Laws and courts constitute a minimum or a "floor" standard for civic and commercial behavior. A society that has due process in its laws and on its books, but whose civic and commercial institutions all exhibit draconian knee-jerk behaviors is succeeding at being benevolent and just to the same extent that the Jim Crow south enfranchised black people. The comparison is unpleasant, but it is operationally correct. Laws on the books are only a skeleton. Values and principles have to be enacted by the flesh of civic and commercial society to be meaningful to people.
The values embodied by the laws on the books have also to be alive in civic society, or else they are not truly meaningful. It's not enough for only the government and courts to embody humanist and democratic values. Civic and commercial society has to embody them too. (Ask yourself, are you a part of civic and commercial institutions and intellectual movements that embody humanist and democratic values? Or are they authoritarian and withhold justice and free speech from those the group deems "unworthy?")
Are people free, independent actors, or are they merely cogs in some vast social machine, constrainted to operate in their private lives and businesses according to the arbitrary dictates of some self-appointed group of sermonizing moralists?
False dichotomy.
Given that there exist moralizers who propose that everyone ought to have to follow a certain set of values, you can either:
A) accept their authority and adopt their moral schema, or B) reject their authority.
There are no other options. All other possibilities are subsumed by one of these two, in one way or another.
> A) accept their authority and adopt their moral schema, or B) reject their authority. There are no other options. All other possibilities are subsumed by one of these two, in one way or another.
Maybe you need to Google "False Dichotomy?"
I will then either accept that you are correct and admit that I was wrong, or else show how the additional options you propose are actually subsumed into one of the two options that I've named above.
I can agree, for example, that certain forms of expression can make some people uncomfortable and exclude them from participation, yet not agree with the proposed dictate that all professional groups must now shun anyone who has ever defended such forms of expression. However, if the context of tolerance is expanded beyond such a narrow formulation, then my conclusion is that those forms of expression should also be defended and we should refrain from punishing the actors retroactively. (Even as we ask people to refrain from them in certain contexts.)
You can expand such a discussion into emotional, psychological, and historical realms, as well as those of personal experience. It's always possible to expand the context of a discussion, since it's impossible for a person to understand every context at once.
I did this once with my ex-girlfriend's right-wing Christian mom. She was willing to listen to the plight of a previous ex-girlfriend's family and it changed her outlook. I've also seen it happen with a homophobic woman from rural Oklahoma who became best friends with a gay activist man.
It doesn't mean you have to agree on everything, but there is an exercise of self-awareness around the ease with which one human can "dehumanize" another in their own mind. Civil society is generally better served by civic discourse and less well served by shunning and actions usually shown to "the enemy." In fact, the root of social injustice is generally the propensity of people to do this in their minds. ("othering")
I hope that is a good demonstration.
Your existence is dependent on ancestral inheritance (instincts, emotions, genetics etc) and your identity is dependent upon the relative social interactions with others. We are naturally, subconsciously affected by the way others in our environment act. Our minds are a codependent network, affected by all of the thoughts and actions of those who came before us.
You are currently using a language that you did not independently invent, for example, and so many of your thoughts are constrained to the limitations of that language.
>B) or are they merely cogs in some vast social machine, constrainted to operate in their private lives and businesses according to the arbitrary dictates of some self-appointed group of sermonizing moralists?
There are many subconscious social constraints, much of which evolved to enable the survival of the species, but it is possible to break free of them, especially when those constraints end up being contrary to survival.
A multicultural, inclusive society cannot tolerate intolerance, by definition. The rights of the individual, so long as they coexist peacefully, must be respected.
you attempt to create an emotional linkage of the reverse case to racism.
It's a functional and operational analogy. You had a situation where the letter of the law was respected, but the opposite was enacted in spirit. Have I touched a nerve?
Are people free, independent actors, or are they merely cogs in some vast social machine, constrainted to operate in their private lives and businesses according to the arbitrary dictates of some self-appointed group of sermonizing moralists?
I am advocating people as "free, independent actors." People who are free, independent actors and believe in humanist and democratic values can't afford to abrogate those values simply when it suits them. Even the vilest members of society should be accorded due process, at the very least.
private lives and businesses according to the arbitrary dictates of some self-appointed group of sermonizing moralists?
Democratic and humanist values are the very thing that prevents the establishment of the "self-appointed group of sermonizing moralists." The whole point of due process is to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power by a majority or by the loudest and richest. The whole point of due process is to ensure justice, even for the most hated part of society. The whole point is that society is imperfect and flawed, and must act with benevolent restraint, not from its unfiltered, hasty impulses.
