The Cowardice of Deplatforming
Quit Being Afraid of What People You Disagree with Say
It’s been 8 years since Trump first took that ride down the golden escalator at Trump Tower and it’s amazing to me how much liberals still have no sense of why people support him or why his most ardent supporters love him so much.
Case in point, the recent CNN Donald Trump Town Hall of New Hampshire GOP primary voters hosted by Kaitlin Collins. We’ll get to how it went shortly but first and foremost, I want to cover the whole concept of “Deplatforming” which is constantly being supported on the left and which is actually counterproductive in every way.
From the day CNN announced they were going to host a Town Hall with Trump, media outlets primarily on the left screamed “Why?” and “This is how he was legitimized last time!” and “It’s irresponsible!” Hogwash.
CNN’s first Town Hall Event in the 2020 election cycle was in April 2019, with Bernie Sanders. You can argue it was a little early in the cycle (it was and is), but hosting the opposition party front runner is not out of the norm.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/bernie-sanders-cnn-town-hall-takeaways
Trump is currently polling in the 40%+ among GOP voters, well ahead of every other competitor, and it is highly likely he will be the nominee. Should CNN and other news outlets give him a pass? If they don’t have him on and he wins, would those screaming about deplatforming now argue later that the media didn’t scrutinize him enough? Probably.
There is an argument having a town hall legitimizes his campaign. He was already President and is crushing the GOP competition. It’s already a legitimate campaign. How he was legitimized last time was all the news outlets covering every speech, in their entirety, right in the dinner time hour when everyone was watching news, at the expense of any kind of context, or fairness to other candidates. The overcoverage was because people didn’t know what he would say next and tuned in. Now, they know. It’s something I wrote about here:
That is NOT what is happening this time.
Outlets should be apprehensive about putting someone currently indicted, likely to be indicted in several other cases, and who openly advocated for an insurrection. Sure, I get this argument. But here is an opportunity to ask him about these items directly and see his response, some of which will not be comfortable for him. Trump isn’t like other candidates in that he’s not very polished nor any good at this; he routinely says and admits things against his interest; think of his Lester Holt interview for instance, which directly led to the assignment of the Independent Counsel and the Mueller Report. Here’s an opportunity for him to say something further incriminating; alternatively, the forum would never happen and prosecutors would utlimately have less to go on.
All of this goes to the idea that it’s somehow “Wrong to give him a platform.” In actuality, CNN is lucky to have him on their platform since they get eyeballs, ad dollars and journalistic prestige just by letting him talk on their airwaves.1 But let’s talk about that idea of deplatforming a second.
Deplatforming; A Coward’s Argument
Deplatforming is the removal of access to media or an event for a speaker to speak to a crowd. It could be removal from a social media platform, or it could be rescinding an invitation for a speaking engagement, or it could just be shouting down preventing someone the opportunity to address a crowd. Right now, it’s popular on the left regardless of how antithetical it is to the idea of “free speech.”2 The gist is that providing an opportunity to speak to controversial speakers and topics, that it somehow gives the aura of legitimate debate.3 So in that respect, it's believed to be in the public interest to not provide them with access to the town square where they can provide their ideas. For instance, preventing Nazis from marching in a parade in Skokie, IL would be deplatforming.4
In reality, deplatforming is really cowardly and counterproductive. Most people would be repulsed by the cruel and outlandish things Nazis do and say. Letting them speak is akin to giving them a shovel to dig their own graves. Protesting and calling attention to it by trying to get them deplatformed ironically gives them MORE attention than they deserve. It also brings out the curious wondering what on earth could be so damaging to society that people don’t want you to even hear it.
A far more effective strategy? Don’t show up. Have the choice and choose not to listen. Nothing demonstrates the actual interest in an unpopular topic better than someone speaking to an empty crowd, a grandstander on a soapbox shouting out to an indifferent and barely existent gathering. Nothing is more discouraging to a bad cause than spending time, money and effort on an event and then having nothing to show for it.
In the case of Trump, deplatforming is exceptionally counterproductive. Keeping him off non-partisan media gives him the opportunity to say to his crowds, “The Fake News Media won’t even have me on! They know I speak the truth!” and give HIM the chance to further de-legitimize those media outlets to his voters. And that’s why his voters adore him so much; he points to people they dislike and gives them more reasons to dislike them. On that note, what do you think would rile them up more: Kaitlin Collins handing the mic to a NH GOP primary voter asking Trump about how he can reconcile his calls for law and order with his actions on January 6th, or CNN choosing not to cover him at all? The former eliminates any argument they have of bias on the network by having one of their own ask the question, while the latter only gives them an opportunity to scream about the lack of any fair coverage.
