probably a good time to remind everyone that one of the consequences of Cloudflare dropping Moon’s hosting company was the sudden disappearance of the website for Action Zealandia … a neo-Nazi group based in New Zealand. Their website disappeared because Moon’s company 1776 Solutions Incwas selling them hosting services.

Which is why it really pains me that Mumsnet is providing a forum for its members to post information about fundraising and support for Moon. 

Make no mistake about Moon and what he really is. He has been providing literal neo-Nazis with an Internet platform on which to metastasise their toxic ideology. He is happy to make money from hosting toxic men that are united by their collective hate. 

If supporting Moon seems like a worthwhile outcome for your activism then, quite frankly, you’re failing to make make the world a better place. Nothing good or worthwhile can come from supporting a person who is willing to assist groups pf disgruntled men that want to put their boots on your faces.

You've posted this exact load of bobbins before, I recognise it. Probably on the first KF thread, I'm too lazy to check. Do you keep Word documents of your contributions to the discussion to just cut and paste?

And if anyone's interested, I personally think the KF logo kind of looks like the clitoris- the whole internal thing obvs not the bit on the outside. Make of that what you will.

[TheCreamTeaWasFromMe]

The "anti" arguments are such an interesting illustration of the wider issue at hand - and a fundamental why this board exists. In a nutshell -

Free speech = everyone has a right to speak their mind, but you might not like what you hear; risk of propagating discrimination etc.

Moderated speech = you have the right to be heard as long as you stay within the parameters of permitted speech and ideas, otherwise you will be censored; risk that those in charge set parameters which lead to discrimination based upon the prevailing fashion of views at the time.

In both cases, there are risks - and that's what is so interesting to me; that none of the critics on these threads seem to acknowledge that there is no silver bullet to speech. Whatever "side" you come down in favour of, has a risk attached to it.

In an ideal world, it shouldn't matter too much which "side" you choose, because if there is balance, then the opportunity to challenge views and advance an opposing idea should always come through - and stand or fall on its own merits.

However, right now, the choice is treated as binary and there is no nuance of position at all. The prevailing view of the day is that moderated speech is necessary to "prevent hate", with very little thought given to the ramifications of such a blanket approach. This is evident in the reactions that you see when someone is challenged to an opposing view - you see responses such as "no debate" or requests to "cancel" the individual.

Ideas which do not conform to the fashionable view of the day are treated as dangerous. But the rub is that by imposing such restrictions, this creates an echo-chamber where potentially harmful or misguided ideologies can flourish unchecked and unchallenged. And for those in favour of them, it's an easy win to cry "hate speech" to shut down any opposition, safe in the knowledge that they won't need to defend their position with any kind of robust and impartial data points or evidence base, because even thinking about challenging the prevailing orthodoxy is hateful and harmful and so on, and so on.

The irony is that this approach to moderated speech doesn't stop people from asking questions - it simply drives them underground and into the shadows, in search of places where they can ask questions or express an opposing view. The trouble is that the current view of moderated speech means that this is interpreted as being in favour of anything which stands against the prevailing and dearly-held beliefs. Ergo, by visiting a website which permits free speech, the individual is categorised as "bad" because even just going to such a location MUST mean that they are in favour of everything which happens on that website.

As I say, very interesting to take such a polarised view of the world. I find it fascinating that so many informed people are falling into the trap of sixth-form common room politics; you are either with us or against us.

[Bosky]

TheCreamTeaWasFromMe great post!

Alternatively - "Fascist hateful bigot, just say you want (XYZ) to die!!"

[DemiColon]

It seems so long ago that people like David Goldberger understood that intellectual freedom, and the right to participate in public discourse, has to be defended for all, or it exists for none.

I don't quite know how that went wrong, but I do know that none of the young people I know learn about things like that at school.

[Hepwo]

My eldest, with very wide eyes, as he was reaching the point of full brain maturation, said to me in the context of this argument, that speech has consequences!

No shit Sherlock said I, it's the consequences of the claim that TWAW that we are discussing!

I love having young people around, they remind me of the stages of life we go through, or get stuck at in the case of some very repetitive posters who maybe are not as matured as they appear.

Puberty blockers anyone? There's a lot of discussion of puberty blockers over on the clitoris farm. I like that observation a lot.

[kittensinthekitchen]

@nothingcomestonothing

You've posted this exact load of bobbins before, I recognise it. Probably on the first KF thread, I'm too lazy to check. Do you keep Word documents of your contributions to the discussion to just cut and paste?

And if anyone's interested, I personally think the KF logo kind of looks like the clitoris- the whole internal thing obvs not the bit on the outside. Make of that what you will.

Well spotted! Sept 2022

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632616-antipodean-fruit-growers-2-canary-in-the-internet-coal-mine?reply=119961173

[ArabeIIaScott]

Oh my god are we breaking it again? I broke the internet several times in 2004. And have accidentally done thinking and thought Bad Thoughts on occasion.

Bless me farmers, for I have sinned.

[DevilinaCardigan]

@TheCreamTeaWasFromMe 🏅brilliant post.

@Hepwo from now on, it will always be known as clitoris farms.

[Pixiedust1234]

Facts do not change … that is why they are called facts.
Correct. And its a fact that men are not women. And never will be.

We are all adults (I think), you don't need to keep doing the warnings over something that is legal in every country.