Philosophically, the insistence on the right to stigmatize, and punish others in the civic and commercial spheres based on what they think or said in the past is very close to the insistence that a baker can refuse to bake a cake based on personal religious beliefs and perceived sexual orientations. World history over thousands of years shows that to err on the side of increased interaction and commerce is the pathway to peace and greater harmony and prosperity.
You fight violence through peace. You fight intolerance by tolerating. You can't easily fight violence with violence. You can't fight hate with more hate.
As for kicking out booters due to a TOS violation, though, I'm pretty much for that, so long as there aren't any false positives.
Moreover, you propose that not only the government, but also private entitites ought to be so regulated by your own arbitrary philosophical restrictions, a sort of Dead Kennedys "California Über Alles"-esque oppressive police state that not only promotes but mandates a particular narrow interpretation of liberal values.
This is no different in character from any other totalitarian dictatorship, though the exact set of values you advocate differs to a greater or lesser extent. They've all always thought of themselves as "good" and "moral" and "proper," all sought to improve society and remodel others' thinking by force and coercion, and always in the name of "ensuring justice."
Not at all nebulous. Members of an intellectual, tolerant, multicultural society tolerate all those they practically can, and seek to talk to convince and listen to learn. Members of intolerant groups seek to silence, shun, and otherwise punish their perceived enemies. It's quite intuitive, commonsense, and plain as day.
private entitites ought to be so regulated by your own arbitrary philosophical restrictions
Really, I'd much rather that society at large understood these distinctions of philosophical and emotional self awareness, and enacted them of their own free will. This is why I make such comments. I'm trying to convince people that the freedom to act like a uber-jerk to people you don't like isn't an obligation to do so. Also, it's generally a bad idea.
This is no different in character from any other totalitarian dictatorship
Very different. There's a lot more listening and talking involved, and far fewer dictates. What's more like a dictatorship? Someone advocating for tolerance, or someone angrily insisting on their right to excommunicate people? In any case, thanks for revealing in what direction you're emotionally invested.
You have been making moral assertions in your original post on how private businesses ought to act, in order to be considered "good".
This is not fundamentally different in character than any other moral sermonizing of the past, though the exact specific values you advocate may differ. If you were ever to attain political power, it would not be different than any other oppressive dictatorship in history, all of whom thought they were simply trying to educate people on how to be "good".
Your position is, further, intrinsically hypocritical and self-contradictory. "A multicultural, inclusive society cannot tolerate intolerance, by definition" is a logical paradox. You either tolerate others, including those who are different from you, or you don't. That necessarily extends to people you disagree with, people whose values you personally abhor, etc.
Your position amounts to "Everyone should be tolerated, except those whom I don't personally like," burnished by yes, nice-sounding but vague and nebulous handwaving about multiculturalism, tolerance, "philosophical and emotional self awareness", "listening and talking," and so on, the various shibboleths of the California bourgeois soft-left that developed in the 1970s.
You even seek to arrogate intellectualism itself to your cause, implying that those who disagree with you are simply ignorant, unenlightened cretins who have not yet been properly educated.
I'm all for people not being jerks, but there is this profoundly arrogant and fundamentally misconceived notion inherent in what you write, that people are jerks simply because they don't know any better, because none of the enlightened educated kindhearted intellectuals has ever condescended to educate them during a kindergarten "teachable moment" of some sort about how being a jerk is actually wrong and, well, really mean and given them the opportunity to "listen to learn." That whole attitude is pure unbridled pomposity and sheer arrogance.
It's not the case. Society is not perfectable, and attempts to perfect it through coercion have invariably resulted in suffering and oppression. There will always be jerks in the world, no matter how many kindhearted liberals generously condescend to try to convince them otherwise. The exact form of their jerkdom will simply change to suit the new conditions.
Finally, here is the main difference between us: I don't mind at all if you believe all this stuff. Believe anything you like personally. I am happy to talk and explain my position, but I don't think there's any value in convincing you to change your mind, and that is not my goal, even though I disagree with you on many points. I accept that you are a different person with different views.
You, on the other hand, believe you have some holy sacred task to go around teaching people about how their existing ways are wicked and evil, and how they ought to change to conform to your personal views, and to the views of those like you. You're a classical missionary, only updated for the postmodern age, now without Jesus and with multiculturalism and so on instead.
