Well, actually, I dare.
I see it as highly hypocritical that the same “movement” “leaders” – all the quota queens – endlessly complain about being “deplatformed” (and use that as part of their equally endless tin cup panhandling), while at the same time these “leaders” behave the same way with respect to racialist dissidents who honestly critique the “movement” and its “leaders” – “ban” them, essentially “deplatform” them from the central media centers of (what passes for) “movement” discourse.
It is important to clear up some matters lest I be accused of hypocrisy or inconsistency. First, I do agree with the argument – made, for example, by Bowery at Majority Rights when he and I were both participating at that blog – that freedom of association trumps freedom of speech. I further made the argument at my own blogs that freedom of speech does not obligate anyone to host any specific type of speech at their own forum; again, freedom of association is above freedom of speech, as long as that speech has somewhere else to go. So, yes, I agree that a blog owner can “ban” anyone they want from their site, and that “banned” person can go and set up their own blog and do their own thing elsewhere on the Internet. After all, that’s ultimately why this blog exists (and, if I remember correctly, for example, Majority Rights was established after its founders were essentially declared persona non grata at Gene Expression). I have also argued, in like sense, that a blog can be viewed as a form of political warfare, and so why should political soldiers benefit their enemies by facilitating those enemies’ dissemination of their ideas? There is no obligation to host your enemy. Very good, but is a fellow racial activist really an “enemy” because they criticize some of your ideas and actions? Because they state that you should be held accountable for mistakes (according to your own declared standards of behavior)? Are fellow activists the functional equivalent of SJW leftists?
It is also true that there is a difference between being banned from a blog (or a set of blogs) and having a major (albeit privately owned) company, which is functionally equivalent to a public utility, banning its use by an entire class of people based on, for example, their political views. However, the “why should you assist the enemy?” argument cuts both ways here. The owners of Amazon, Twitter, PayPal, etc. can argue – why should they be obligated to support their enemies? Oh, you say that they are so successful that they are equivalent to public utilities and so they must be obligated to serve everyone. Very well. Imagine the same principle is turned inward to the “movement” – some “movement” blogs, sites, groups, and organizations are so successful (within the “movement” itself) that they are equivalent to “movement” “public utilities” and so they must be obligated to serve all racial activists, even those they disagree with. I’m sure that violation of freedom of association would be rejected, even though in principle the argument is the same (adjusted for scale between society-at-large and the “movement”).
I’m not making a legalistic argument in this post; instead, I’m making a moral one, based on principles, and based on character and integrity (or the lack therefore in Der Movement). The basic truth is that these “leaders” are endlessly whining about being deplatformed by private companies, and they behave the same way to racial activist dissidents they do not like. The scale is different, but the basic principle is the same, and most of the arguments as to why private companies should be obligated to interface with, and serve, the “movement” as a whole can be made to argue that the “movement” as a whole needs to interface with the dissidents within its ranks.
Basically, I see the behavior of the “leaders” as being one of cowardice – fear of engaging with dissident critics and those critics’ ideas – as well as the prima donna sense of entitlement that derives from being products of the “movement’s” affirmative action program – how dare anyone criticize them! Why should they stoop to answering critics?. Low character hypocrites: behold the Type I Quota Queen “Leadership” of Der Movement: fearfully hiding from those who would critique their flawed ideas and those who would hold them accountable for their failures.
Note: Someone may point out that my own blogs have traditionally never had comments sections. That is true. First, I’m not a fan of such sections, the signal-to-noise ratio is poor; most “movement” comments threads of full of asinine Type I activists, trolls, fetishists, defectives, and “antis.” Second, and even more importantly, unlike our “fearless leaders,” I am not a full time professional activist (living off of supporters’ donations). I’m merely a part-time amateur; I simply do not have the time to deal with comments; to my mind, it is more important, and more prudent, to invest my limited time in producing new content. However, our heroic leaders are indeed full time activists with free time aplenty, they are people who believe that comments sections have value, so there is obviously a difference between my blog and theirs in that regard.