[TheCreamTeaWasFromMe]

I didn't see the post from LofC - did I miss anything?!

[kittensinthekitchen]

@TheCreamTeaWasFromMe

I didn't see the post from LofC - did I miss anything?!

I missed it too. Nice to see MN do take some reports on board, they are consistently ignoring any I make about that particular poster.

[TheCreamTeaWasFromMe]

It's almost educational really.

Today, students, we are looking at non-sequiturs.

[Florissant]

@TheCreamTeaWasFromMe

I didn't see the post from LofC - did I miss anything?!

No. There's never anything of use in lOFc's posts.

[BluebellBlueballs]

@TheCreamTeaWasFromMe

The "anti" arguments are such an interesting illustration of the wider issue at hand - and a fundamental why this board exists. In a nutshell -

Free speech = everyone has a right to speak their mind, but you might not like what you hear; risk of propagating discrimination etc.

Moderated speech = you have the right to be heard as long as you stay within the parameters of permitted speech and ideas, otherwise you will be censored; risk that those in charge set parameters which lead to discrimination based upon the prevailing fashion of views at the time.

In both cases, there are risks - and that's what is so interesting to me; that none of the critics on these threads seem to acknowledge that there is no silver bullet to speech. Whatever "side" you come down in favour of, has a risk attached to it.

In an ideal world, it shouldn't matter too much which "side" you choose, because if there is balance, then the opportunity to challenge views and advance an opposing idea should always come through - and stand or fall on its own merits.

However, right now, the choice is treated as binary and there is no nuance of position at all. The prevailing view of the day is that moderated speech is necessary to "prevent hate", with very little thought given to the ramifications of such a blanket approach. This is evident in the reactions that you see when someone is challenged to an opposing view - you see responses such as "no debate" or requests to "cancel" the individual.

Ideas which do not conform to the fashionable view of the day are treated as dangerous. But the rub is that by imposing such restrictions, this creates an echo-chamber where potentially harmful or misguided ideologies can flourish unchecked and unchallenged. And for those in favour of them, it's an easy win to cry "hate speech" to shut down any opposition, safe in the knowledge that they won't need to defend their position with any kind of robust and impartial data points or evidence base, because even thinking about challenging the prevailing orthodoxy is hateful and harmful and so on, and so on.

The irony is that this approach to moderated speech doesn't stop people from asking questions - it simply drives them underground and into the shadows, in search of places where they can ask questions or express an opposing view. The trouble is that the current view of moderated speech means that this is interpreted as being in favour of anything which stands against the prevailing and dearly-held beliefs. Ergo, by visiting a website which permits free speech, the individual is categorised as "bad" because even just going to such a location MUST mean that they are in favour of everything which happens on that website.

As I say, very interesting to take such a polarised view of the world. I find it fascinating that so many informed people are falling into the trap of sixth-form common room politics; you are either with us or against us.

Well quite. I have been ostracised by a former friend purely for attending a let women speak event, despite not actually discussing the event or the politics. I'm on the terf naughty step.

[AlisonDonut]

TRAs: you are all Nazis

Also TRAs: that Mumsnet is full of Nazis, best stay away.

As my old mate Heidi used to say 'he ain't got much up top'.

[SmartHome]

checking in for the new thread and to remind LOC that free speech is an absolute - TRAs don't get to pick and choose who can speak or who can have a platform.

[OldGardinia]

If the price for me to be able to speak freely is that others I disagree with can also speak freely, then I will pay it. Feel I should pay it! After all, if I can't write a cogent counter-argument to a nazi then what good am I?

Besides, the culture of the 'farms is more complex than Confusion and Lost Marbles pretend. It's more like that old Chris Rock sketch about "Black people vs." You can find representatives of any group on the Farms because the line is more one of "can you take a joke / can you stand up for yourself / are you not a sexual predator or child molester" than it is are you "x qualifying racial group".

I think a 'Farms perspective would be: "we have Black people, we just don't have n__s; we have gay people, we just don't have fgs". They even have trans people, just zero tolerance for those trying to trans kids. I saw someone on the Farms once write: "Radfems are the only feminists who still know what a woman is." The Farm's is certainly an interesting place. And Null is the most stubborn person on the planet by a mile. He's not some great evangelist of any view, he's not a crusader for any cause moral or otherwise. His whole thing boils down to "no, don't want to" at ever escalating levels of opposition. He's the Bugs Bunny of the Internet as Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd (Liz Fong-Jones and Keffels respectively, I guess) pile up ever more dynamite and six-shooters and barrels with gunpowder written on the side, in their efforts to bring him down. Which after the earth-shattering kaboom (which never quite comes), Null chews on a carrot and says "sites up, doc!"

To me, he's won. He's kept it running to this day by means extraordinary. Every day it remains up is just more mud in the eye of those who try to silence others. I mean, look at what has happened. Efforts to kill the site now have Mumsnetter's learning how to circumvent censorhip with Tor! Next time some paper writes a terrifying article about the Darkweb and "hacker technologies like Tor," half the people on this forum will now go: "wait - they're talking about me?!?"

Censoring terrible ideas? I've never yet met any person or organization I'd trust with such power. That is why Free Speech has to be drawn so widely. I can't stop the sun shining on my neighbour if I want it to shine on me also.