Russia watchers unite: Deplatforming is bad. Good faith discussion is good.

A modest proposal for making the internet less awful

Stronger together. Sorry about the peanut butter and jelly feet.

By Riley Waggaman, a Moscow-based writer and former “senior editor” (newsroom errand boy) at RT

NBC has pooped out a very predictable “news story” about journalists and internet pundits who espouse views that sometimes align with claims made by the Russian government.

Obviously this is totally unacceptable and probably High Treason, NBC has reminded us. Again.

The article is based on a report published by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a fancy and very strategic think tank. There is no need to read the actual report because NBC did such a good job of summarizing the document’s main thesis: anyone with any connection to Russian state media is immediately disqualified from having a sincere opinion; furthermore, anyone who dares to agree with anything the Kremlin says—even if they have zero direct or indirect connections to the Russian government—is hereby canceled forever.

Unfortunately, these types of news reports typically foreshadow a coordinated effort to deplatform people with unapproved views.

This is gross and retarded.

And I type that as someone who has a very low opinion of RT, mostly because I believe the network’s upper management has backstabbed the Russian people—the people who fund RT—non-stop for the past two years.

For example, in early February Germany cooked up some dumb excuse to shut down RT auf Deutsch, prompting accusations of foul play from Moscow.

Admittedly I wasn’t very sympathetic. I wrote a blog post pointing out that RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan openly championed censorship, deplatforming and other bully tactics to silence undesirables in Russia who raised uncomfortable questions about the Virus Scam.

A few of her more memorable COVID witch hunts: Simonyan resurrected a 1930s Purge slogan in order to silence Russian activists who spoke out against compulsory vaccination; she argued that doctors who question the safety and efficacy of Russia’s unproven genetic slurry should be fired; she accused unvaxxed Russians of killing children; day after day, she was a total and complete psycho. She still is, by the way.

Question more? (source)

Probably my blog post was too harsh though and not constructive enough; it was borderline Schadenfreude which is never really advisable. So I do feel bad about that, since it isn’t RT DE’s fault that its parent company is run by a maniac.

Anyway, now it’s June and everything is totally insane. Way worse than early February.

And we’ve observed a reoccurring pattern: RT falls victim to another wave of duplicitous and cowardly censorship in the West, and Simonyan keeps embarrassing herself:

Margarita. Just stop. (source)

RT should not be kicked off the air—anywhere. Also, RT’s editor-in-chief should not be calling for censorship inside Russia. Why do that? The situation is bad enough already. Don’t make it worse, please?

We should all be prepared for a lot more censorship and Thought Control—both from Big Tech and our benevolent, caring governments, who are so often selectively outraged about the lack of free-flowing information.

There’s really nothing we can do about this. Our best bet is to preserve the small corners of the internet that haven’t been ruined by Zuckerberg/OfCom/Simonyan-inspired Thought Policing.

Deplatforming is predicated on the laughable notion that there is an Approved & Responsible Narrative and anyone who disagrees with this narrative is a conniving menace who is injecting Insincerity into our Sincere National Dialogue (That Is Too Fragile For Open Debate). As if it is impossible to genuinely hold beliefs that aren’t endorsed by CNN or the Institute for Strategic Whiners or whatever.

It’s just awful.

And it would be very sad if Independent Cyberspace were gobbled up by this same kind of witless cringe. It would be disastrous.

I don’t believe in purity tests and I also don’t think direct or indirect association with a government or state-run outlet should exclude someone from discussing, debating or reporting on current events. However, all constructive internet interactions are based on a simple principle:

Are you able to accept the fact that there are sincere and well-intentioned people who might see the world a bit differently than you do? And are you capable of engaging in good faith dialogue with these people (when appropriate)?

That’s the only criteria for me. If you can pass that PCR test, you’re good to go—I don’t care what your views are.

However, there’s a very useful loophole, employed by hundreds of millions of people, to avoid confronting the reality that the internet isn’t a giant self-validation machine.

For the condo-dwelling mid-40s Chardonnay drinker, “Anyone who disagrees with me is a Russian bot.”

For the incredulous crusader against the Empire of Lies, “Anyone who disagrees with me has been MK-Ultra’d by the Israeli Mossad.”

This is a very convenient and conscience-soothing way to window-shop the marketplace of ideas, but it’s also very self-defeating.

We are all guilty of this kind of reflexive mental laziness. Some more than others of course. But still. We’ve all done it. We are all guilty.

Russia & mystical acceptance of things-as-they-are

There is a commonly held expectation that people should change their poorly conceived beliefs when presented with more compelling beliefs—and that this is what separates the truth-lovers from the shills.

I disagree. I think that’s asking too much of most people. We all hold beliefs that are basically pet rocks: cherished life companions that we rely on for emotional support but are profoundly illogical and basically incomprehensible.

And even when some dude comes up to you and says, “hey, that’s just a greasy rock, you know that, right?” you scowl and frantically caress your rock as you whisper weird things in its non-existent rock-ear.

I mean, ideally, if you are confronted with overwhelming evidence showing you believe something that probably isn’t true, you should consider adjusting your beliefs accordingly.

That’s really asking a lot of people, though. Only Internet Saints do that.

But anyone who claims to be searching for Truth should be capable of understanding they don’t have a monopoly on this elusive prize and that the mere existence of people with different views on enigmatic topics isn’t a war crime. (Unless of course you are a clot-shot shill, in which case: you are worse than Pinochet.)

It’s probably not realistic to expect people who hold radically different views to actively seek each other out and debate issues in a civilized way, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be peaceful and respectful co-existence. Even friendship.

Things are getting very weird. Do we really need internet struggle sessions? That’s literally the last thing we need right now, in my honest opinion.

And now it is time to give my pet rock its afternoon sponge bath. Farewell.

— Riley