As I said, I am not interested in convincing you otherwise, even though I disagree with this schema (though I'm happy to discuss.) The problem is that your preaching has extended beyond the confines of your personal space, at which point it is no longer your personal matter but now a matter for public society.
You believe you have a mission to spread your views to society at large, to coerce others to adapt to your personal view of "the good." That's the problem. That sort of thing has always, always ended badly in history.
This is not fundamentally different in character than any other moral sermonizing of the past
I rather see this like the idea that business deals should be mutually beneficial, that dealings should be honest, and that companies should be transparent. You are free to disagree of course, but what I'm advocating is fundamentally about cooperation and mutual benefit. It doesn't have to be moralizing, as it's supported by the mathematics of cooperation and the non-zero sum game as well as by the lessons of the long arc of history.
Your position amounts to "Everyone should be tolerated, except those whom I don't personally like,"
To be precise, my position is that everyone should be tolerated, so long as they behave civilly. This means they should be accorded the same rights as anyone else, and that those should be held sacrosanct, until it's no longer practical to do so. This is how I'd like to be treated, so this is how I advocate how everyone else should treat people.
You even seek to arrogate intellectualism itself to your cause, implying that those who disagree with you are simply ignorant, unenlightened cretins who have not yet been properly educated.
I find that I never have to do that. Pretty much, those who are ignorant quickly reveal themselves to the world. There is objective truth and knowledge of real value. Ignorance is obvious to real experts. I've been on both sides of this equation. If one is prostrate to the truth, then rebuttals to opponents simply write themselves. Largely, they just consist of paraphrases or 1 or 2 logical steps.
Society is not perfectable, and attempts to perfect it through coercion have invariably resulted in suffering and oppression. There will always be jerks in the world, no matter how many kindhearted liberals generously condescend to try to convince them otherwise. The exact form of their jerkdom will simply change to suit the new conditions.
On this we agree. No person is God or an oracle or otherwise infallible. This is why acting quickly is often a bad idea and acting from outrage is especially so. This is why the working assumption should always be that one is never in command of all the relevant facts. Hence: due process.
You believe you have a mission to spread your views to society at large, to coerce others to adapt to your personal view of "the good." That's the problem. That sort of thing has always, always ended badly in history.
I'm against coercion. That's my whole point. Don't coerce -- Convince! Humanist values have always ended badly in history? The USA has problems, but there are many wonderful things it has achieved. I'm still betting on that horse.
But if CloudFlare were to shut them down without due process, that would damage their credibility - to the point where I would feel uncomfortable doing business with them.
I'm sure there's a group of people where CloudFlare's stance is damaging to their reputation.
But there's also a group of people where any other stance would damage CloudFlare's reputation.
Think also from the customer standpoint: people who need DDoS protection are people who are having their site shutdown without due process (by criminals who launch DoS attacks). When the company you hire to fix the problem becomes part of the problem, it's not good - and they would be part of the problem if they offered a 'send us an email and we shut down our users' denial of service attack vector.
It's relevant to mention that CloudFlare already does terminate a class of sites without "due process": malware hosts. What makes malware hosts that much worse than booters? Answer: CloudFlare's IPs can get blacklisted for it.
Customers of a private business have no right or expectation of due process whatsoever, since nobody enjoys any inherent right to be a customer of a business. With a very few narrowly defined exceptions, private businesses are generally permitted to refuse service to anyone they wish, without explanation.
CloudFlare (and all other businesses) have always refused service to numerous classes of customer whose activities they deem abusive, in their own sole judgement, without any due process.
Read their terms of service, read AWS's terms of service, or Google's, or any other company's. They all already shut numerous people down without any due process, every single day. OP is simply suggesting they add one more category to the already long list of prohibited activities on their platform.
The problem with this stance is it appears to be a conflict of interest. The easier it is to access a booter site, the more people who need Cloudflare's services.
I'm not saying that is the reason they do it. I'm just saying that is a conflict of interest that can really only be resolved by removing clearly labeled booter sites.
> Think also from the customer standpoint: people who need DDoS protection are people who are having their site shutdown without due process (by criminals who launch DoS attacks). When the company you hire to fix the problem becomes part of the problem, it's not good - and they would be part of the problem if they offered a 'send us an email and we shut down our users' denial of service attack vector.
Hosting booters makes them part of the problem is the flaw in that logic.