Deplatforming just reassures people of a particular mindset they’re doing “something” about something they don’t like. It doesn’t persuade anybody to the righteousness of their cause; in fact, by purpose it’s not meant to persuade. Most offensive to me, it presumes people aren’t smart enough to figure things out on their own and judge for themselves the pros and cons of different ideas. It limits the free exchange of ideas and stifles free thought.
Where Deplatforming is Really Practiced These Days
Colleges right now are ground zero for deplatforming. Issues and positions on college campuses are so sensitive and hyperreactive right now that the slightest tinge of uncomfort provokes a protest and calls for removal. It’s sad because colleges and universities are meant to expand one’s understanding of the world and to hear viewpoints outside of one’s previous constraints. It’s something I’ve written about previously here:
And also here:
In both cases (and many others), people had the opportunity to listen to a speaker talk about a particular issue from their persective. They then had chances to question them and potentially learn something about the area of concern and about their own views on the topic itself. In both cases, that’s not what happened. Zealous activists shut down debate and discussion, resulting in the removal of a speaker from a campus event and an Ivy League summer seminar respectively. In both cases it resulted in black eyes for the institutions. In the case of the campus speaker, the ensuing outrage and national coverage that followed garnered more attention than the speaking engagement would have if there was no protest at all.
When listening to a discourse there is not a requirement that you agree. In fact, you learn more when you don’t agree and you listen than if you semi-consciously nod along in doctrinated lockstep. Disagreement helps us gather our own thoughts, fashion our counterarguments, identify holes and fallacies in logic, and provide better responses. Of course, none of this happens at all if we prevent speakers from speaking.
The CNN Trump Town Hall
So what was the results of the CNN Town Hall? It came and went. Trump was his same insane self, spouting stupidity. He exposed himself as a huge, unrepentent psychopath to the American public. People asked common campaign questions and the candiate deflected, demurred or flat out ignored and talked about what he wanted to talk about—himself; actually in Trump’s case, he rambled, at times incoherently. It was a dull 90 minutes of television. In short, it was a town hall 18 months out from election day guested by a person who shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Ofice. If anything, HOW IS DEMONSTRATING THAT TO AMERICA A BAD THING?
Was it worth all the attention the nay-sayers and anti-Trumpers lavished on CNN for airing it? Of course not. But that’s par for the course these days. Had anti-Trump Republicans not made a big deal about CNN airing it, I doubt it would’ve been noticed at all, much like his CPAC appearance. Nobody will be talking about it come Monday.
PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day
Courtesy of The Guardian:
This will be the first presidential election after one of the candidates, the president at the time, tried to foment a violent insurrection to overturn the last election. It will be the first election since 1912 in which a former president (in that case Theodore Roosevelt) challenges a sitting president (in that case William Howard Taft). It will be the first election in American history in which one candidate has already been impeached – twice, in fact. It will be the first in which one candidate has been successfully sued for defamation and sexual assault. It will be the first election since 1800 in which one of the major candidates can reasonably be called a threat to or disloyal to the United States of America (Aaron Burr in 1800 was the first and Burr had not yet revealed his propensity for treachery in 1800). It will be the first election in which one of the candidates has been indicted on state criminal charges (and possibly federal charges by the time of the election).
PurpleAmerica Cultural Criticism Corner
F**king campaigns start too early. There should be a rule not to air debates, town halls or campaign speeches prior to June 21st of the year before. That gives them 6 months to the first primaries, which is plenty.
Outstanding Tweet
Mark Hamill has the best tweets. The Thin Man is a damn fine film too.
Footnotes and Parting Thoughts
Let me know what you think of the page. Please share and comment!
They wouldn’t have him on otherwise.
This reminds me of a Richard Jeni quote on liberals, which is that they are always “going on about everyone’s free speech unless you happen to say something that really pisses them off.”
You want me to prove how dumb that notion is? Two words; Jerry Springer.
The fact pattern there is not coincidental. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1978). The Supreme Court found that Skokie’s actions to prevent the Nazis from their parade violated the rights of assembly and free speech enshrined in the First Amendment. This is largely seen as one of the most important free speech cases.